Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2024 Regular Season
Arkansas State paired 255 primary output with 73.1 efficiency.
Player Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Season Ledger
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 48.4 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2021 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 8 | 14 | 194 | 1 | 62.5 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 8 | 16 | 167 | 0 | 57.1 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 6 | 11 | 195 | 1 | 55.5 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 10 | 21 | 255 | 3 | 69.7 |
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2024 Regular Season
Arkansas State paired 255 primary output with 73.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
2024 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 73.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2024 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Central Michigan, Arkansas State.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Troy
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
10
Receiving Yards / G
25.5
Efficiency
73.1
Usage
12.1
Consistency
65.4
Best Game by takeover score
Troy
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Central Arkansas: 0. Tulsa: 43. Michigan: 29. Iowa State: 13. Texas State: 10. Southern Miss: 31. Troy: 53. Louisiana: 21. UL Monroe: 15. Old Dominion: 40
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. Tulsa: 3 by 95.6. Michigan: 2 by 96.7. Iowa State: 2 by 43.3. Texas State: 1 by 66.7. Southern Miss: 3 by 68.9. Troy: 2 by 100. Louisiana: 2 by 70. UL Monroe: 2 by 50. Old Dominion: 4 by 66.7
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Next best actions
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.