Usage Score
20.5
Player Dossier
2020-2023Texas Tech
Ja'Lynn Polk
WR • 6'2" • 204 lbs • Lufkin, TX, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Ja'Lynn Polk reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
86.8
Consistency
73.8
Season Value
70.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2023 Postseason · Washington
202122222323
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Texas Tech • Washington
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Michigan 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.
Ja'Lynn Polk, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2023 Postseason · Washington. Ja'Lynn Polk reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2023 Postseason
Washington paired 1,159 primary output with 86.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
2023 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 86.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2023 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 Texas Tech, Washington.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Stanford
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.
2023 Postseason · Washington
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
89.2
Efficiency
86.8
Usage
20.5
Consistency
73.8
Best Game by takeover score
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. Michigan: 37. Texas: 122. Boise State: 101. Tulsa: 81. Michigan State: 118. California: 127. Arizona: 41. Oregon: 118. Arizona State: 102. Stanford: 148. USC: 52. Utah: 55. Oregon: 57
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. Michigan: 4 by 61.7. Texas: 5 by 100. Boise State: 3 by 100. Tulsa: 5 by 100. Michigan State: 5 by 100. California: 8 by 100. Arizona: 5 by 54.7. Oregon: 6 by 100. Arizona State: 9 by 75.6. Stanford: 5 by 100. USC: 5 by 69.3. Utah: 4 by 91.7. Oregon: 5 by 76
Split Comparison
Wins93.5 · n=12
First Half89.6 · n=7 · +0.9 vs Second Half
Second Half88.7 · n=6 · -0.9 vs First Half
All Games89.2 · n=13
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Stanford
Best efficiency game
100 vs Texas
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/9 | @ Michigan | L 13-34 | — | 4 | 37 | 7.6 | 9.30 | 0 | 15 |
| Tue 1/2 | vs Texas100 receiving yards | W 37-31 | — | 5 | 122 | 24.4 | 24.40 | 1 | 77 |
| Sat 12/2 | vs Oregon | W 34-31 | — | 5 | 57 | 11.4 | 11.40 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 11/11 | vs Utah | W 35-28 | — | 4 | 55 | 13.8 | 13.80 | 0 | 30 |
| Sat 11/4 | @ USC | W 52-42 | — | 5 | 52 | 9.8 | 10.40 | 1 | 32 |
| Sat 10/28 | @ Stanford100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 42-33 | — | 5 | 148 | 29.6 | 29.60 | 2 | 92 |
| Sun 10/22 | vs Arizona State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 15-7 | — | 9 | 102 | 9.9 | 11.30 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 10/14 | vs Oregon100 receiving yards | W 36-33 | — | 6 | 118 | 19.7 | 19.70 | 1 | 35 |
| Sun 10/1 | @ Arizona | W 31-24 | — | 5 | 41 | 8.2 | 8.20 | 0 | 15 |
| Sun 9/24 | vs California100 receiving yards · High volume | W 59-32 | — | 8 | 127 | 15.9 | 15.90 | 2 | 35 |
| Sat 9/16 | @ Michigan State100 receiving yards | W 41-7 | — | 5 | 118 | 23.6 | 23.60 | 1 | 38 |
| Sat 9/9 | vs Tulsa | W 43-10 | — | 5 | 81 | 18 | 16.20 | 0 | 33 |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Boise State100 receiving yards | W 56-19 | — | 3 | 101 | 33.7 | 33.70 | 1 | 50 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Texas Tech
2020
Opening stop
- 2
Washington
2021-2023
Final stop
Season Progression
202020212022202220232023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Regular Season | Texas Tech | 264 | 52.9 | 11.4 | — |
| 2021 Regular Season | Washington | 114 | 95.6 | 7.1 | -150 |
| 2022 Postseason | Washington | 694 | 87.2 | 11.4 | 580 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Washington | 694 | 87.2 | 11.4 | 0 |
| 2023 Postseason | Washington | 1,159 | 86.8 | 20.5 | 465 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Washington | 1,159 | 86.8 | 20.5 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Michigan State
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
153
Primary metric
153 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Stanford
148
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
148 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
California
127
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
127 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
TCU
61
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
61 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Colorado
60
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
60 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2023 Postseason · Washington
1,159 primary output · 86.8 efficiency · 20.5 usage
70.3
#2
2023 Regular Season · Washington
70.3
1,159 primary · 86.8 efficiency · 20.5 usage
#3
2022 Postseason · Washington
54.9
694 primary · 87.2 efficiency · 11.4 usage
Milestones
8
100+ receiving yards
2
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2020 · Rating 0.8848
Lufkin · Lufkin, TX
- Committed To
- Texas Tech
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2020
Career Facts
2
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
2,231
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 39 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.