Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2009 Regular Season
Wake Forest paired 90 primary output with 68.3 efficiency.
Player Stats
Andrew Parker 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
- 279
- Receptions
- 28
- Touchdowns
- 2
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Regular Season | Wake Forest | 5 | 7 | 106 | 0 | 51.4 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Wake Forest | 4 | 9 | 90 | 2 | 61.1 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Wake Forest | 4 | 6 | 37 | 0 | 43.6 |
| 2011 Postseason | Wake Forest | 5 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 48.6 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Wake Forest | 5 | 4 | 37 | 0 | 48.6 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 55.3 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: Notre Dame
Loss 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 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 · Wake Forest
Games
5
Receiving Yards / G
9.2
Efficiency
55.3
Usage
5.2
Consistency
78.4
Best Game by takeover score
Notre Dame
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. Mississippi State: 9. Syracuse: 8. Gardner-Webb: 11. Notre Dame: 15. Clemson: 3
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. Mississippi State: 2 by 30. Syracuse: 1 by 53.3. Gardner-Webb: 1 by 73.3. Notre Dame: 1 by 100. Clemson: 1 by 20
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins11 · Games = 1 · +2.3 vs Losses
Losses8.8 · Games = 4 · -2.3 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Andrew Parker
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.