Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason
Texas A&M paired 1,066 primary output with 84.3 efficiency.
Player Stats
Jeff Fuller 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
- 3,092
- Receptions
- 233
- Touchdowns
- 34
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 11 | 50 | 630 | 9 | 68.9 |
| 2009 Postseason | Texas A&M | 9 | 7 | 102 | 0 | 66 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 9 | 34 | 466 | 7 | 66 |
| 2010 Postseason | Texas A&M | 13 | 7 | 83 | 0 | 81.1 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 13 | 65 | 983 | 12 | 81.1 |
| 2011 Postseason | Texas A&M | 13 | 7 | 119 | 1 | 74.4 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 13 | 63 | 709 | 5 | 74.4 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 78.5 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: Texas
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 92.3th 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.
2011 Postseason · Texas A&M
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
63.7
Efficiency
78.5
Usage
21.3
Consistency
70.4
Best Game by takeover score
Texas
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.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Northwestern: 119. SMU: 52. Idaho: 79. Oklahoma State: 55. Arkansas: 82. Texas Tech: 12. Baylor: 71. Iowa State: 75. Missouri: 42. Oklahoma: 54. Kansas State: 47. Kansas: 33. Texas: 107
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. Northwestern: 7 by 100. SMU: 6 by 57.8. Idaho: 5 by 100. Oklahoma State: 6 by 61.1. Arkansas: 9 by 60.7. Texas Tech: 1 by 80. Baylor: 5 by 94.7. Iowa State: 7 by 71.4. Missouri: 5 by 56. Oklahoma: 6 by 60. Kansas State: 4 by 78.3. Kansas: 2 by 100. Texas: 7 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins63 · Games = 7 · -1.5 vs Losses
Losses64.5 · Games = 6 · +1.5 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Jeff Fuller
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.