Usage Score
36.4
Player Dossier
2018-2021Alabama
Jerome Ford
RB • 5'11" • 215 lbs • Seffner, FL, USA
Workhorse runnerSteady chain mover
Jerome Ford leans workhorse runner traits and 63 efficiency.
Efficiency
63
Consistency
70.8
Season Value
67.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Cincinnati
181920202121
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Alabama • Cincinnati
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Houston
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.
Jerome Ford, RB. Best season Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Cincinnati. Jerome Ford leans workhorse runner traits and 63 efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason
Cincinnati paired 1,539 primary output with 63 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 63 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2021 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 Alabama, Cincinnati.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Houston
Win with 204 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. It landed in the 92.3th 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.
2021 Postseason · Cincinnati
Games
13
Scrimmage Yards / G
118.4
Efficiency
63
Usage
36.4
Consistency
70.8
Best Game by takeover score
Alabama
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Alabama: 88. Miami (OH): 140. Unknown: 113. Indiana: 67. Notre Dame: 72. Temple: 154. UCF: 212. Navy: 101. Tulane: 107. Tulsa: 91. SMU: 105. East Carolina: 85. Houston: 204
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. Alabama: 18 by 52.5. Miami (OH): 14 by 91.7. Unknown: 18 by 65.4. Indiana: 21 by 33.9. Notre Dame: 18 by 42.8. Temple: 17 by 87.7. UCF: 21 by 92.1. Navy: 17 by 62.3. Tulane: 22 by 42.8. Tulsa: 9 by 63.6. SMU: 22 by 45.5. East Carolina: 20 by 44.3. Houston: 19 by 94.7
Split Comparison
Wins121.6 · n=11
First Half120.9 · n=7 · +5.4 vs Second Half
Second Half115.5 · n=6 · -5.4 vs First Half
All Games118.4 · n=13
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Scrimmage Yards
Top game by takeover score
Houston
Best efficiency game
94.7 vs Houston
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/31 | @ Alabama | L 6-27 | 15 | 77 | 5.10 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 4.9 |
| Sat 12/4 | vs Houston100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 35-20 | 18 | 187 | 10.40 | 2 | 1 | 17 | 10.7 |
| Fri 11/26 | @ East Carolina | W 35-13 | 20 | 85 | 4.30 | 1 | — | — | 4.3 |
| Sat 11/20 | vs SMU | W 48-14 | 20 | 82 | 4.10 | 1 | 2 | 23 | 4.8 |
| Sat 11/6 | vs Tulsa | W 28-20 | 7 | 24 | 3.40 | 1 | 2 | 67 | 10.1 |
| Sat 10/30 | @ Tulane2+ TD | W 31-12 | 18 | 65 | 3.60 | 1 | 4 | 42 | 4.9 |
| Sat 10/23 | @ Navy | W 27-20 | 15 | 90 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 5.9 |
| Sat 10/16 | vs UCF100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 56-21 | 20 | 189 | 9.50 | 4 | 1 | 23 | 10.1 |
| Fri 10/8 | vs Temple100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 52-3 | 15 | 149 | 9.90 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9.1 |
| Sat 10/2 | @ Notre Dame | W 24-13 | 17 | 71 | 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Sat 9/18 | @ Indiana2+ TD | W 38-24 | 20 | 66 | 3.30 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3.2 |
| Sat 9/11 | vs Unknown100 rush yards · 2+ TD | — | 18 | 113 | 6.30 | 3 | — | — | 6.3 |
| Sat 9/4 | vs Miami (OH)100 rush yards | W 49-14 | 12 | 121 | 10.10 | 1 | 2 | 19 | 10 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Alabama
2018-2019
Opening stop
- 2
Cincinnati
2020-2021
Final stop
Season Progression
201820192020202020212021
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Regular Season | Alabama | 37 | 38.9 | 2.9 | — |
| 2019 Regular Season | Alabama | 125 | 48.9 | 10.6 | 88 |
| 2020 Postseason | Cincinnati | 534 | 59.7 | 14.2 | 409 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Cincinnati | 534 | 59.7 | 14.2 | 0 |
| 2021 Postseason | Cincinnati | 1,539 | 63 | 36.4 | 1,005 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Cincinnati | 1,539 | 63 | 36.4 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Houston
Win with 204 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
204
Primary metric
204 scrimmage yards and 48.7 usage.
#2
UCF
212
Primary metric
Win driven by a workhorse rushing load.
212 scrimmage yards and 38.2 usage.
#3
Memphis
116
Primary metric
Win with 116 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
116 scrimmage yards and 14.5 usage.
#4
Georgia
112
Primary metric
Loss with 112 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
112 scrimmage yards and 20 usage.
#5
Louisiana
33
Primary metric
Win with 33 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
33 scrimmage yards and 5.1 usage.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2021 Postseason · Cincinnati
1,539 primary output · 63 efficiency · 36.4 usage
67.6
#2
2021 Regular Season · Cincinnati
67.6
1,539 primary · 63 efficiency · 36.4 usage
#3
2020 Postseason · Cincinnati
40.7
534 primary · 59.7 efficiency · 14.2 usage
Milestones
10
100+ rush yards
3
150+ scrimmage yards
8
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2018 · Rating 0.8909
Armwood · TAMPA, FL
- Committed To
- Alabama
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2018
Career Facts
2
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
2,235
Career Scrimmage Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 31 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.