Usage Score
12.9
Player Dossier
2012-2015TCU
Kolby Listenbee
WR • 6'1" • Arlington, TX, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Kolby Listenbee reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
79.3
Consistency
62.1
Season Value
59
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · TCU
121314141515
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- TCU
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
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.
Kolby Listenbee, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · TCU. Kolby Listenbee reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Kolby Listenbee played WR for TCU. Across 4 tracked seasons, Kolby Listenbee recorded 31 passing yards, 30 rushing yards, and 1,432 receiving yards. His top tracked season came in 2014 with TCU.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason
TCU paired 753 primary output with 90.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 79.3 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: Unknown
Game 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.
2015 Postseason · TCU
Games
10
Receiving Yards / G
59.7
Efficiency
79.3
Usage
12.9
Consistency
62.1
Best Game by takeover score
Oregon
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. Oregon: -1. Minnesota: 9. Unknown: 142. SMU: 51. Iowa State: 101. West Virginia: 86. Oklahoma State: 58. Kansas: 48. Oklahoma: 98. Baylor: 5
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. Oregon: 1 by 0. Minnesota: 1 by 60. Unknown: 6 by 100. SMU: 2 by 100. Iowa State: 6 by 100. West Virginia: 4 by 100. Oklahoma State: 3 by 100. Kansas: 2 by 100. Oklahoma: 4 by 100. Baylor: 1 by 33.3
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins42.7 · Games = 7 · -35.3 vs Losses
Losses78 · Games = 2 · +35.3 vs Wins
First Half60.4 · Games = 5 · +1.4 vs Second Half
Second Half59 · Games = 5 · -1.4 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
10 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Unknown
Best efficiency game
100 vs Oklahoma
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/2 | vs Oregon | W 47-41 | — | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 |
| Sat 11/28 | vs Baylor | W 28-21 | — | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Sun 11/22 | @ Oklahoma | L 29-30 | — | 4 | 98 | 24.5 | 24.50 | 1 | 44 |
| Sat 11/14 | vs Kansas | W 23-17 | — | 2 | 48 | 19.7 | 24 | 0 | 30 |
| Sat 11/7 | @ Oklahoma State | L 29-49 | — | 3 | 58 | 19.3 | 19.30 | 1 | 32 |
| Thu 10/29 | vs West Virginia | W 40-10 | — | 4 | 86 | 21.5 | 21.50 | 0 | 42 |
| Sat 10/17 | @ Iowa State100 receiving yards | W 45-21 | — | 6 | 101 | 16.8 | 16.80 | 1 | 40 |
| Sun 9/20 | vs SMU | W 56-37 | — | 2 | 51 | 25.5 | 25.50 | 1 | 31 |
| Sat 9/12 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards | — | — | 6 | 142 | 23.7 | 23.70 | 1 | 60 |
| Fri 9/4 | @ Minnesota | W 23-17 | — | 1 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
TCU
2012-2015
Opening stop
Season Progression
201220132014201420152015
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Postseason | TCU | 59 | 100 | 7.7 | — |
| 2013 Regular Season | TCU | 23 | 66.7 | 5.1 | -36 |
| 2014 Postseason | TCU | 753 | 90.9 | 14.6 | 730 |
| 2014 Regular Season | TCU | 753 | 90.9 | 14.6 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | TCU | 597 | 79.3 | 12.9 | -156 |
| 2015 Regular Season | TCU | 597 | 79.3 | 12.9 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Unknown
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
142
Primary metric
142 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Baylor
146
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
146 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Michigan State
59
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
59 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Unknown
18
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
18 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Oklahoma
98
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
98 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2014 Postseason · TCU
753 primary output · 90.9 efficiency · 14.6 usage
66.5
#2
2014 Regular Season · TCU
66.5
753 primary · 90.9 efficiency · 14.6 usage
#3
2015 Postseason · TCU
59
597 primary · 79.3 efficiency · 12.9 usage
Milestones
4
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2012 · Rating 0.8762
Bowie · Arlington, TX
- Committed To
- TCU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2012
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,432
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 26 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.