Usage Score
16.6
Player Dossier
2018-2023Temple
Amad Anderson Jr.
WR • 5'11" • 165 lbs • Staten Island, NY, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Amad Anderson Jr. reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
71.1
Consistency
42.5
Season Value
51.1
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Purdue
181920212223
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Purdue • Temple
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Navy
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.
Amad Anderson Jr., WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Purdue. Amad Anderson Jr. reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season
Purdue paired 0 primary output with — efficiency.
Supporting note
2022 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 71.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2023 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 Purdue, Temple.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Navy
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 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.
2022 Regular Season · Temple
Games
11
Receiving Yards / G
43.5
Efficiency
71.1
Usage
16.6
Consistency
42.5
Best Game by takeover score
East 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.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Duke: 5. Unknown: 36. Rutgers: 4. Massachusetts: 0. Memphis: 0. UCF: 29. Tulsa: 112. Navy: 114. South Florida: 54. Houston: 34. East Carolina: 91
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. Duke: 1 by 33.3. Unknown: 3 by 80. Rutgers: 1 by 26.7. UCF: 3 by 64.4. Tulsa: 8 by 93.3. Navy: 8 by 95. South Florida: 5 by 72. Houston: 3 by 75.6. East Carolina: 6 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins27 · Games = 2 · -21.6 vs Losses
Losses48.6 · Games = 8 · +21.6 vs Wins
First Half12.3 · Games = 6 · -68.7 vs Second Half
Second Half81 · Games = 5 · +68.7 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
11 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Navy
Best efficiency game
100 vs East Carolina
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/26 | vs East Carolina | L 46-49 | — | 6 | 91 | 15.2 | 15.20 | 1 | 32 |
| Sat 11/12 | @ Houston | L 36-43 | — | 3 | 34 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 1 | 22 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs South Florida | W 54-28 | — | 5 | 54 | 10.8 | 10.80 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Navy100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-27 | — | 8 | 114 | 11.2 | 14.30 | 1 | 40 |
| Fri 10/21 | vs Tulsa100 receiving yards · High volume | L 16-27 | — | 8 | 112 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 36 |
| Thu 10/13 | @ UCF | L 13-70 | — | 3 | 29 | 9.7 | 9.70 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Memphis | L 3-24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Massachusetts | W 28-0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Rutgers | L 14-16 | — | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 36 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 21 |
| Fri 9/2 | @ Duke | L 0-30 | — | 1 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Purdue
2018-2020
Opening stop
- 2
Temple
2021-2023
Final stop
Season Progression
201820192020202120222023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Regular Season | Purdue | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2019 Regular Season | Purdue | 343 | 74.7 | 10.9 | 343 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Purdue | 19 | 26.7 | 5.7 | -324 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Temple | 283 | 58.8 | 15.5 | 264 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Temple | 479 | 71.1 | 16.6 | 196 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Temple | 647 | 85.7 | 19.3 | 168 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Navy
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
114
Primary metric
114 receiving yards with a 95 efficiency score.
#2
Tulsa
112
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
112 receiving yards with a 93.3 efficiency score.
#3
Memphis
169
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
169 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Memphis
108
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
108 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
TCU
59
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
59 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2018 Regular Season · Purdue
0 primary output · — efficiency · — usage
100
#2
2023 Regular Season · Temple
66.5
647 primary · 85.7 efficiency · 19.3 usage
#3
2022 Regular Season · Temple
51.1
479 primary · 71.1 efficiency · 16.6 usage
Milestones
5
100+ receiving yards
4
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2018 · Rating 0.8809
Curtis · Staten Island, NY
- Committed To
- Purdue
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2018
Career Facts
2
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,771
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 47 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.