Usage Score
27.3
Player Dossier
2007-2010Tulane
Casey Robottom
WR • 5'11" • LaPlace, LA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Casey Robottom reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
79.3
Consistency
59.6
Season Value
66.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2010 Regular Season · Tulane
07080910
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 4
- Program Path
- Tulane
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: UTEP
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.
Casey Robottom, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2010 Regular Season · Tulane. Casey Robottom reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Regular Season
Tulane paired 663 primary output with 79.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2010 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 79.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2010 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: UTEP
Win 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.
2010 Regular Season · Tulane
Games
10
Receiving Yards / G
66.3
Efficiency
79.3
Usage
27.3
Consistency
59.6
Best Game by takeover score
UCF
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Unknown: 48. Ole Miss: 41. Houston: 58. Rutgers: 71. Army: 63. Tulsa: 106. UTEP: 151. SMU: 49. Southern Miss: 46. UCF: 30
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. Unknown: 6 by 53.3. Ole Miss: 7 by 39. Houston: 4 by 96.7. Rutgers: 6 by 78.9. Army: 6 by 70. Tulsa: 9 by 78.5. UTEP: 10 by 100. SMU: 3 by 100. Southern Miss: 4 by 76.7. UCF: 1 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins111 · n=2 · +54.9 vs Losses
Losses56.1 · n=7 · -54.9 vs Wins
First Half56.2 · n=5 · -20.2 vs Second Half
Second Half76.4 · n=5 · +20.2 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
10 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
UTEP
Best efficiency game
100 vs UCF
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/20 | vs UCF | L 14-61 | — | 1 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 30 |
| Sat 11/6 | vs Southern Miss | L 30-46 | — | 4 | 46 | 11.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 10/30 | vs SMU | L 17-31 | — | 3 | 49 | 16.3 | 16.30 | 0 | 37 |
| Sun 10/24 | @ UTEP100 receiving yards · High volume | W 34-24 | — | 10 | 151 | 15.1 | 15.10 | 2 | 43 |
| Sat 10/16 | @ Tulsa100 receiving yards · High volume | L 24-52 | — | 9 | 106 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 0 | 34 |
| Sat 10/9 | vs Army2+ TD | L 23-41 | — | 6 | 63 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 2 | 20 |
| Sat 10/2 | @ Rutgers | W 17-14 | — | 6 | 71 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 9/25 | @ Houston | L 23-42 | — | 4 | 58 | 14.5 | 14.50 | 0 | 38 |
| Sun 9/12 | vs Ole Miss | L 13-27 | — | 7 | 41 | 5.9 | 5.90 | 0 | 13 |
| Fri 9/3 | vs Unknown | — | — | 6 | 48 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 12 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Tulane
2007-2010
Opening stop
Season Progression
2007200820092010
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 Regular Season | Tulane | 182 | 70 | 13 | — |
| 2008 Regular Season | Tulane | 203 | 67.5 | 12.2 | 21 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Tulane | 584 | 73.3 | 22.2 | 381 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Tulane | 663 | 79.3 | 27.3 | 79 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
UTEP
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
151
Primary metric
151 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Houston
115
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
115 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Tulsa
82
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
82 receiving yards with a 91.1 efficiency score.
#4
Rice
66
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
66 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Rice
91
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
91 receiving yards with a 75.8 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2010 Regular Season · Tulane
663 primary output · 79.3 efficiency · 27.3 usage
66.4
#2
2009 Regular Season · Tulane
64.3
584 primary · 73.3 efficiency · 22.2 usage
#3
2008 Regular Season · Tulane
37.3
203 primary · 67.5 efficiency · 12.2 usage
Milestones
3
100+ receiving yards
3
8+ catch outings
2
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
1,632
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 44 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.