Usage Score
19.6
Player Dossier
2008-2009LSU
WR • 6'0" • Houston, TX, USA
R.J. Jackson reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
19.6
Efficiency
78.6
Consistency
68.4
Season Value
66.5
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2009 Regular Season · LSU
Snapshot
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
R.J. Jackson, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2009 Regular Season · LSU. R.J. Jackson reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
R.J. Jackson played WR for LSU. Across 2 tracked seasons, R.J. Jackson recorded 140 receiving yards. His top tracked season came in 2009 with LSU.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2009 Regular Season
LSU paired 141 primary output with 78.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2009 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 78.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2009 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Vanderbilt
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
4
Receiving Yards / G
35.3
Efficiency
78.6
Usage
19.6
Consistency
68.4
Best Game by takeover score
Louisiana Tech
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Vanderbilt: 55. Mississippi State: 40. Alabama: 26. Louisiana Tech: 20
Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.
Low volumeHigh quality
High volumeHigh quality
Low volumeLower quality
High volumeLower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Vanderbilt: 6 by 61.1. Mississippi State: 1 by 100. Alabama: 2 by 86.7. Louisiana Tech: 2 by 66.7
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
4 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Vanderbilt
Best efficiency game
100 vs Mississippi State
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
LSU
2008-2009
Opening stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Postseason | LSU | -1 | 0 | 5.9 | — |
| 2009 Regular Season | LSU | 141 | 78.6 | 19.6 | 142 |
#1 Featured game
Vanderbilt
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
55
Primary metric
55 receiving yards with a 61.1 efficiency score.
#2
Mississippi State
40
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
40 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Alabama
26
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
26 receiving yards with a 86.7 efficiency score.
#4
Louisiana Tech
20
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
20 receiving yards with a 66.7 efficiency score.
#5
Georgia Tech
-1
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
-1 receiving yards with a 0 efficiency score.
#1 Season by value score
2009 Regular Season · LSU
141 primary output · 78.6 efficiency · 19.6 usage
66.5
#2
2008 Postseason · LSU
24.2
-1 primary · 0 efficiency · 5.9 usage
0
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Recruit Profile
Class 2005 · Rating 0.9369
Westside · Houston, TX
Career Facts
1
Career teams
2
Seasons tracked
140
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 2 tracked seasons, 5 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.