Usage Score
16.8
Player Dossier
2010-2013SMU
Keenan Holman
WR • 6'1" • Beaumont, TX, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Keenan Holman reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
85.1
Consistency
63.2
Season Value
66
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2013 Regular Season · SMU
1010111213
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- SMU
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Temple
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.
Keenan Holman, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2013 Regular Season · SMU. Keenan Holman reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2013 Regular Season
SMU paired 1,037 primary output with 85.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
2013 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 85.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2013 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Temple
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th 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 Regular Season · SMU
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
86.4
Efficiency
85.1
Usage
16.8
Consistency
63.2
Best Game by takeover score
UCF
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Texas Tech: 53. Unknown: 30. Texas A&M: 133. TCU: 38. Rutgers: 76. Memphis: 126. Temple: 209. Cincinnati: 142. UConn: 88. South Florida: 35. Houston: 16. UCF: 91
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. Texas Tech: 4 by 88.3. Unknown: 6 by 33.3. Texas A&M: 10 by 88.7. TCU: 3 by 84.4. Rutgers: 3 by 100. Memphis: 6 by 100. Temple: 10 by 100. Cincinnati: 7 by 100. UConn: 8 by 73.3. South Florida: 2 by 100. Houston: 2 by 53.3. UCF: 6 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins114.5 · n=4 · +36.1 vs Losses
Losses78.4 · n=7 · -36.1 vs Wins
First Half76 · n=6 · -20.8 vs Second Half
Second Half96.8 · n=6 · +20.8 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Temple
Best efficiency game
100 vs UCF
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/7 | vs UCF | L 13-17 | — | 6 | 91 | 15.2 | 15.20 | 1 | 30 |
| Fri 11/29 | @ Houston | L 0-34 | — | 2 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| Sun 11/24 | @ South Florida | W 16-6 | — | 2 | 35 | 17.5 | 17.50 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 11/16 | vs UConnHigh volume · 2+ TD | W 38-21 | — | 8 | 88 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 20 |
| Sat 11/9 | @ Cincinnati100 receiving yards | L 25-28 | — | 7 | 142 | 20.3 | 20.30 | 0 | 74 |
| Sat 10/26 | vs Temple100 receiving yards · High volume | W 59-49 | — | 10 | 209 | 20.9 | 20.90 | 3 | 64 |
| Sat 10/19 | @ Memphis100 receiving yards | W 34-29 | — | 6 | 126 | 21 | 21 | 1 | 79 |
| Sat 10/5 | vs Rutgers | L 52-55 | — | 3 | 76 | 25.3 | 25.30 | 1 | 55 |
| Sat 9/28 | @ TCU | L 17-48 | — | 3 | 38 | 12.7 | 12.70 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 9/21 | @ Texas A&M100 receiving yards · High volume | L 13-42 | — | 10 | 133 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 1 | 31 |
| Sun 9/8 | vs Unknown | — | — | 6 | 30 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 8 |
| Sat 8/31 | vs Texas Tech | L 23-41 | — | 4 | 53 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 0 | 25 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
SMU
2010-2013
Opening stop
Season Progression
20102010201120122013
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 Postseason | SMU | 102 | 72.7 | 8.4 | — |
| 2010 Regular Season | SMU | 102 | 72.7 | 8.4 | 0 |
| 2011 Regular Season | SMU | 108 | 90 | 6.3 | 6 |
| 2012 Regular Season | SMU | 311 | 74.1 | 14 | 203 |
| 2013 Regular Season | SMU | 1,037 | 85.1 | 16.8 | 726 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Temple
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
209
Primary metric
209 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Unknown
88
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
88 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
UTEP
43
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
43 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Army
36
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
36 receiving yards with a 80 efficiency score.
#5
Cincinnati
142
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
142 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2013 Regular Season · SMU
1,037 primary output · 85.1 efficiency · 16.8 usage
66
#2
2012 Regular Season · SMU
46.3
311 primary · 74.1 efficiency · 14 usage
#3
2011 Regular Season · SMU
45.8
108 primary · 90 efficiency · 6.3 usage
Milestones
4
100+ receiving yards
3
8+ catch outings
2
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2010 · Rating 0.8111
Central · San Angelo, TX
- Committed To
- SMU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2010
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
1,558
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 29 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.