Usage Score
25.4
Player Dossier
2009-2011Tulsa
G.J. Kinne
QB • 6'2" • Mesquite, TX, USA
Balanced quarterback profileVolume operator
G.J. Kinne is a balanced quarterback profile with 25.4 usage in the latest tracked season.
Efficiency
62.7
Consistency
80.9
Season Value
64.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Tulsa
0910101111
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- Tulsa
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Southern Miss
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.
G.J. Kinne, QB. Best season Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Tulsa. G.J. Kinne is a balanced quarterback profile with 25.4 usage in the latest tracked season.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason
Tulsa paired 4,211 primary output with 61.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
pass-led usage with 62.7 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: UAB
Win with 375 yards of offense and 64.3 efficiency. 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 · Tulsa
Games
13
Primary Metric / G
268.8
Efficiency
62.7
Usage
25.4
Consistency
80.9
Best Game by takeover score
BYU
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. BYU: 214. Oklahoma: 317. Tulane: 259. Oklahoma State: 35. Boise State: 139. North Texas: 322. UAB: 375. Rice: 352. SMU: 313. UCF: 295. Marshall: 321. UTEP: 333. Houston: 220
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. BYU: 44 by 53.1. Oklahoma: 47 by 60.9. Tulane: 37 by 62.6. Oklahoma State: 11 by 49.6. Boise State: 25 by 58.6. North Texas: 35 by 67.2. UAB: 55 by 64.3. Rice: 45 by 67.7. SMU: 53 by 60.5. UCF: 42 by 69.9. Marshall: 34 by 77.3. UTEP: 36 by 73.1. Houston: 51 by 50.3
Split Comparison
Wins321.3 · n=8 · +136.3 vs Losses
Losses185 · n=5 · -136.3 vs Wins
First Half237.3 · n=7 · -68.4 vs Second Half
Second Half305.7 · n=6 · +68.4 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Total Offense
Top game by takeover score
UAB
Best efficiency game
77.3 vs Marshall
| Result | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/30 | vs BYU3+ TD | L 21-24 | 17 | 31 | 214 | 54.8 | 3 | 0 | 53.1 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Fri 11/25 | vs Houston | L 16-48 | 19 | 38 | 176 | 50.0 | 1 | 2 | 50.3 | 13 | 44 | 3.40 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 11/19 | @ UTEP300-yard game · 3+ TD | W 57-28 | 21 | 27 | 300 | 77.8 | 3 | 1 | 73.1 | 9 | 33 | 3.70 | 1 | 8 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs Marshall300-yard game · 3+ TD | W 59-17 | 24 | 31 | 302 | 77.4 | 4 | 1 | 77.3 | 3 | 19 | 6.30 | 0 | 8 |
| Fri 11/4 | @ UCFDual-threat | W 24-17 | 15 | 28 | 203 | 53.6 | 1 | 0 | 69.9 | 14 | 92 | 6.60 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 10/29 | vs SMU | W 38-7 | 24 | 36 | 274 | 66.7 | 1 | 1 | 60.5 | 17 | 39 | 2.30 | 1 | 10 |
| Sat 10/22 | @ Rice300-yard game · 3+ TD | W 38-20 | 21 | 34 | 318 | 61.8 | 3 | 0 | 67.7 | 11 | 34 | 3.10 | 1 | 23 |
| Sun 10/16 | vs UAB300-yard game · 3+ TD | W 37-20 | 31 | 43 | 341 | 72.1 | 3 | 1 | 64.3 | 12 | 34 | 2.80 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 10/1 | vs North Texas300-yard game · 3+ TD | W 41-24 | 20 | 31 | 314 | 64.5 | 3 | 0 | 67.2 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 7 |
| Sun 9/25 | @ Boise State | L 21-41 | 14 | 24 | 123 | 58.3 | 1 | 4 | 58.6 | 1 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
| Sun 9/18 | vs Oklahoma State | L 33-59 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 40.0 | 0 | 0 | 49.6 | 6 | 22 | 3.70 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 9/10 | @ Tulane3+ TD | W 31-3 | 21 | 29 | 241 | 72.4 | 3 | 1 | 62.6 | 8 | 18 | 2.30 | 0 | 23 |
| Sun 9/4 | @ Oklahoma | L 14-47 | 18 | 33 | 271 | 54.5 | 2 | 1 | 60.9 | 14 | 46 | 3.30 | 0 | 13 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Tulsa
2009-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
20092010201020112011
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 Regular Season | Tulsa | 3,131 | 59.7 | 32.1 | — |
| 2010 Postseason | Tulsa | 4,211 | 61.7 | 30.8 | 1,080 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Tulsa | 4,211 | 61.7 | 30.8 | 0 |
| 2011 Postseason | Tulsa | 3,495 | 62.7 | 25.4 | -716 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Tulsa | 3,495 | 62.7 | 25.4 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Southern Miss
Win shaped by high passing volume and turnover pressure.
454
Primary metric
454 total offense with 66.6 efficiency.
#2
Southern Miss
484
Primary metric
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
484 total offense with 69.7 efficiency.
#3
Houston
434
Primary metric
Loss shaped by high passing volume and turnover pressure.
434 total offense with 76.6 efficiency.
#4
Houston
344
Primary metric
Win shaped by high passing volume and turnover pressure.
344 total offense with 60.3 efficiency.
#5
East Carolina
437
Primary metric
Loss with 437 yards of offense and 65.1 efficiency.
437 total offense with 65.1 efficiency.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2010 Postseason · Tulsa
4,211 primary output · 61.7 efficiency · 30.8 usage
68.7
#2
2010 Regular Season · Tulsa
68.7
4,211 primary · 61.7 efficiency · 30.8 usage
#3
2011 Postseason · Tulsa
64.6
3,495 primary · 62.7 efficiency · 25.4 usage
Milestones
27
250+ passing yards
19
300+ total offense
2
3+ takeover TD games
24
Above avg efficiency
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
10,837
Career Total Offense
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 38 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.