Player Stats

Andre Wilson 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
1,163
Receptions
84
Touchdowns
12

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesRecRec YdsTDOverall
2017 PostseasonUAB13658079.9
2017 Regular SeasonUAB1348619679.9
2018 PostseasonUAB14-0069.5
2018 Regular SeasonUAB1430486669.5

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason

UAB paired 677 primary output with 74.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2018 Postseason role shape

target-driven usage with 86.6 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: Texas A&M

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.

2018 Postseason · UAB

Games

14

Receiving Yards / G

34.7

Efficiency

86.6

Usage

16.1

Consistency

65.9

Best Game by takeover score

Texas A&M

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.

1234567891011121314

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Northern Illinois: 0. Savannah St: 37. Coastal Carolina: 27. Tulane: 30. Charlotte: 67. Louisiana Tech: 0. Rice: 43. North Texas: 39. UTEP: 19. UTSA: 39. Southern Miss: 44. Texas A&M: 89. Middle Tennessee: 12. Middle Tennessee: 40

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. Savannah St: 3 by 82.2. Coastal Carolina: 2 by 90. Tulane: 3 by 66.7. Charlotte: 2 by 100. Rice: 4 by 71.7. North Texas: 2 by 100. UTEP: 2 by 63.3. UTSA: 1 by 100. Southern Miss: 2 by 100. Texas A&M: 7 by 84.8. Middle Tennessee: 1 by 80. Middle Tennessee: 1 by 100

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins32.5 · Games = 11 · -10.1 vs Losses
Losses42.7 · Games = 3 · +10.1 vs Wins