Usage Score
25.7
Player Dossier
2015-2019Michigan State
Trishton Jackson
WR • 6'1" • 191 lbs • West Bloomfield, MI, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Trishton Jackson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
82.7
Consistency
60.5
Season Value
66.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season · Syracuse
151617171819
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Michigan State • Syracuse
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Boston College
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.
Trishton Jackson, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season · Syracuse. Trishton Jackson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season
Syracuse paired 1,023 primary output with 82.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
2019 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 82.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2019 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Michigan State, Syracuse.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Boston College
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 91.7th 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.
2019 Regular Season · Syracuse
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
85.3
Efficiency
82.7
Usage
25.7
Consistency
60.5
Best Game by takeover score
Wake Forest
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Liberty: 21. Maryland: 157. Clemson: 16. Western Michigan: 141. Unknown: 58. NC State: 106. Pittsburgh: 76. Florida State: 57. Boston College: 148. Duke: 68. Louisville: 64. Wake Forest: 111
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. Liberty: 3 by 46.7. Maryland: 7 by 100. Clemson: 2 by 53.3. Western Michigan: 6 by 100. Unknown: 6 by 64.4. NC State: 9 by 78.5. Pittsburgh: 5 by 100. Florida State: 5 by 76. Boston College: 8 by 100. Duke: 2 by 100. Louisville: 3 by 100. Wake Forest: 10 by 74
Split Comparison
Wins85.3 · n=4 · -3.9 vs Losses
Losses89.1 · n=7 · +3.9 vs Wins
First Half83.2 · n=6 · -4.2 vs Second Half
Second Half87.3 · n=6 · +4.2 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Boston College
Best efficiency game
100 vs Louisville
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/30 | vs Wake Forest100 receiving yards · High volume | W 39-30 | — | 10 | 111 | 11.1 | 11.10 | 1 | 26 |
| Sat 11/23 | @ Louisville | L 34-56 | — | 3 | 64 | 17.3 | 21.30 | 1 | 48 |
| Sat 11/16 | @ Duke | W 49-6 | — | 2 | 68 | 34 | 34 | 1 | 50 |
| Sat 11/2 | vs Boston College100 receiving yards · High volume | L 27-58 | — | 8 | 148 | 18.5 | 18.50 | 2 | 85 |
| Sat 10/26 | @ Florida State | L 17-35 | — | 5 | 57 | 9.2 | 11.40 | 0 | 23 |
| Fri 10/18 | vs Pittsburgh | L 20-27 | — | 5 | 76 | 15.2 | 15.20 | 0 | 40 |
| Fri 10/11 | @ NC State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 10-16 | — | 9 | 106 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 1 | 52 |
| Sat 9/28 | vs Unknown | — | — | 6 | 58 | 9.7 | 9.70 | 1 | 17 |
| Sat 9/21 | vs Western Michigan100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 52-33 | — | 6 | 141 | 23.5 | 23.50 | 2 | 59 |
| Sat 9/14 | vs Clemson | L 6-41 | — | 2 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 9/7 | @ Maryland100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | L 20-63 | — | 7 | 157 | 22.4 | 22.40 | 2 | 52 |
| Sat 8/31 | @ Liberty | W 24-0 | — | 3 | 21 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 9 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Michigan State
2015-2017
Opening stop
- 2
Syracuse
2018-2019
Final stop
Season Progression
201520162017201720182019
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Regular Season | Michigan State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2016 Regular Season | Michigan State | 89 | 65.6 | 11.9 | 89 |
| 2017 Postseason | Michigan State | 143 | 65.9 | 10.1 | 54 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Michigan State | 143 | 65.9 | 10.1 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Syracuse | 27 | 60 | 14.3 | -116 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Syracuse | 1,023 | 82.7 | 25.7 | 996 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Boston College
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
148
Primary metric
148 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Maryland
157
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
157 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Rutgers
67
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
67 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Western Michigan
141
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
141 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Notre Dame
69
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
69 receiving yards with a 92 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Regular Season · Syracuse
1,023 primary output · 82.7 efficiency · 25.7 usage
66.9
#2
2018 Postseason · Syracuse
44.2
27 primary · 60 efficiency · 14.3 usage
#3
2017 Postseason · Michigan State
32.4
143 primary · 65.9 efficiency · 10.1 usage
Milestones
5
100+ receiving yards
3
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
2
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,282
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 23 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.