Usage Score
31.5
Player Dossier
2014-2017Southern Miss
Korey Robertson
WR • 6'1" • 210 lbs • Greenwood, MS, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Korey Robertson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
86.3
Consistency
70.8
Season Value
72.1
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Southern Miss
141516161717
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Southern Miss
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Tennessee
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.
Korey Robertson, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Southern Miss. Korey Robertson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason
Southern Miss paired 1,106 primary output with 86.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2017 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 86.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2017 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Tennessee
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 84.6th 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.
2017 Postseason · Southern Miss
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
85.1
Efficiency
86.3
Usage
31.5
Consistency
70.8
Best Game by takeover score
Florida State
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. Florida State: 36. Kentucky: 111. Unknown: 26. UL Monroe: 72. North Texas: 82. UTSA: 45. UTEP: 52. Louisiana Tech: 127. UAB: 65. Tennessee: 122. Rice: 159. Charlotte: 91. Marshall: 118
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. Florida State: 4 by 60. Kentucky: 7 by 100. Unknown: 3 by 57.8. UL Monroe: 3 by 100. North Texas: 8 by 68.3. UTSA: 2 by 100. UTEP: 5 by 69.3. Louisiana Tech: 9 by 94.1. UAB: 6 by 72.2. Tennessee: 8 by 100. Rice: 8 by 100. Charlotte: 6 by 100. Marshall: 7 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins94.9 · n=7 · +11.7 vs Losses
Losses83.2 · n=5 · -11.7 vs Wins
First Half60.6 · n=7 · -53.1 vs Second Half
Second Half113.7 · n=6 · +53.1 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Tennessee
Best efficiency game
100 vs Marshall
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 12/27 | @ Florida State | L 13-42 | — | 4 | 36 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 14 |
| Sat 11/25 | @ Marshall100 receiving yards | W 28-27 | — | 7 | 118 | 16.9 | 16.90 | 1 | 48 |
| Sat 11/18 | vs Charlotte | W 66-21 | — | 6 | 91 | 15.2 | 15.20 | 1 | 45 |
| Sat 11/11 | @ Rice100 receiving yards · High volume | W 43-34 | — | 8 | 159 | 19.9 | 19.90 | 2 | 47 |
| Sat 11/4 | @ Tennessee100 receiving yards · High volume | L 10-24 | — | 8 | 122 | 15.3 | 15.30 | 0 | 70 |
| Sat 10/28 | vs UAB | L 12-30 | — | 6 | 65 | 10.8 | 10.80 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 10/21 | @ Louisiana Tech100 receiving yards · High volume | W 34-27 | — | 9 | 127 | 14.1 | 14.10 | 2 | 40 |
| Sat 10/14 | vs UTEP | W 24-0 | — | 5 | 52 | 10.4 | 10.40 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 10/7 | @ UTSA | W 31-29 | — | 2 | 45 | 22.5 | 22.50 | 1 | 25 |
| Sat 9/30 | vs North TexasHigh volume | L 28-43 | — | 8 | 82 | 10.3 | 10.30 | 0 | 22 |
| Sat 9/16 | @ UL Monroe2+ TD | W 28-17 | — | 3 | 72 | 24 | 24 | 2 | 37 |
| Sat 9/9 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 26 | 8.7 | 8.70 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Kentucky100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | L 17-24 | — | 7 | 111 | 15.9 | 15.90 | 2 | 42 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Southern Miss
2014-2017
Opening stop
Season Progression
201420152016201620172017
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | Southern Miss | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2015 Regular Season | Southern Miss | 200 | 76.1 | 8.9 | 200 |
| 2016 Postseason | Southern Miss | 437 | 77.5 | 12.4 | 237 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Southern Miss | 437 | 77.5 | 12.4 | 0 |
| 2017 Postseason | Southern Miss | 1,106 | 86.3 | 31.5 | 669 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Southern Miss | 1,106 | 86.3 | 31.5 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Tennessee
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
122
Primary metric
122 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Rice
159
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
159 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Marshall
118
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
118 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Mississippi State
81
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
81 receiving yards with a 90 efficiency score.
#5
Louisiana Tech
127
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
127 receiving yards with a 94.1 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2017 Postseason · Southern Miss
1,106 primary output · 86.3 efficiency · 31.5 usage
72.1
#2
2017 Regular Season · Southern Miss
72.1
1,106 primary · 86.3 efficiency · 31.5 usage
#3
2016 Postseason · Southern Miss
48.1
437 primary · 77.5 efficiency · 12.4 usage
Milestones
5
100+ receiving yards
5
8+ catch outings
4
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2014 · Rating 0.8093
Greenwood · Greenwood, MS
- Committed To
- Southern Miss
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2014
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,743
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 32 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.