Usage Score
30
Player Dossier
2015-2018Purdue
Markell Jones
RB • 5'11" • 210 lbs • Columbus, IN, USA
Balanced backfield optionSteady chain mover
Markell Jones leans balanced backfield option traits and 47.5 efficiency.
Efficiency
43.7
Consistency
60.9
Season Value
52.1
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season · Purdue
151617171818
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Purdue
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Indiana
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.
Markell Jones, RB. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season · Purdue. Markell Jones leans balanced backfield option traits and 47.5 efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season
Purdue paired 1,114 primary output with 53.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Regular Season role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 43.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
Game driven by a workhorse rushing load. 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 Regular Season · Purdue
Games
11
Scrimmage Yards / G
75.5
Efficiency
43.7
Usage
30
Consistency
60.9
Best Game by takeover score
Indiana
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. Unknown: 169. Cincinnati: 49. Nevada: 139. Maryland: 29. Iowa: 63. Nebraska: 63. Penn State: 105. Minnesota: 69. Northwestern: 51. Wisconsin: 42. Indiana: 52
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. Unknown: 28 by 62.9. Cincinnati: 18 by 30.9. Nevada: 23 by 60.4. Maryland: 14 by 20.6. Iowa: 13 by 43.1. Nebraska: 14 by 41.3. Penn State: 13 by 74.7. Minnesota: 17 by 41. Northwestern: 12 by 44.4. Wisconsin: 9 by 42.9. Indiana: 24 by 19
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Losses58.1 · Games = 9
First Half85.3 · Games = 6 · +21.5 vs Second Half
Second Half63.8 · Games = 5 · -21.5 vs First Half
All Games75.5 · Games = 11
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
11 games
Featured metric
Scrimmage Yards
Top game by takeover score
Unknown
Best efficiency game
74.7 vs Penn State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/26 | @ Indiana | L 24-26 | 22 | 35 | 1.60 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 2.2 |
| Sat 11/19 | vs Wisconsin | L 20-49 | 8 | 30 | 3.80 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 4.7 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs Northwestern | L 17-45 | 11 | 47 | 4.30 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4.3 |
| Sat 11/5 | @ Minnesota | L 31-44 | 13 | 50 | 3.80 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 4.1 |
| Sat 10/29 | vs Penn State | L 24-62 | 7 | 46 | 6.60 | 1 | 6 | 59 | 8.1 |
| Sat 10/22 | @ Nebraska | L 14-27 | 10 | 36 | 3.60 | 0 | 4 | 27 | 4.5 |
| Sat 10/15 | vs Iowa | L 35-49 | 9 | 33 | 3.70 | 0 | 4 | 30 | 4.8 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Maryland | L 7-50 | 12 | 23 | 1.90 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 2.1 |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Nevada100 rush yards | W 24-14 | 22 | 124 | 5.60 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 6.0 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Cincinnati | L 20-38 | 15 | 47 | 3.10 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2.7 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs Unknown100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | — | 24 | 145 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 24 | 6.0 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Purdue
2015-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
201520162017201720182018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Regular Season | Purdue | 1,114 | 53.6 | 29 | — |
| 2016 Regular Season | Purdue | 831 | 43.7 | 30 | -283 |
| 2017 Postseason | Purdue | 620 | 43.6 | 21.8 | -211 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Purdue | 620 | 43.6 | 21.8 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Purdue | 656 | 47.5 | 17 | 36 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Purdue | 656 | 47.5 | 17 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Indiana
Win driven by a workhorse rushing load.
217
Primary metric
217 scrimmage yards and 52.5 usage.
#2
Michigan State
159
Primary metric
Loss driven by a workhorse rushing load.
159 scrimmage yards and 48.9 usage.
#3
Indiana
120
Primary metric
Win with 120 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
120 scrimmage yards and 22 usage.
#4
Eastern Michigan
116
Primary metric
Loss with 116 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
116 scrimmage yards and 23.2 usage.
#5
Unknown
169
Primary metric
Game driven by a workhorse rushing load.
169 scrimmage yards and 43.1 usage.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Regular Season · Purdue
1,114 primary output · 53.6 efficiency · 29 usage
64.7
#2
2016 Regular Season · Purdue
52.1
831 primary · 43.7 efficiency · 30 usage
#3
2018 Postseason · Purdue
45.2
656 primary · 47.5 efficiency · 17 usage
Milestones
10
100+ rush yards
3
150+ scrimmage yards
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2015 · Rating 0.8358
Columbus East · Columbus, IN
- Committed To
- Purdue
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2015
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
3,221
Career Scrimmage Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 46 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.