Usage Score
36.6
Player Dossier
2009-2013Wisconsin
WR • 6'2" • Wautoma, WI, USA
Jared Abbrederis reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
36.6
Efficiency
77.3
Consistency
65.6
Season Value
69.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by Season Value: 2013 Postseason · Wisconsin
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.
Jared Abbrederis, WR. Best season Best season by Season Value: 2013 Postseason · Wisconsin. Jared Abbrederis reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Jared Abbrederis played WR for Wisconsin. Across 5 tracked seasons, Jared Abbrederis recorded 27 passing yards, 291 rushing yards, and 3,140 receiving yards. His top tracked season came in 2013 with Wisconsin.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2013 Postseason
Wisconsin paired 1,081 primary output with 77.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2013 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 77.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2013 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Ohio State
Loss 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
83.2
Efficiency
77.3
Usage
36.6
Consistency
65.6
Best Game by takeover score
Ohio State
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. South Carolina: 30. Massachusetts: 122. Tennessee Tech: 62. Arizona State: 87. Purdue: 94. Ohio State: 207. Northwestern: 74. Illinois: 106. Iowa: 30. BYU: 67. Indiana: 0. Minnesota: 67. Penn State: 135
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. South Carolina: 5 by 40. Massachusetts: 2 by 100. Tennessee Tech: 8 by 51.7. Arizona State: 6 by 96.7. Purdue: 7 by 89.5. Ohio State: 10 by 100. Northwestern: 2 by 100. Illinois: 8 by 88.3. Iowa: 3 by 66.7. BYU: 8 by 55.8. Minnesota: 7 by 63.8. Penn State: 12 by 75
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
Ohio State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Northwestern
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 1/1 | @ South Carolina | L 24-34 | — | 5 | 30 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 11/30 | vs Penn State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 24-31 | — | 12 | 135 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 11/23 | @ Minnesota | W 20-7 | — | 7 | 67 | 9.1 | 9.60 | 1 | 21 |
| Sat 11/16 | vs Indiana | W 51-3 | — | — | — | 28.7 | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/9 | vs BYUHigh volume | W 27-17 | — | 8 | 67 | 8.4 | 8.40 | 0 | 19 |
| Sat 11/2 | @ Iowa | W 28-9 | — | 3 | 30 | 10.3 | 10 | 1 | 20 |
| Sun 10/20 | @ Illinois100 receiving yards · High volume | W 56-32 | — | 8 | 106 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 10/12 | vs Northwestern | W 35-6 | — | 2 | 74 | 37 | 37 | 1 | 63 |
| Sun 9/29 | @ Ohio State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 24-31 | — | 10 | 207 | 20.7 | 20.70 | 1 | 64 |
| Sat 9/21 | vs Purdue | W 41-10 | — | 7 | 94 | 13.8 | 13.40 | 0 | 22 |
| Sun 9/15 | @ Arizona State | L 30-32 | — | 6 | 87 | 14.5 | 14.50 | 0 | 31 |
| Sat 9/7 | vs Tennessee TechHigh volume | W 48-0 | — | 8 | 62 | 7.8 | 7.80 | 1 | 20 |
| Sat 8/31 | vs Massachusetts100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 45-0 | — | 2 | 122 | 61 | 61 | 2 | 65 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Wisconsin
2009-2013
Opening stop
Season Value Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2010 Postseason | Wisconsin | 289 | 79.2 | 13.7 | 289 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 289 | 79.2 | 13.7 | 0 |
| 2011 Postseason | Wisconsin | 933 | 92.3 | 23.1 | 644 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 933 | 92.3 | 23.1 | 0 |
| 2012 Postseason | Wisconsin | 837 | 92.3 | 30.3 | -96 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 837 | 92.3 | 30.3 | 0 |
| 2013 Postseason | Wisconsin | 1,081 | 77.3 | 36.6 | 244 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 1,081 | 77.3 | 36.6 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
UTEP
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
147
Primary metric
147 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Ohio State
207
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
207 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Nebraska
142
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
142 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Ohio State
113
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
113 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Illinois
117
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
117 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#1 Season by Season Value
2013 Postseason · Wisconsin
1,081 primary output · 77.3 efficiency · 36.6 usage
69.9
#2
2013 Regular Season · Wisconsin
69.9
1,081 primary · 77.3 efficiency · 36.6 usage
#3
2011 Postseason · Wisconsin
67.9
933 primary · 92.3 efficiency · 23.1 usage
10
100+ receiving yards
5
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Career Facts
1
Career teams
9
Seasons tracked
3,140
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 9 tracked seasons, 51 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.