Usage Score
24.1
Player Dossier
2016-2021Washington State
Calvin Jackson Jr.
WR • 5'10" • 196 lbs • Pompano Beach, FL, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Calvin Jackson Jr. reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
82.5
Consistency
73.5
Season Value
70
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Washington State
1617181819202121
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Washington State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Arizona State
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.
Calvin Jackson Jr., WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Washington State. Calvin Jackson Jr. reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason
Washington State paired 987 primary output with 82.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 82.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2021 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Arizona State
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.
2021 Postseason · Washington State
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
75.9
Efficiency
82.5
Usage
24.1
Consistency
73.5
Best Game by takeover score
Central Michigan
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. Central Michigan: 32. Utah State: 91. Unknown: 77. USC: 94. Utah: 19. California: 53. Oregon State: 70. Stanford: 72. BYU: 52. Arizona State: 139. Oregon: 87. Arizona: 133. Washington: 68
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. Central Michigan: 3 by 71.1. Utah State: 7 by 86.7. Unknown: 3 by 100. USC: 8 by 78.3. Utah: 2 by 63.3. California: 6 by 58.9. Oregon State: 9 by 51.9. Stanford: 2 by 100. BYU: 4 by 86.7. Arizona State: 8 by 100. Oregon: 4 by 100. Arizona: 4 by 100. Washington: 6 by 75.6
Split Comparison
Wins89.2 · n=6 · +26.7 vs Losses
Losses62.5 · n=6 · -26.7 vs Wins
First Half62.3 · n=7 · -29.5 vs Second Half
Second Half91.8 · n=6 · +29.5 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Arizona State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Arizona
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/31 | @ Central Michigan | L 21-24 | — | 3 | 32 | 10.7 | 10.70 | 0 | 32 |
| Sat 11/27 | @ Washington | W 40-13 | — | 6 | 68 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 11/20 | vs Arizona100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 44-18 | — | 4 | 133 | 33.3 | 33.30 | 2 | 78 |
| Sun 11/14 | @ Oregon | L 24-38 | — | 4 | 87 | 21.8 | 21.80 | 0 | 70 |
| Sat 10/30 | @ Arizona State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 34-21 | — | 8 | 139 | 15.8 | 17.40 | 1 | 45 |
| Sat 10/23 | vs BYU | L 19-21 | — | 4 | 52 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 22 |
| Sat 10/16 | vs Stanford | W 34-31 | — | 2 | 72 | 36 | 36 | 1 | 41 |
| Sat 10/9 | vs Oregon StateHigh volume | W 31-24 | — | 9 | 70 | 7.8 | 7.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 10/2 | @ California2+ TD | W 21-6 | — | 6 | 53 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 2 | 22 |
| Sat 9/25 | @ Utah | L 13-24 | — | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 9.50 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 9/18 | vs USCHigh volume | L 14-45 | — | 8 | 94 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 0 | 29 |
| Sat 9/11 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 77 | 25.7 | 25.70 | 1 | 37 |
| Sun 9/5 | vs Utah State | L 23-26 | — | 7 | 91 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 32 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Washington State
2016-2021
Opening stop
Season Progression
20162017201820182019202020212021
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Regular Season | Washington State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2017 Regular Season | Washington State | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Washington State | 287 | 67.3 | 7.9 | 287 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Washington State | 287 | 67.3 | 7.9 | 0 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Washington State | 117 | 62.2 | 7.2 | -170 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Washington State | 12 | 40 | 11.1 | -105 |
| 2021 Postseason | Washington State | 987 | 82.5 | 24.1 | 975 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Washington State | 987 | 82.5 | 24.1 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Arizona State
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
139
Primary metric
139 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Arizona
133
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
133 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Arizona
85
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
85 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Oregon State
76
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
76 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Utah State
91
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
91 receiving yards with a 86.7 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2021 Postseason · Washington State
987 primary output · 82.5 efficiency · 24.1 usage
70
#2
2021 Regular Season · Washington State
70
987 primary · 82.5 efficiency · 24.1 usage
#3
2018 Postseason · Washington State
38.8
287 primary · 67.3 efficiency · 7.9 usage
Milestones
2
100+ receiving yards
3
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
1,403
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 26 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.