Usage Score
29.7
Player Dossier
2020-2024Washington State
Joey Hobert
WR • 5'11" • 180 lbs • San Clemente, CA, USA
Alpha targetPossession profile
Joey Hobert reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
73.9
Consistency
67.3
Season Value
67.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2023 Postseason · Texas State
20212123232424
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Washington State • Texas State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: BYU
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.
Joey Hobert, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2023 Postseason · Texas State. Joey Hobert reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2023 Postseason
Texas State paired 895 primary output with 73.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2023 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 73.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2024 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 Washington State, Texas State.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Southern Miss
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 81.8th 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 · Texas State
Games
11
Receiving Yards / G
81.4
Efficiency
73.9
Usage
29.7
Consistency
67.3
Best Game by takeover score
Rice
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Rice: 48. Baylor: 105. UTSA: 6. Unknown: 43. Nevada: 90. Southern Miss: 126. Louisiana: 132. UL Monroe: 110. Troy: 51. Georgia Southern: 141. Arkansas State: 43
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. Rice: 5 by 64. Baylor: 6 by 100. UTSA: 1 by 40. Unknown: 4 by 71.7. Nevada: 9 by 66.7. Southern Miss: 10 by 84. Louisiana: 8 by 100. UL Monroe: 10 by 73.3. Troy: 3 by 100. Georgia Southern: 13 by 72.3. Arkansas State: 7 by 41
Split Comparison
Wins103.3 · n=6 · +45.3 vs Losses
Losses58 · n=4 · -45.3 vs Wins
First Half69.7 · n=6 · -25.7 vs Second Half
Second Half95.4 · n=5 · +25.7 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
11 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Southern Miss
Best efficiency game
100 vs Troy
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 12/26 | @ Rice | W 45-21 | — | 5 | 48 | 9.6 | 9.60 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 11/18 | @ Arkansas State | L 31-77 | — | 7 | 43 | 6.1 | 6.10 | 1 | 18 |
| Sat 11/4 | vs Georgia Southern100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-24 | — | 13 | 141 | 10.8 | 10.80 | 1 | 26 |
| Sat 10/28 | vs Troy | L 13-31 | — | 3 | 51 | 12.5 | 17 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 10/14 | vs UL Monroe100 receiving yards · High volume | W 21-20 | — | 10 | 110 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 22 |
| Sat 10/7 | @ Louisiana100 receiving yards · High volume | L 30-34 | — | 8 | 132 | 16.5 | 16.50 | 1 | 83 |
| Sat 9/30 | @ Southern Miss100 receiving yards · High volume | W 50-36 | — | 10 | 126 | 12.6 | 12.60 | 1 | 39 |
| Sat 9/23 | vs NevadaHigh volume | W 35-24 | — | 9 | 90 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 25 |
| Sun 9/17 | vs Unknown | — | — | 4 | 43 | 10.8 | 10.80 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 9/9 | @ UTSA | L 13-20 | — | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| Sat 9/2 | @ Baylor100 receiving yards | W 42-31 | — | 6 | 105 | 17.5 | 17.50 | 1 | 31 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Washington State
2020-2021
Opening stop
- 2
Texas State
2023-2024
Final stop
Season Progression
2020202120212023202320242024
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Regular Season | Washington State | 31 | 68.9 | 12 | — |
| 2021 Postseason | Washington State | 192 | 76.5 | 7.6 | 161 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Washington State | 192 | 76.5 | 7.6 | 0 |
| 2023 Postseason | Texas State | 895 | 73.9 | 29.7 | 703 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Texas State | 895 | 73.9 | 29.7 | 0 |
| 2024 Postseason | Texas State | 680 | 63 | 27.7 | -215 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Texas State | 680 | 63 | 27.7 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
BYU
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
100
Primary metric
100 receiving yards with a 60.6 efficiency score.
#2
Southern Miss
126
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
126 receiving yards with a 84 efficiency score.
#3
Georgia Southern
141
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
141 receiving yards with a 72.3 efficiency score.
#4
Louisiana
132
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
132 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Old Dominion
88
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
88 receiving yards with a 97.8 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2023 Postseason · Texas State
895 primary output · 73.9 efficiency · 29.7 usage
67.7
#2
2023 Regular Season · Texas State
67.7
895 primary · 73.9 efficiency · 29.7 usage
#3
2024 Postseason · Texas State
60
680 primary · 63 efficiency · 27.7 usage
Milestones
7
100+ receiving yards
9
8+ catch outings
5
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2026 · Rating 0.971
Oakland · Murfreesboro, TN
- Committed To
- Tennessee
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2026
Career Facts
2
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
1,798
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 37 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.