Usage Score
24.8
Player Dossier
2011-2015Arkansas State
J.D. McKissic
WR • 5'11" • Phenix City, AL, USA
Alpha targetPossession profile
J.D. McKissic reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
61.4
Consistency
58.8
Season Value
50.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2012 Postseason · Arkansas State
111212131314141515
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 9
- Program Path
- Arkansas State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: UL Monroe
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.
J.D. McKissic, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2012 Postseason · Arkansas State. J.D. McKissic reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2012 Postseason
Arkansas State paired 1,022 primary output with 61.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 61.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2015 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Missouri
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 92.3th 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.
2015 Postseason · Arkansas State
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
40.4
Efficiency
61.4
Usage
24.8
Consistency
58.8
Best Game by takeover score
Louisiana Tech
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. Louisiana Tech: 26. USC: 36. Missouri: 82. Unknown: 85. Toledo: 41. Idaho: 40. South Alabama: 27. Louisiana: -1. Georgia State: 82. App State: 27. UL Monroe: 20. New Mexico State: 53. Texas State: 7
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. Louisiana Tech: 3 by 57.8. USC: 5 by 48. Missouri: 8 by 68.3. Unknown: 4 by 100. Toledo: 6 by 45.6. Idaho: 4 by 66.7. South Alabama: 2 by 90. Louisiana: 2 by 0. Georgia State: 7 by 78.1. App State: 3 by 60. UL Monroe: 2 by 66.7. New Mexico State: 5 by 70.7. Texas State: 1 by 46.7
Split Comparison
Wins31.9 · n=8 · -14.4 vs Losses
Losses46.3 · n=4 · +14.4 vs Wins
First Half48.1 · n=7 · +16.8 vs Second Half
Second Half31.3 · n=6 · -16.8 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
Missouri
Best efficiency game
100 vs Unknown
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun 12/20 | @ Louisiana Tech | L 28-47 | — | 3 | 26 | 8.5 | 8.70 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 12/5 | vs Texas State | W 55-17 | — | 1 | 7 | 5.5 | 7 | 1 | 7 |
| Sat 11/28 | @ New Mexico State | W 52-28 | — | 5 | 53 | 9.3 | 10.60 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 11/14 | @ UL Monroe | W 59-21 | — | 2 | 20 | 4.7 | 10 | 0 | 12 |
| Fri 11/6 | @ App State | W 40-27 | — | 3 | 27 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 10/31 | vs Georgia State | W 48-34 | — | 7 | 82 | 11.2 | 11.70 | 0 | 35 |
| Wed 10/21 | vs Louisiana | W 37-27 | — | 2 | -1 | 2.5 | -0.50 | 0 | 2 |
| Wed 10/14 | @ South Alabama | W 49-31 | — | 2 | 27 | 16.7 | 13.50 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 10/3 | vs Idaho | W 49-35 | — | 4 | 40 | 9.8 | 10 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 9/26 | @ Toledo | L 7-37 | — | 6 | 41 | 6.8 | 6.80 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 9/19 | vs Unknown | — | — | 4 | 85 | 21.3 | 21.30 | 1 | 49 |
| Sat 9/12 | vs MissouriHigh volume | L 20-27 | — | 8 | 82 | 7.8 | 10.30 | 0 | 23 |
| Sun 9/6 | @ USC | L 6-55 | — | 5 | 36 | 6.3 | 7.20 | 0 | 14 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Arkansas State
2011-2015
Opening stop
Season Progression
201120122012201320132014201420152015
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2012 Postseason | Arkansas State | 1,022 | 61.4 | 37.7 | 1,022 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 1,022 | 61.4 | 37.7 | 0 |
| 2013 Postseason | Arkansas State | 662 | 54.3 | 33.7 | -360 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 662 | 54.3 | 33.7 | 0 |
| 2014 Postseason | Arkansas State | 629 | 75.7 | 23.3 | -33 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 629 | 75.7 | 23.3 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Arkansas State | 525 | 61.4 | 24.8 | -104 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Arkansas State | 525 | 61.4 | 24.8 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
UL Monroe
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
120
Primary metric
120 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Florida International
124
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
124 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Missouri
82
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
82 receiving yards with a 68.3 efficiency score.
#4
Troy
138
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
138 receiving yards with a 76.7 efficiency score.
#5
Unknown
85
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
85 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2012 Postseason · Arkansas State
1,022 primary output · 61.4 efficiency · 37.7 usage
67.8
#2
2012 Regular Season · Arkansas State
67.8
1,022 primary · 61.4 efficiency · 37.7 usage
#3
2013 Postseason · Arkansas State
57
662 primary · 54.3 efficiency · 33.7 usage
Milestones
6
100+ receiving yards
13
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2011 · Rating 0.7333
Central · Phenix City, AL
- Committed To
- Arkansas State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2011
Career Facts
1
Career teams
9
Seasons tracked
2,838
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 9 tracked seasons, 49 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.