Usage Score
36.9
Player Dossier
2007-2011Western Michigan
WR • 6'0" • Cleveland, OH, USA
Jordan White reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
36.9
Efficiency
86.3
Consistency
75.3
Season Value
74.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by Season Value: 2011 Postseason · Western Michigan
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.
Jordan White, WR. Best season Best season by Season Value: 2011 Postseason · Western Michigan. Jordan White reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Jordan White played WR for Western Michigan. Across 5 tracked seasons, Jordan White recorded 56 rushing yards, 4,068 receiving yards, and 32 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2011 with Western Michigan.
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
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
12
Receiving Yards / G
149.3
Efficiency
86.3
Usage
36.9
Consistency
75.3
Best Game by takeover score
Purdue
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. Purdue: 265. Nicholls: 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
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. Purdue: 13 by 100. Nicholls: 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
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.
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 Nicholls | W 38-7 | — | 4 | 67 | 16.8 | 16.80 | 0 | 23 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Western Michigan
2007-2011
Opening stop
Season Value Progression
| 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 |
#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.
#1 Season by Season Value
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
68.2
1,378 primary · 86.8 efficiency · 32.4 usage
20
100+ receiving yards
18
8+ catch outings
11
2+ TD games
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.
Next best actions
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.