Usage Score
30.5
Player Dossier
2012-2015Oklahoma
Sterling Shepard
WR • 5'10" • Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Sterling Shepard reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
91.4
Consistency
71.2
Season Value
73.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Oklahoma
1212131314141515
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Oklahoma
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: TCU
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.
Sterling Shepard, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Oklahoma. Sterling Shepard reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Oklahoma paired 1,288 primary output with 91.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 91.4 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: Baylor
Win 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 · Oklahoma
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
99.1
Efficiency
91.4
Usage
30.5
Consistency
71.2
Best Game by takeover score
Clemson
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. Clemson: 87. Akron: 68. Tennessee: 74. Tulsa: 144. West Virginia: 35. Texas: 95. Kansas State: 83. Texas Tech: 50. Kansas: 183. Iowa State: 94. Baylor: 177. TCU: 111. Oklahoma State: 87
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. Clemson: 7 by 82.9. Akron: 3 by 100. Tennessee: 7 by 70.5. Tulsa: 8 by 100. West Virginia: 2 by 100. Texas: 6 by 100. Kansas State: 4 by 100. Texas Tech: 2 by 100. Kansas: 11 by 100. Iowa State: 4 by 100. Baylor: 14 by 84.3. TCU: 8 by 92.5. Oklahoma State: 10 by 58
Split Comparison
Wins100.5 · n=11 · +9.5 vs Losses
Losses91 · n=2 · -9.5 vs Wins
First Half83.7 · n=7 · -33.3 vs Second Half
Second Half117 · n=6 · +33.3 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
Baylor
Best efficiency game
100 vs Iowa State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 12/31 | @ Clemson | L 17-37 | — | 7 | 87 | 11.5 | 12.40 | 0 | 27 |
| Sun 11/29 | @ Oklahoma StateHigh volume | W 58-23 | — | 10 | 87 | 8.7 | 8.70 | 1 | 17 |
| Sun 11/22 | vs TCU100 receiving yards · High volume | W 30-29 | — | 8 | 111 | 13.9 | 13.90 | 1 | 32 |
| Sun 11/15 | @ Baylor100 receiving yards · High volume | W 44-34 | — | 14 | 177 | 12.6 | 12.60 | 2 | 39 |
| Sun 11/8 | vs Iowa State | W 52-16 | — | 4 | 94 | 23.5 | 23.50 | 1 | 74 |
| Sat 10/31 | @ Kansas100 receiving yards · High volume | W 62-7 | — | 11 | 183 | 16.6 | 16.60 | 1 | 41 |
| Sat 10/24 | vs Texas Tech | W 63-27 | — | 2 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 33 |
| Sat 10/17 | @ Kansas State2+ TD | W 55-0 | — | 4 | 83 | 20.8 | 20.80 | 2 | 28 |
| Sat 10/10 | @ Texas | L 17-24 | — | 6 | 95 | 15.8 | 15.80 | 0 | 50 |
| Sat 10/3 | vs West Virginia | W 44-24 | — | 2 | 35 | 17.5 | 17.50 | 1 | 28 |
| Sat 9/19 | vs Tulsa100 receiving yards · High volume | W 52-38 | — | 8 | 144 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 44 |
| Sat 9/12 | @ Tennessee2+ TD | W 31-24 | — | 7 | 74 | 10.6 | 10.60 | 2 | 19 |
| Sat 9/5 | vs Akron | W 41-3 | — | 3 | 68 | 22.7 | 22.70 | 0 | 38 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Oklahoma
2012-2015
Opening stop
Season Progression
20122012201320132014201420152015
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Postseason | Oklahoma | 621 | 83.5 | 12.9 | — |
| 2012 Regular Season | Oklahoma | 621 | 83.5 | 12.9 | 0 |
| 2013 Postseason | Oklahoma | 603 | 72 | 27.7 | -18 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Oklahoma | 603 | 72 | 27.7 | 0 |
| 2014 Postseason | Oklahoma | 970 | 95.1 | 29.1 | 367 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Oklahoma | 970 | 95.1 | 29.1 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Oklahoma | 1,288 | 91.4 | 30.5 | 318 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Oklahoma | 1,288 | 91.4 | 30.5 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
TCU
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
215
Primary metric
215 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Baylor
177
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
177 receiving yards with a 84.3 efficiency score.
#3
Oklahoma State
112
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
112 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Kansas
183
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
183 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Kansas State
197
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
197 receiving yards with a 87.6 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Oklahoma
1,288 primary output · 91.4 efficiency · 30.5 usage
73.3
#2
2015 Regular Season · Oklahoma
73.3
1,288 primary · 91.4 efficiency · 30.5 usage
#3
2014 Postseason · Oklahoma
62
970 primary · 95.1 efficiency · 29.1 usage
Milestones
12
100+ receiving yards
8
8+ catch outings
5
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2012 · Rating 0.9551
Heritage Hall · Oklahoma City, OK
- Committed To
- Oklahoma
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2012
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
3,482
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 48 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.