Usage Score
28.7
Player Dossier
2014-2016Virginia Tech
Isaiah Ford
WR • 6'2" • Jacksonville, FL, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Isaiah Ford reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
84.2
Consistency
78.9
Season Value
73
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Virginia Tech
141415151616
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Virginia Tech
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Tulsa
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.
Isaiah Ford, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Virginia Tech. Isaiah Ford reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Virginia Tech paired 1,094 primary output with 84.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 84.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2016 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Pittsburgh
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.
2016 Postseason · Virginia Tech
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
84.2
Efficiency
84.2
Usage
28.7
Consistency
78.9
Best Game by takeover score
Arkansas
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. Arkansas: 56. Unknown: 117. Tennessee: 51. Boston College: 91. East Carolina: 117. Syracuse: 83. Miami: 46. Pittsburgh: 143. Duke: 62. Georgia Tech: 85. Notre Dame: 86. Virginia: 68. Clemson: 89
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. Arkansas: 6 by 62.2. Unknown: 11 by 70.9. Tennessee: 5 by 68. Boston College: 4 by 100. East Carolina: 4 by 100. Syracuse: 8 by 69.2. Miami: 4 by 76.7. Pittsburgh: 10 by 95.3. Duke: 4 by 100. Georgia Tech: 8 by 70.8. Notre Dame: 7 by 81.9. Virginia: 4 by 100. Clemson: 4 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins83.6 · n=8 · +6.6 vs Losses
Losses77 · n=4 · -6.6 vs Wins
First Half80.1 · n=7 · -8.7 vs Second Half
Second Half88.8 · n=6 · +8.7 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
Pittsburgh
Best efficiency game
100 vs Clemson
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 12/29 | vs Arkansas | W 35-24 | — | 6 | 56 | 8.8 | 9.30 | 0 | 13 |
| Sun 12/4 | vs Clemson | L 35-42 | — | 4 | 89 | 22.3 | 22.30 | 0 | 53 |
| Sat 11/26 | vs Virginia | W 52-10 | — | 4 | 68 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 29 |
| Sat 11/19 | @ Notre Dame | W 34-31 | — | 7 | 86 | 11.1 | 12.30 | 0 | 24 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs Georgia TechHigh volume | L 20-30 | — | 8 | 85 | 10.6 | 10.60 | 1 | 15 |
| Sat 11/5 | @ Duke | W 24-21 | — | 4 | 62 | 15.5 | 15.50 | 0 | 22 |
| Thu 10/27 | @ Pittsburgh100 receiving yards · High volume | W 39-36 | — | 10 | 143 | 15.4 | 14.30 | 1 | 27 |
| Thu 10/20 | vs Miami | W 37-16 | — | 4 | 46 | 7 | 11.50 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ SyracuseHigh volume | L 17-31 | — | 8 | 83 | 10.4 | 10.40 | 1 | 15 |
| Sat 9/24 | vs East Carolina100 receiving yards | W 54-17 | — | 4 | 117 | 23.6 | 29.30 | 1 | 45 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Boston College2+ TD | W 49-0 | — | 4 | 91 | 22.8 | 22.80 | 2 | 47 |
| Sun 9/11 | @ Tennessee | L 24-45 | — | 5 | 51 | 10.2 | 10.20 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · High volume | — | — | 11 | 117 | 10.6 | 10.60 | 1 | 25 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Virginia Tech
2014-2016
Opening stop
Season Progression
201420142015201520162016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Postseason | Virginia Tech | 709 | 83.1 | 20.8 | — |
| 2014 Regular Season | Virginia Tech | 709 | 83.1 | 20.8 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Virginia Tech | 1,164 | 86.5 | 32.3 | 455 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Virginia Tech | 1,164 | 86.5 | 32.3 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Virginia Tech | 1,094 | 84.2 | 28.7 | -70 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Virginia Tech | 1,094 | 84.2 | 28.7 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Tulsa
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
227
Primary metric
227 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Pittsburgh
143
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
143 receiving yards with a 95.3 efficiency score.
#3
Georgia Tech
114
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
114 receiving yards with a 95 efficiency score.
#4
East Carolina
117
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
117 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
North Carolina
155
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
155 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2016 Postseason · Virginia Tech
1,094 primary output · 84.2 efficiency · 28.7 usage
73
#2
2016 Regular Season · Virginia Tech
73
1,094 primary · 84.2 efficiency · 28.7 usage
#3
2015 Postseason · Virginia Tech
69.6
1,164 primary · 86.5 efficiency · 32.3 usage
Milestones
8
100+ receiving yards
9
8+ catch outings
4
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2014 · Rating 0.8849
Trinity Christian Academy · Jacksonville, FL
- Committed To
- Virginia Tech
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2014
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
2,967
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 39 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.