Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Regular Season
Louisiana paired 676 primary output with 88.3 efficiency.
Player Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Season Ledger
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | SMU | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2013 Regular Season | SMU | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2014 Regular Season | SMU | 5 | 5 | 37 | 0 | 38.5 |
| 2015 Regular Season | SMU | 11 | 23 | 258 | 2 | 43.3 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Louisiana | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2017 Regular Season | Louisiana | 11 | 44 | 676 | 4 | 83.1 |
| 2018 Postseason | Louisiana | 14 | 3 | 59 | 0 | 69 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Louisiana | 14 | 41 | 466 | 4 | 69 |
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Regular Season
Louisiana paired 676 primary output with 88.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 71.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across SMU, Louisiana.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: UL Monroe
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
37.5
Efficiency
71.7
Usage
20.5
Consistency
58.6
Best Game by takeover score
UL Monroe
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Tulane: 59. Grambling: 46. Mississippi State: 69. Coastal Carolina: 7. Alabama: 20. Texas State: 23. New Mexico State: 52. App State: 47. Arkansas State: 20. Troy: 13. Georgia State: 54. South Alabama: 17. UL Monroe: 91. App State: 7
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. Tulane: 3 by 100. Grambling: 4 by 76.7. Mississippi State: 7 by 65.7. Coastal Carolina: 2 by 23.3. Alabama: 4 by 33.3. Texas State: 4 by 38.3. New Mexico State: 3 by 100. App State: 3 by 100. Arkansas State: 1 by 100. Troy: 2 by 43.3. Georgia State: 2 by 100. South Alabama: 1 by 100. UL Monroe: 6 by 100. App State: 2 by 23.3
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Next best actions
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.