Usage Score
28.6
Player Dossier
2012-2016Tulsa
Josh Atkinson
WR • 6'2" • Carrollton, TX, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Josh Atkinson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
86.8
Consistency
70.1
Season Value
71.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Tulsa
12131415151616
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Tulsa
- 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.
Josh Atkinson, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Tulsa. Josh Atkinson reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Tulsa paired 1,058 primary output with 86.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 86.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2016 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Tulane
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.
2016 Postseason · Tulsa
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
81.4
Efficiency
86.8
Usage
28.6
Consistency
70.1
Best Game by takeover score
Central Michigan
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. Central Michigan: 131. San José State: 42. Ohio State: 38. Unknown: 52. Fresno State: 107. SMU: 115. Houston: 23. Tulane: 142. Memphis: 72. East Carolina: 123. Navy: 102. UCF: 15. Cincinnati: 96
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. Central Michigan: 12 by 72.8. San José State: 2 by 100. Ohio State: 4 by 63.3. Unknown: 5 by 69.3. Fresno State: 10 by 71.3. SMU: 11 by 69.7. Houston: 1 by 100. Tulane: 7 by 100. Memphis: 4 by 100. East Carolina: 10 by 82. Navy: 5 by 100. UCF: 1 by 100. Cincinnati: 6 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins93.7 · n=9 · +39.3 vs Losses
Losses54.3 · n=3 · -39.3 vs Wins
First Half72.6 · n=7 · -19.1 vs Second Half
Second Half91.7 · n=6 · +19.1 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
Tulane
Best efficiency game
100 vs Cincinnati
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon 12/19 | vs Central Michigan100 receiving yards · High volume | W 55-10 | — | 12 | 131 | 10.9 | 10.90 | 1 | 30 |
| Sat 11/26 | vs Cincinnati | W 40-37 | — | 6 | 96 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 22 |
| Sun 11/20 | @ UCF | W 35-20 | — | 1 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 15 |
| Sat 11/12 | @ Navy100 receiving yards | L 40-42 | — | 5 | 102 | 20.4 | 20.40 | 1 | 56 |
| Sun 11/6 | vs East Carolina100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-24 | — | 10 | 123 | 12.3 | 12.30 | 2 | 64 |
| Sun 10/30 | @ Memphis | W 59-30 | — | 4 | 72 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 10/22 | vs Tulane100 receiving yards | W 50-27 | — | 7 | 142 | 20.3 | 20.30 | 1 | 49 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ Houston | L 31-38 | — | 1 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 10/8 | vs SMU100 receiving yards · High volume | W 43-40 | — | 11 | 115 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 1 | 18 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ Fresno State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 48-41 | — | 10 | 107 | 10.7 | 10.70 | 1 | 24 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Unknown | — | — | 5 | 52 | 10.4 | 10.40 | 0 | 19 |
| Sat 9/10 | @ Ohio State | L 3-48 | — | 4 | 38 | 9.5 | 9.50 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs San José State | W 45-10 | — | 2 | 42 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 33 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Tulsa
2012-2016
Opening stop
Season Progression
2012201320142015201520162016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | Tulsa | 33 | 55 | 21.1 | — |
| 2013 Regular Season | Tulsa | 76 | 58.4 | 15.4 | 43 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Tulsa | 416 | 73.2 | 14 | 340 |
| 2015 Postseason | Tulsa | 1,071 | 78.4 | 25.6 | 655 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Tulsa | 1,071 | 78.4 | 25.6 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Tulsa | 1,058 | 86.8 | 28.6 | -13 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Tulsa | 1,058 | 86.8 | 28.6 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Tulane
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
142
Primary metric
142 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
East Carolina
136
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
136 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Virginia Tech
139
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
139 receiving yards with a 84.2 efficiency score.
#4
East Carolina
123
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
123 receiving yards with a 82 efficiency score.
#5
Florida Atlantic
85
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
85 receiving yards with a 81 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2016 Postseason · Tulsa
1,058 primary output · 86.8 efficiency · 28.6 usage
71.4
#2
2016 Regular Season · Tulsa
71.4
1,058 primary · 86.8 efficiency · 28.6 usage
#3
2015 Postseason · Tulsa
69.5
1,071 primary · 78.4 efficiency · 25.6 usage
Milestones
12
100+ receiving yards
10
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
2,654
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 42 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.