Player Stats

Aldrick Robinson 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

Receiving yards
3,314
Receptions
181
Touchdowns
30

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesRecRec YdsTDOverall
2007 Regular SeasonSMU510166049.5
2008 Regular SeasonSMU10591,0471178.2
2009 PostseasonSMU139176062.3
2009 Regular SeasonSMU1338624562.3
2010 PostseasonSMU14576183.8
2010 Regular SeasonSMU14601,2251383.8

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason

SMU paired 1,301 primary output with 94.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

2010 Postseason role shape

target-driven usage with 94.8 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: Tulane

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 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 Postseason · SMU

Games

14

Receiving Yards / G

92.9

Efficiency

94.8

Usage

21.5

Consistency

68.7

Best Game by takeover score

Tulane

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.

1234567891011121314

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Army: 76. Texas Tech: 50. UAB: 51. Washington State: 111. TCU: 61. Rice: 148. Tulsa: 118. Navy: 41. Houston: 101. Tulane: 182. UTEP: 131. Marshall: 59. East Carolina: 129. UCF: 43

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. Army: 5 by 100. Texas Tech: 3 by 100. UAB: 4 by 85. Washington State: 4 by 100. TCU: 5 by 81.3. Rice: 6 by 100. Tulsa: 5 by 100. Navy: 4 by 68.3. Houston: 5 by 100. Tulane: 5 by 100. UTEP: 9 by 97. Marshall: 2 by 100. East Carolina: 5 by 100. UCF: 3 by 95.6

Split Comparison

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

Wins114 · Games = 7 · +42.1 vs Losses
Losses71.9 · Games = 7 · -42.1 vs Wins