Player Stats

Cordarrian Richardson 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

Scrimmage yards
413
Rushing yards
393
Receiving yards
20
Touchdowns
7

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesScrimmageRush YdsRec YdsTDOverall
2016 Regular SeasonUCF00000-
2017 Regular SeasonUCF61641613248.4
2019 PostseasonTexas A&M7000053
2019 Regular SeasonTexas A&M724923217553

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason

Texas A&M paired 249 primary output with 64.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2019 Postseason role shape

backfield-heavy usage with 64.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2019 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Multi-stop career journey

Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across UCF, Texas A&M.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: South Carolina

Win with 147 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. 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.

2019 Postseason · Texas A&M

Games

7

Scrimmage Yards / G

35.6

Efficiency

64.2

Usage

6.2

Consistency

30.1

Best Game by takeover score

South Carolina

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.

1234567

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Oklahoma State: 0. Texas State: 12. Lamar: 22. Ole Miss: 5. Mississippi State: 28. UTSA: 35. South Carolina: 147

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. Texas State: 2 by 62.5. Lamar: 2 by 95.8. Ole Miss: 2 by 26. Mississippi State: 6 by 48.6. UTSA: 7 by 52.1. South Carolina: 7 by 100

Split Comparison

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

First Half9.8 · Games = 4 · -60.3 vs Second Half
Second Half70 · Games = 3 · +60.3 vs First Half