Player Stats

Jordan Kerley 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

Receiving yards
1,185
Receptions
73
Touchdowns
12

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesRecRec YdsTDOverall
2019 Regular SeasonArizona State6681027.5
2020 Regular SeasonArizona State0-00-
2021 Regular SeasonSMU812197450.8
2022 PostseasonSMU10650172.9
2022 Regular SeasonSMU1031538572.9
2023 Regular SeasonSMU818319255.7

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason

SMU paired 588 primary output with 82.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2023 Regular Season role shape

target-driven usage with 69 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value cooled off

2023 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Multi-stop career journey

Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Arizona State, SMU.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Prairie View A&M

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 compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2023 Regular Season · SMU

Games

8

Receiving Yards / G

39.9

Efficiency

69

Usage

10.7

Consistency

63.9

Best Game by takeover score

Prairie View A&M

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.

12345678

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Louisiana Tech: 5. Oklahoma: 14. Prairie View A&M: 83. TCU: 51. Charlotte: 1. East Carolina: 69. Temple: 47. Tulsa: 49

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. Louisiana Tech: 2 by 16.7. Oklahoma: 2 by 46.7. Prairie View A&M: 3 by 100. TCU: 1 by 100. Charlotte: 1 by 6.7. East Carolina: 3 by 100. Temple: 2 by 100. Tulsa: 4 by 81.7

Split Comparison

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

Wins42.3 · Games = 6 · +9.8 vs Losses
Losses32.5 · Games = 2 · -9.8 vs Wins