Player Stats

Justin Brooks College Stats

Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.

Stat Footprint

Career production snapshot

Scrimmage yards
803
Rushing yards
670
Receiving yards
133
Touchdowns
7

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesScrimmageRush YdsRec YdsTDOverall
2006 Regular SeasonTroy476724323.6
2008 Regular SeasonUAB9319218101358.8
2009 Regular SeasonUAB92122111152.4
2010 Regular SeasonUAB919616927036.9

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2008 Regular Season

UAB paired 319 primary output with 49.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

2010 Regular Season role shape

backfield-heavy usage with 31.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value cooled off

2010 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Multi-stop career journey

Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Troy, UAB.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UTEP

Win with 81 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2010 Regular Season · UAB

Games

9

Scrimmage Yards / G

21.8

Efficiency

31.8

Usage

9.3

Consistency

27.9

Best Game by takeover score

UTEP

Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.

Active game

Hover over a point

Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.

Game-by-Game Trend

Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.

123456789

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Florida Atlantic: 50. SMU: 9. Troy: 12. Tennessee: -1. UCF: 1. UTEP: 81. Mississippi State: 32. Marshall: 11. East Carolina: 1

Volume vs Efficiency

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. Florida Atlantic: 10 by 45.1. SMU: 5 by 18.8. Troy: 3 by 38.5. Tennessee: 3 by 0. UCF: 1 by 10.4. UTEP: 13 by 64.9. Mississippi State: 7 by 48.2. Marshall: 3 by 49.7. East Carolina: 1 by 10.4

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins46.5 · Games = 2 · +31.8 vs Losses
Losses14.7 · Games = 7 · -31.8 vs Wins