Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason
UCF paired 0 primary output with — efficiency.
Player Stats
Jeff Godfrey College Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Career production snapshot
- Receiving yards
- 835
- Receptions
- 83
- Touchdowns
- 46
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 Postseason | UCF | 14 | - | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 2010 Regular Season | UCF | 14 | - | 0 | 23 | 100 |
| 2011 Regular Season | UCF | 12 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 36.9 |
| 2012 Postseason | UCF | 14 | 3 | 29 | 0 | 69.9 |
| 2012 Regular Season | UCF | 14 | 36 | 400 | 5 | 69.9 |
| 2013 Postseason | UCF | 12 | 5 | 60 | 0 | 68.4 |
| 2013 Regular Season | UCF | 12 | 38 | 346 | 4 | 68.4 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2013 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 59 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: Houston
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 compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2013 Postseason · UCF
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
33.8
Efficiency
59
Usage
17.6
Consistency
61.5
Best Game by takeover score
Houston
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Game-by-Game Trend
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. Baylor: 60. Akron: 13. Florida International: 33. Penn State: 28. South Carolina: 18. Memphis: 11. Louisville: 20. UConn: 54. Houston: 67. Temple: 0. Rutgers: 40. SMU: 62
Volume vs Efficiency
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. Baylor: 5 by 80. Akron: 2 by 43.3. Florida International: 4 by 55. Penn State: 1 by 100. South Carolina: 3 by 40. Memphis: 3 by 24.4. Louisville: 3 by 44.4. UConn: 6 by 60. Houston: 5 by 89.3. Temple: 3 by 0. Rutgers: 3 by 88.9. SMU: 5 by 82.7
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins35.3 · Games = 11 · +17.3 vs Losses
Losses18 · Games = 1 · -17.3 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Jeff Godfrey
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.