Usage Score
36.9
Player Dossier
2007-2011Western Michigan
Jordan White
WR • 6'0" • Cleveland, OH, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Jordan White reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
86.3
Consistency
75.3
Season Value
74.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Western Michigan
070809101111
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Western Michigan
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Purdue
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.
Jordan White, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Western Michigan. Jordan White reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason
Western Michigan paired 1,792 primary output with 86.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 86.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2011 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Purdue
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2011 Postseason · Western Michigan
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
149.3
Efficiency
86.3
Usage
36.9
Consistency
75.3
Best Game by takeover score
Purdue
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Purdue: 265. Unknown: 67. Central Michigan: 177. Illinois: 132. UConn: 173. Bowling Green: 156. Northern Illinois: 98. Eastern Michigan: 70. Ball State: 172. Toledo: 238. Miami (OH): 106. Akron: 138
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Purdue: 13 by 100. Unknown: 4 by 100. Central Michigan: 13 by 90.8. Illinois: 14 by 62.9. UConn: 12 by 96.1. Bowling Green: 12 by 86.7. Northern Illinois: 12 by 54.4. Eastern Michigan: 7 by 66.7. Ball State: 9 by 100. Toledo: 16 by 99.2. Miami (OH): 9 by 78.5. Akron: 7 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins153.7 · n=6 · -6.9 vs Losses
Losses160.6 · n=5 · +6.9 vs Wins
First Half161.7 · n=6 · +24.7 vs Second Half
Second Half137 · n=6 · -24.7 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Purdue
Best efficiency game
100 vs Purdue
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 12/27 | @ Purdue100 receiving yards · High volume | L 32-37 | — | 13 | 265 | 20.4 | 20.40 | 1 | 49 |
| Fri 11/25 | vs Akron100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 68-19 | — | 7 | 138 | 20.6 | 19.70 | 2 | 40 |
| Thu 11/17 | @ Miami (OH)100 receiving yards · High volume | W 24-21 | — | 9 | 106 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 2 | 23 |
| Wed 11/9 | @ Toledo100 receiving yards · High volume | L 63-66 | — | 16 | 238 | 14.9 | 14.90 | 3 | 60 |
| Sat 10/29 | vs Ball State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-35 | — | 9 | 172 | 19.1 | 19.10 | 2 | 61 |
| Sat 10/22 | @ Eastern Michigan | L 10-14 | — | 7 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ Northern IllinoisHigh volume | L 22-51 | — | 12 | 98 | 8.2 | 8.20 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 10/8 | vs Bowling Green100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-21 | — | 12 | 156 | 13 | 13 | 2 | 26 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ UConn100 receiving yards · High volume | W 38-31 | — | 12 | 173 | 14.4 | 14.40 | 2 | 25 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ Illinois100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-23 | — | 14 | 132 | 9.4 | 9.40 | 1 | 21 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Central Michigan100 receiving yards · High volume | W 44-14 | — | 13 | 177 | 13.6 | 13.60 | 2 | 43 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Unknown | — | — | 4 | 67 | 16.8 | 16.80 | 0 | 23 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Western Michigan
2007-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
200720082009201020112011
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 Regular Season | Western Michigan | 217 | 66.3 | 16.1 | — |
| 2008 Regular Season | Western Michigan | 0 | — | — | -217 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Western Michigan | 681 | 80 | 23.9 | 681 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Western Michigan | 1,378 | 86.8 | 32.4 | 697 |
| 2011 Postseason | Western Michigan | 1,792 | 86.3 | 36.9 | 414 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Western Michigan | 1,792 | 86.3 | 36.9 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Purdue
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
265
Primary metric
265 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Eastern Michigan
140
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
140 receiving yards with a 93.3 efficiency score.
#3
Akron
168
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
168 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Northern Illinois
180
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
180 receiving yards with a 85.7 efficiency score.
#5
Toledo
238
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
238 receiving yards with a 99.2 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2011 Postseason · Western Michigan
1,792 primary output · 86.3 efficiency · 36.9 usage
74.6
#2
2011 Regular Season · Western Michigan
74.6
1,792 primary · 86.3 efficiency · 36.9 usage
#3
2010 Regular Season · Western Michigan
70.9
1,378 primary · 86.8 efficiency · 32.4 usage
Milestones
20
100+ receiving yards
18
8+ catch outings
11
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
4,068
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 38 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.