Usage Score
29.6
Player Dossier
2010-2014East Carolina
Justin Hardy
WR • 6'0" • Vanceboro, NC, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Justin Hardy reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
81.1
Consistency
76.4
Season Value
71.8
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · East Carolina
1011121213131414
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- East Carolina
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Tulane
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.
Justin Hardy, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · East Carolina. Justin Hardy reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason
East Carolina paired 1,494 primary output with 81.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
2014 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 81.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2014 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Cincinnati
Loss 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.
2014 Postseason · East Carolina
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
114.9
Efficiency
81.1
Usage
29.6
Consistency
76.4
Best Game by takeover score
Florida
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. Florida: 160. Unknown: 87. South Carolina: 133. Virginia Tech: 47. North Carolina: 92. SMU: 120. South Florida: 114. UConn: 186. Temple: 35. Cincinnati: 188. Tulane: 104. Tulsa: 88. UCF: 140
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. Florida: 11 by 97. Unknown: 8 by 72.5. South Carolina: 11 by 80.6. Virginia Tech: 4 by 78.3. North Carolina: 6 by 100. SMU: 8 by 100. South Florida: 10 by 76. UConn: 14 by 88.6. Temple: 4 by 58.3. Cincinnati: 15 by 83.6. Tulane: 9 by 77. Tulsa: 9 by 65.2. UCF: 12 by 77.8
Split Comparison
Wins107.3 · n=7 · -23.9 vs Losses
Losses131.2 · n=5 · +23.9 vs Wins
First Half107.6 · n=7 · -15.9 vs Second Half
Second Half123.5 · n=6 · +15.9 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
Cincinnati
Best efficiency game
100 vs SMU
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/3 | @ Florida100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-28 | — | 11 | 160 | 14.5 | 14.50 | 1 | 66 |
| Fri 12/5 | vs UCF100 receiving yards · High volume | L 30-32 | — | 12 | 140 | 11.7 | 11.70 | 1 | 30 |
| Sat 11/29 | @ TulsaHigh volume | W 49-32 | — | 9 | 88 | 9.8 | 9.80 | 1 | 20 |
| Sat 11/22 | vs Tulane100 receiving yards · High volume | W 34-6 | — | 9 | 104 | 11.6 | 11.60 | 0 | 22 |
| Fri 11/14 | @ Cincinnati100 receiving yards · High volume | L 46-54 | — | 15 | 188 | 12.2 | 12.50 | 1 | 31 |
| Sat 11/1 | @ Temple | L 10-20 | — | 4 | 35 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 0 | 13 |
| Thu 10/23 | vs UConn100 receiving yards · High volume | W 31-21 | — | 14 | 186 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 1 | 30 |
| Sat 10/11 | @ South Florida100 receiving yards · High volume | W 28-17 | — | 10 | 114 | 11.4 | 11.40 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 10/4 | vs SMU100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-24 | — | 8 | 120 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 38 |
| Sat 9/20 | vs North Carolina | W 70-41 | — | 6 | 92 | 15.3 | 15.30 | 0 | 24 |
| Sat 9/13 | @ Virginia Tech | W 28-21 | — | 4 | 47 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 0 | 18 |
| Sat 9/6 | @ South Carolina100 receiving yards · High volume | L 23-33 | — | 11 | 133 | 12.1 | 12.10 | 0 | 23 |
| Sun 8/31 | vs UnknownHigh volume · 2+ TD | — | — | 8 | 87 | 10.9 | 10.90 | 2 | 20 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
East Carolina
2010-2014
Opening stop
Season Progression
20102011201220122013201320142014
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 Regular Season | East Carolina | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2011 Regular Season | East Carolina | 658 | 70.2 | 22.1 | 658 |
| 2012 Postseason | East Carolina | 1,105 | 72.7 | 27.5 | 447 |
| 2012 Regular Season | East Carolina | 1,105 | 72.7 | 27.5 | 0 |
| 2013 Postseason | East Carolina | 1,284 | 69.1 | 28.2 | 179 |
| 2013 Regular Season | East Carolina | 1,284 | 69.1 | 28.2 | 0 |
| 2014 Postseason | East Carolina | 1,494 | 81.1 | 29.6 | 210 |
| 2014 Regular Season | East Carolina | 1,494 | 81.1 | 29.6 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Tulane
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
230
Primary metric
230 receiving yards with a 90.2 efficiency score.
#2
Cincinnati
188
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
188 receiving yards with a 83.6 efficiency score.
#3
UConn
186
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
186 receiving yards with a 88.6 efficiency score.
#4
Florida
160
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
160 receiving yards with a 97 efficiency score.
#5
Marshall
171
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
171 receiving yards with a 71.3 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2014 Postseason · East Carolina
1,494 primary output · 81.1 efficiency · 29.6 usage
71.8
#2
2014 Regular Season · East Carolina
71.8
1,494 primary · 81.1 efficiency · 29.6 usage
#3
2013 Postseason · East Carolina
63.2
1,284 primary · 69.1 efficiency · 28.2 usage
Milestones
17
100+ receiving yards
23
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
4,541
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.