Usage Score
22.1
Player Dossier
2021-2023Oregon
Troy Franklin
WR • 6'3" • 187 lbs • East Palo Alto, CA, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Troy Franklin reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
94
Consistency
79.8
Season Value
73.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2023 Regular Season · Oregon
2121222223
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- Oregon
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: UCLA
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.
Troy Franklin, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2023 Regular Season · Oregon. Troy Franklin reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2023 Regular Season
Oregon paired 1,383 primary output with 94 efficiency.
Supporting note
2023 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 94 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2023 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Washington
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.
2023 Regular Season · Oregon
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
106.4
Efficiency
94
Usage
22.1
Consistency
79.8
Best Game by takeover score
Washington
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. Unknown: 106. Texas Tech: 103. Hawai'i: 83. Colorado: 126. Stanford: 117. Washington: 154. Washington State: 79. Utah: 99. California: 79. USC: 147. Arizona State: 128. Oregon State: 128. Washington: 34
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. Unknown: 7 by 100. Texas Tech: 6 by 100. Hawai'i: 4 by 100. Colorado: 8 by 100. Stanford: 7 by 100. Washington: 8 by 100. Washington State: 4 by 100. Utah: 8 by 82.5. California: 6 by 87.8. USC: 2 by 100. Arizona State: 8 by 100. Oregon State: 9 by 94.8. Washington: 4 by 56.7
Split Comparison
Wins108.9 · n=10 · +14.9 vs Losses
Losses94 · n=2 · -14.9 vs Wins
First Half109.7 · n=7 · +7.2 vs Second Half
Second Half102.5 · n=6 · -7.2 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
Washington
Best efficiency game
100 vs Arizona State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/2 | @ Washington | L 31-34 | — | 4 | 34 | 8.5 | 8.50 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 11/25 | vs Oregon State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 31-7 | — | 9 | 128 | 14.2 | 14.20 | 1 | 41 |
| Sat 11/18 | @ Arizona State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 49-13 | — | 8 | 128 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 45 |
| Sun 11/12 | vs USC100 receiving yards | W 36-27 | — | 2 | 147 | 73.5 | 73.50 | 1 | 84 |
| Sat 11/4 | vs California | W 63-19 | — | 6 | 79 | 13.2 | 13.20 | 1 | 32 |
| Sat 10/28 | @ UtahHigh volume | W 35-6 | — | 8 | 99 | 12.4 | 12.40 | 1 | 30 |
| Sat 10/21 | vs Washington State | W 38-24 | — | 4 | 79 | 19.8 | 19.80 | 0 | 32 |
| Sat 10/14 | @ Washington100 receiving yards · High volume | L 33-36 | — | 8 | 154 | 19.3 | 19.30 | 1 | 49 |
| Sat 9/30 | @ Stanford100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 42-6 | — | 7 | 117 | 16.7 | 16.70 | 2 | 46 |
| Sat 9/23 | vs Colorado100 receiving yards · High volume | W 42-6 | — | 8 | 126 | 15.8 | 15.80 | 2 | 36 |
| Sun 9/17 | vs Hawai'i | W 55-10 | — | 4 | 83 | 20.8 | 20.80 | 0 | 40 |
| Sat 9/9 | @ Texas Tech100 receiving yards | W 38-30 | — | 6 | 103 | 17.2 | 17.20 | 1 | 72 |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | — | — | 7 | 106 | 15.1 | 15.10 | 2 | 33 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Oregon
2021-2023
Opening stop
Season Progression
20212021202220222023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 Postseason | Oregon | 209 | 64.6 | 9.6 | — |
| 2021 Regular Season | Oregon | 209 | 64.6 | 9.6 | 0 |
| 2022 Postseason | Oregon | 891 | 78.7 | 19.8 | 682 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Oregon | 891 | 78.7 | 19.8 | 0 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Oregon | 1,383 | 94 | 22.1 | 492 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
UCLA
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
132
Primary metric
132 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Washington
139
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
139 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Washington
154
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
154 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Oklahoma
65
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
65 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Washington State
137
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
137 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2023 Regular Season · Oregon
1,383 primary output · 94 efficiency · 22.1 usage
73.7
#2
2022 Postseason · Oregon
53.9
891 primary · 78.7 efficiency · 19.8 usage
#3
2022 Regular Season · Oregon
53.9
891 primary · 78.7 efficiency · 19.8 usage
Milestones
11
100+ receiving yards
8
8+ catch outings
5
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2021 · Rating 0.9808
Menlo-Atherton · Menlo Park, CA
- Committed To
- Oregon
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2021
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
2,483
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 36 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.