Usage Score
26.2
Player Dossier
2017-2019LSU
Justin Jefferson
WR • 6'3" • 192 lbs • Saint Rose, LA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Justin Jefferson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
81.1
Consistency
71.9
Season Value
69.8
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · LSU
1718181919
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- LSU
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Oklahoma
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.
Justin Jefferson, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · LSU. Justin Jefferson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason
LSU paired 1,540 primary output with 81.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
2019 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 81.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2019 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Oklahoma
Win 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 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 Postseason · LSU
Games
15
Receiving Yards / G
102.7
Efficiency
81.1
Usage
26.2
Consistency
71.9
Best Game by takeover score
Clemson
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112131415
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Clemson: 106. Oklahoma: 227. Georgia Southern: 87. Texas: 163. Unknown: 124. Vanderbilt: 18. Utah State: 155. Florida: 123. Mississippi State: 89. Auburn: 60. Alabama: 79. Ole Miss: 112. Arkansas: 27. Texas A&M: 55. Georgia: 115
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. Clemson: 9 by 78.5. Oklahoma: 14 by 100. Georgia Southern: 5 by 100. Texas: 9 by 100. Unknown: 5 by 100. Vanderbilt: 2 by 60. Utah State: 9 by 100. Florida: 10 by 82. Mississippi State: 8 by 74.2. Auburn: 7 by 57.1. Alabama: 7 by 75.2. Ole Miss: 9 by 83. Arkansas: 4 by 45. Texas A&M: 6 by 61.1. Georgia: 7 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins101.1 · n=14
First Half125.4 · n=8 · +48.7 vs Second Half
Second Half76.7 · n=7 · -48.7 vs First Half
All Games102.7 · n=15
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
15 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Oklahoma
Best efficiency game
100 vs Oklahoma
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/14 | vs Clemson100 receiving yards · High volume | W 42-25 | — | 9 | 106 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 0 | 35 |
| Sat 12/28 | vs Oklahoma100 receiving yards · High volume | W 63-28 | — | 14 | 227 | 16.2 | 16.20 | 4 | 42 |
| Sat 12/7 | vs Georgia100 receiving yards | W 37-10 | — | 7 | 115 | 16.4 | 16.40 | 1 | 71 |
| Sun 12/1 | vs Texas A&M | W 50-7 | — | 6 | 55 | 9.2 | 9.20 | 1 | 15 |
| Sun 11/24 | vs Arkansas | W 56-20 | — | 4 | 27 | 6.8 | 6.80 | 1 | 10 |
| Sun 11/17 | @ Ole Miss100 receiving yards · High volume | W 58-37 | — | 9 | 112 | 12.4 | 12.40 | 2 | 48 |
| Sat 11/9 | @ Alabama | W 46-41 | — | 7 | 79 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 0 | 18 |
| Sat 10/26 | vs Auburn | W 23-20 | — | 7 | 60 | 8.6 | 8.60 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 10/19 | @ Mississippi StateHigh volume | W 36-13 | — | 8 | 89 | 11.1 | 11.10 | 1 | 19 |
| Sun 10/13 | vs Florida100 receiving yards · High volume | W 42-28 | — | 10 | 123 | 12.3 | 12.30 | 1 | 36 |
| Sat 10/5 | vs Utah State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 42-6 | — | 9 | 155 | 17.2 | 17.20 | 2 | 39 |
| Sat 9/21 | @ Vanderbilt | W 66-38 | — | 2 | 18 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 14 |
| Sat 9/14 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards | — | — | 5 | 124 | 24.8 | 24.80 | 0 | 48 |
| Sat 9/7 | @ Texas100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-38 | — | 9 | 163 | 18.1 | 18.10 | 3 | 61 |
| Sat 8/31 | vs Georgia Southern | W 55-3 | — | 5 | 87 | 17.4 | 17.40 | 1 | 44 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
LSU
2017-2019
Opening stop
Season Progression
20172018201820192019
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 Regular Season | LSU | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| 2018 Postseason | LSU | 874 | 83.6 | 25.2 | 874 |
| 2018 Regular Season | LSU | 874 | 83.6 | 25.2 | 0 |
| 2019 Postseason | LSU | 1,540 | 81.1 | 26.2 | 666 |
| 2019 Regular Season | LSU | 1,540 | 81.1 | 26.2 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Oklahoma
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
227
Primary metric
227 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Arkansas
117
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
117 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Georgia
108
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
108 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Auburn
97
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
97 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Miami
81
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
81 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Postseason · LSU
1,540 primary output · 81.1 efficiency · 26.2 usage
69.8
#2
2019 Regular Season · LSU
69.8
1,540 primary · 81.1 efficiency · 26.2 usage
#3
2018 Postseason · LSU
63.1
874 primary · 83.6 efficiency · 25.2 usage
Milestones
10
100+ receiving yards
7
8+ catch outings
6
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2017 · Rating 0.7983
Destrehan · Destrehan, LA
- Committed To
- LSU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2017
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
2,414
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 29 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.