Usage Score
17.8
Player Dossier
2021-2024TCU
WR • 6'0" • 190 lbs • Missouri City, TX, USA
JP Richardson reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
17.8
Efficiency
74
Consistency
63.2
Season Value
63.8
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by Season Value: 2024 Postseason · TCU
Snapshot
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.
JP Richardson, WR. Best season Best season by Season Value: 2024 Postseason · TCU. JP Richardson reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
JP Richardson played WR for Oklahoma State and TCU. Across 4 tracked seasons, JP Richardson recorded 32 passing yards, 4 rushing yards, and 1,940 receiving yards. His top tracked season came in 2024 with TCU.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2024 Postseason
TCU paired 733 primary output with 74 efficiency.
Supporting note
2024 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 74 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 Oklahoma State, TCU.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Arizona
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 then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
56.4
Efficiency
74
Usage
17.8
Consistency
63.2
Best Game by takeover score
Arizona
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. Louisiana: 53. Stanford: 107. Long Island University: 25. UCF: 46. SMU: 14. Kansas: 42. Houston: 98. Utah: 53. Texas Tech: 35. Baylor: 3. Oklahoma State: 100. Arizona: 107. Cincinnati: 50
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: 5 by 70.7. Stanford: 6 by 100. Long Island University: 2 by 83.3. UCF: 5 by 61.3. SMU: 3 by 31.1. Kansas: 4 by 70. Houston: 9 by 72.6. Utah: 3 by 100. Texas Tech: 4 by 58.3. Baylor: 1 by 20. Oklahoma State: 7 by 95.2. Arizona: 6 by 100. Cincinnati: 2 by 100
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Arizona
Best efficiency game
100 vs Cincinnati
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/28 | vs Louisiana | W 34-3 | — | 5 | 53 | 10.6 | 10.60 | 1 | 20 |
| Sat 11/30 | @ Cincinnati | W 20-13 | — | 2 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 30 |
| Sat 11/23 | vs Arizona100 receiving yards | W 49-28 | — | 6 | 107 | 17.8 | 17.80 | 1 | 38 |
| Sun 11/10 | vs Oklahoma State100 receiving yards | W 38-13 | — | 7 | 100 | 14.3 | 14.30 | 0 | 34 |
| Sun 11/3 | @ Baylor | L 34-37 | — | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Sat 10/26 | vs Texas Tech | W 35-34 | — | 4 | 35 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sun 10/20 | @ Utah | W 13-7 | — | 3 | 53 | 17.7 | 17.70 | 0 | 26 |
| Fri 10/4 | vs HoustonHigh volume | L 19-30 | — | 9 | 98 | 10.9 | 10.90 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 9/28 | @ Kansas | W 38-27 | — | 4 | 42 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 9/21 | @ SMU | L 42-66 | — | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 4.70 | 0 | 7 |
| Sat 9/14 | vs UCF | L 34-35 | — | 5 | 46 | 9.2 | 9.20 | 0 | 23 |
| Sun 9/8 | vs Long Island University | W 45-0 | — | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 12.50 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 8/31 | @ Stanford100 receiving yards | W 34-27 | — | 6 | 107 | 17.8 | 17.80 | 0 | 34 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Oklahoma State
2021-2022
Opening stop
TCU
2023-2024
Final stop
Season Value Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 Postseason | Oklahoma State | 168 | 50.5 | 17.3 | — |
| 2021 Regular Season | Oklahoma State | 168 | 50.5 | 17.3 | 0 |
| 2022 Postseason | Oklahoma State | 503 | 61.7 | 17.4 | 335 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Oklahoma State | 503 | 61.7 | 17.4 | 0 |
| 2023 Regular Season | TCU | 536 | 67.8 | 14.7 | 33 |
| 2024 Postseason | TCU | 733 | 74 | 17.8 | 197 |
| 2024 Regular Season | TCU | 733 | 74 | 17.8 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Arizona
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
107
Primary metric
107 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Iowa State
90
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
90 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Stanford
107
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
107 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
BYU
104
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
104 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Oklahoma State
100
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
100 receiving yards with a 95.2 efficiency score.
#1 Season by Season Value
2024 Postseason · TCU
733 primary output · 74 efficiency · 17.8 usage
63.8
#2
2024 Regular Season · TCU
63.8
733 primary · 74 efficiency · 17.8 usage
#3
2023 Regular Season · TCU
53.1
536 primary · 67.8 efficiency · 14.7 usage
4
100+ receiving yards
1
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Career Facts
2
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
1,940
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 44 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.
Next best actions
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.