Usage Score
24.3
Player Dossier
2007-2010Boise State
Titus Young
WR • 5'11" • Los Angeles, CA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Titus Young reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
93
Consistency
77.9
Season Value
73.1
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Boise State
07070809091010
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Boise State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
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.
Titus Young, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Boise State. Titus Young reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason
Boise State paired 1,215 primary output with 93 efficiency.
Supporting note
2010 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 93 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: Fresno State
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 Postseason · Boise State
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
93.5
Efficiency
93
Usage
24.3
Consistency
77.9
Best Game by takeover score
Utah
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Utah: 64. Virginia Tech: 80. Wyoming: 94. Oregon State: 136. New Mexico State: 69. Toledo: 97. San José State: 105. Louisiana Tech: 69. Hawai'i: 99. Idaho: 75. Fresno State: 164. Nevada: 129. Utah State: 34
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. Utah: 6 by 71.1. Virginia Tech: 6 by 88.9. Wyoming: 4 by 100. Oregon State: 5 by 100. New Mexico State: 5 by 92. Toledo: 6 by 100. San José State: 7 by 100. Louisiana Tech: 4 by 100. Hawai'i: 5 by 100. Idaho: 5 by 100. Fresno State: 8 by 100. Nevada: 6 by 100. Utah State: 4 by 56.7
Split Comparison
Wins90.5 · n=12
First Half92.1 · n=7 · -2.9 vs Second Half
Second Half95 · n=6 · +2.9 vs First Half
All Games93.5 · n=13
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Fresno State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Nevada
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 12/23 | vs Utah | W 26-3 | — | 6 | 64 | 8.1 | 10.70 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 12/4 | vs Utah State | W 50-14 | — | 4 | 34 | 12.3 | 8.50 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 11/27 | @ Nevada100 receiving yards | L 31-34 | — | 6 | 129 | 21.5 | 21.50 | 1 | 53 |
| Sat 11/20 | vs Fresno State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 51-0 | — | 8 | 164 | 18.8 | 20.50 | 2 | 45 |
| Sat 11/13 | @ Idaho | W 52-14 | — | 5 | 75 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 58 |
| Sat 11/6 | vs Hawai'i | W 42-7 | — | 5 | 99 | 19.8 | 19.80 | 1 | 83 |
| Wed 10/27 | vs Louisiana Tech | W 49-20 | — | 4 | 69 | 14.2 | 17.30 | 0 | 53 |
| Sun 10/17 | @ San José State100 receiving yards | W 48-0 | — | 7 | 105 | 13.8 | 15 | 1 | 43 |
| Sun 10/10 | vs Toledo | W 57-14 | — | 6 | 97 | 16.2 | 16.20 | 1 | 51 |
| Sun 10/3 | @ New Mexico State | W 59-0 | — | 5 | 69 | 11 | 13.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sun 9/26 | vs Oregon State100 receiving yards | W 37-24 | — | 5 | 136 | 19.3 | 27.20 | 1 | 49 |
| Sun 9/19 | @ Wyoming | W 51-6 | — | 4 | 94 | 19.6 | 23.50 | 1 | 49 |
| Tue 9/7 | @ Virginia Tech | W 33-30 | — | 6 | 80 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 0 | 28 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Boise State
2007-2010
Opening stop
Season Progression
2007200720082009200920102010
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 Postseason | Boise State | 639 | 83.2 | 14.2 | — |
| 2007 Regular Season | Boise State | 639 | 83.2 | 14.2 | 0 |
| 2008 Regular Season | Boise State | 168 | 77.8 | 16.8 | -471 |
| 2009 Postseason | Boise State | 1,041 | 80.1 | 27.1 | 873 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Boise State | 1,041 | 80.1 | 27.1 | 0 |
| 2010 Postseason | Boise State | 1,215 | 93 | 24.3 | 174 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Boise State | 1,215 | 93 | 24.3 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Unknown
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
142
Primary metric
142 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Hawai'i
115
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
115 receiving yards with a 95.8 efficiency score.
#3
Miami (OH)
114
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
114 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Fresno State
164
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
164 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
New Mexico State
84
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
84 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2010 Postseason · Boise State
1,215 primary output · 93 efficiency · 24.3 usage
73.1
#2
2010 Regular Season · Boise State
73.1
1,215 primary · 93 efficiency · 24.3 usage
#3
2009 Postseason · Boise State
66.1
1,041 primary · 80.1 efficiency · 27.1 usage
Milestones
10
100+ receiving yards
4
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2007 · Rating 0.8556
University Senior · Los Angeles, CA
- Committed To
- Boise State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2007
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
3,063
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 43 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.