Usage Score
32
Player Dossier
2010-2013Notre Dame
TJ Jones
WR • 5'11" • Roswell, GA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
TJ Jones reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
85.4
Consistency
68.9
Season Value
71.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2013 Postseason · Notre Dame
1010111112121313
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Notre Dame
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Arizona State
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.
TJ Jones, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2013 Postseason · Notre Dame. TJ Jones reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2013 Postseason
Notre Dame paired 1,108 primary output with 85.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2013 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 85.4 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: Arizona State
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 84.6th 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.
2013 Postseason · Notre Dame
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
85.2
Efficiency
85.4
Usage
32
Consistency
68.9
Best Game by takeover score
Rutgers
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. Rutgers: 66. Temple: 138. Michigan: 94. Purdue: 57. Michigan State: 15. Oklahoma: 42. Arizona State: 135. USC: 46. Air Force: 104. Navy: 111. Pittsburgh: 149. BYU: 95. Stanford: 56
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. Rutgers: 5 by 88. Temple: 6 by 100. Michigan: 9 by 69.6. Purdue: 4 by 95. Michigan State: 2 by 50. Oklahoma: 4 by 70. Arizona State: 8 by 100. USC: 4 by 76.7. Air Force: 7 by 99. Navy: 4 by 100. Pittsburgh: 6 by 100. BYU: 5 by 100. Stanford: 6 by 62.2
Split Comparison
Wins85.2 · n=9 · -0.0 vs Losses
Losses85.3 · n=4 · +0.0 vs Wins
First Half78.1 · n=7 · -15.4 vs Second Half
Second Half93.5 · n=6 · +15.4 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
Arizona State
Best efficiency game
100 vs BYU
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/28 | vs Rutgers | W 29-16 | — | 5 | 66 | 9.1 | 13.20 | 0 | 22 |
| Sun 12/1 | @ Stanford | L 20-27 | — | 6 | 56 | 9.3 | 9.30 | 1 | 20 |
| Sat 11/23 | vs BYU | W 23-13 | — | 5 | 95 | 16.3 | 19 | 0 | 32 |
| Sun 11/10 | @ Pittsburgh100 receiving yards | L 21-28 | — | 6 | 149 | 21.1 | 24.80 | 1 | 80 |
| Sat 11/2 | vs Navy100 receiving yards | W 38-34 | — | 4 | 111 | 27.8 | 27.80 | 1 | 45 |
| Sat 10/26 | @ Air Force100 receiving yards | W 45-10 | — | 7 | 104 | 13.9 | 14.90 | 1 | 30 |
| Sat 10/19 | vs USC | W 14-10 | — | 4 | 46 | 11.5 | 11.50 | 1 | 26 |
| Sat 10/5 | vs Arizona State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 37-34 | — | 8 | 135 | 16.9 | 16.90 | 1 | 37 |
| Sat 9/28 | vs Oklahoma | L 21-35 | — | 4 | 42 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 1 | 14 |
| Sat 9/21 | vs Michigan State | W 17-13 | — | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 7.50 | 1 | 13 |
| Sun 9/15 | @ Purdue | W 31-24 | — | 4 | 57 | 14.3 | 14.30 | 0 | 27 |
| Sun 9/8 | @ MichiganHigh volume | L 30-41 | — | 9 | 94 | 10.4 | 10.40 | 1 | 23 |
| Sat 8/31 | vs Temple100 receiving yards | W 28-6 | — | 6 | 138 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 51 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Notre Dame
2010-2013
Opening stop
Season Progression
20102010201120112012201220132013
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 Postseason | Notre Dame | 306 | 77.6 | 9.6 | — |
| 2010 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 306 | 77.6 | 9.6 | 0 |
| 2011 Postseason | Notre Dame | 366 | 61.8 | 12.8 | 60 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 366 | 61.8 | 12.8 | 0 |
| 2012 Postseason | Notre Dame | 649 | 83.8 | 22.6 | 283 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 649 | 83.8 | 22.6 | 0 |
| 2013 Postseason | Notre Dame | 1,108 | 85.4 | 32 | 459 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 1,108 | 85.4 | 32 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Arizona State
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
135
Primary metric
135 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Pittsburgh
149
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
149 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Temple
138
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
138 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Wake Forest
97
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
97 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Michigan
73
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
73 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2013 Postseason · Notre Dame
1,108 primary output · 85.4 efficiency · 32 usage
71.6
#2
2013 Regular Season · Notre Dame
71.6
1,108 primary · 85.4 efficiency · 32 usage
#3
2012 Postseason · Notre Dame
59.3
649 primary · 83.8 efficiency · 22.6 usage
Milestones
5
100+ receiving yards
2
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2010 · Rating 0.9591
Gainesville · Gainesville, GA
- Committed To
- Notre Dame
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2010
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
2,429
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 49 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.