Usage Score
14.1
Player Dossier
2012-2016Oklahoma State
Jhajuan Seales
WR • 6'0" • Port Arthur, TX, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Jhajuan Seales reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
84.6
Consistency
62.2
Season Value
65.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Oklahoma State
121313141415151616
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 9
- Program Path
- Oklahoma State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Pittsburgh
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.
Jhajuan Seales, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Oklahoma State. Jhajuan Seales reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Oklahoma State paired 615 primary output with 84.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 84.6 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: Pittsburgh
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 · Oklahoma State
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
51.3
Efficiency
84.6
Usage
14.1
Consistency
62.2
Best Game by takeover score
Colorado
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Colorado: 43. Unknown: 61. Central Michigan: 34. Pittsburgh: 129. Baylor: 20. Texas: 49. Iowa State: 33. Kansas: 9. West Virginia: 21. Kansas State: 67. Texas Tech: 69. Oklahoma: 80
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. Colorado: 3 by 95.6. Unknown: 3 by 100. Central Michigan: 3 by 75.6. Pittsburgh: 7 by 100. Baylor: 2 by 66.7. Texas: 3 by 100. Iowa State: 1 by 100. Kansas: 2 by 30. West Virginia: 3 by 46.7. Kansas State: 3 by 100. Texas Tech: 4 by 100. Oklahoma: 3 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins52.5 · n=8 · +7.8 vs Losses
Losses44.7 · n=3 · -7.8 vs Wins
First Half56 · n=6 · +9.5 vs Second Half
Second Half46.5 · n=6 · -9.5 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Pittsburgh
Best efficiency game
100 vs Oklahoma
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/30 | @ Colorado | W 38-8 | — | 3 | 43 | 11.5 | 14.30 | 1 | 23 |
| Sat 12/3 | @ Oklahoma | L 20-38 | — | 3 | 80 | 26.7 | 26.70 | 0 | 54 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs Texas Tech | W 45-44 | — | 4 | 69 | 17.3 | 17.30 | 0 | 38 |
| Sat 11/5 | @ Kansas State | W 43-37 | — | 3 | 67 | 22.3 | 22.30 | 0 | 48 |
| Sat 10/29 | vs West Virginia | W 37-20 | — | 3 | 21 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 9 |
| Sat 10/22 | @ Kansas | W 44-20 | — | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 4.50 | 0 | 5 |
| Sat 10/8 | vs Iowa State | W 38-31 | — | 1 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 1 | 33 |
| Sat 10/1 | vs Texas | W 49-31 | — | 3 | 49 | 16.3 | 16.30 | 0 | 34 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ Baylor | L 24-35 | — | 2 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Pittsburgh100 receiving yards | W 45-38 | — | 7 | 129 | 18.4 | 18.40 | 0 | 86 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Central Michigan | L 27-30 | — | 3 | 34 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs Unknown2+ TD | — | — | 3 | 61 | 20.3 | 20.30 | 2 | 24 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Oklahoma State
2012-2016
Opening stop
Season Progression
201220132013201420142015201520162016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | Oklahoma State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2013 Postseason | Oklahoma State | 571 | 82.2 | 14.2 | 571 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Oklahoma State | 571 | 82.2 | 14.2 | 0 |
| 2014 Postseason | Oklahoma State | 278 | 72.5 | 12.7 | -293 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Oklahoma State | 278 | 72.5 | 12.7 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Oklahoma State | 321 | 71.8 | 7.2 | 43 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Oklahoma State | 321 | 71.8 | 7.2 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Oklahoma State | 615 | 84.6 | 14.1 | 294 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Oklahoma State | 615 | 84.6 | 14.1 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Pittsburgh
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
129
Primary metric
129 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Kansas State
87
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
87 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Iowa State
75
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
75 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
UTSA
75
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
75 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Baylor
89
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
89 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2016 Postseason · Oklahoma State
615 primary output · 84.6 efficiency · 14.1 usage
65.2
#2
2016 Regular Season · Oklahoma State
65.2
615 primary · 84.6 efficiency · 14.1 usage
#3
2013 Postseason · Oklahoma State
64.7
571 primary · 82.2 efficiency · 14.2 usage
Milestones
1
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2012 · Rating 0.8115
Memorial · Port Arthur, TX
- Committed To
- Oklahoma State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2012
Career Facts
1
Career teams
9
Seasons tracked
1,785
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 9 tracked seasons, 43 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.