Usage Score
24.6
Player Dossier
2012-2015Washington
Jaydon Mickens
WR • 5'11" • Los Angeles, CA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Jaydon Mickens reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
73.4
Consistency
70.3
Season Value
66.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Washington
1212131314141515
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Washington
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: California
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.
Jaydon Mickens, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Washington. Jaydon Mickens reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Washington paired 692 primary output with 73.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 73.4 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: Arizona State
Loss 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 · Washington
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
53.2
Efficiency
73.4
Usage
24.6
Consistency
70.3
Best Game by takeover score
Southern Miss
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. Southern Miss: 95. Boise State: 16. Unknown: 42. Utah State: 54. California: 9. USC: 49. Oregon: 23. Stanford: 41. Arizona: 56. Utah: 67. Arizona State: 100. Oregon State: 59. Washington State: 81
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. Southern Miss: 8 by 79.2. Boise State: 2 by 53.3. Unknown: 4 by 70. Utah State: 4 by 90. California: 3 by 20. USC: 6 by 54.4. Oregon: 3 by 51.1. Stanford: 3 by 91.1. Arizona: 3 by 100. Utah: 5 by 89.3. Arizona State: 5 by 100. Oregon State: 7 by 56.2. Washington State: 5 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins65.7 · n=6 · +23.0 vs Losses
Losses42.7 · n=6 · -23.0 vs Wins
First Half41.1 · n=7 · -26.2 vs Second Half
Second Half67.3 · n=6 · +26.2 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
Arizona State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Washington State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/26 | @ Southern MissHigh volume | W 44-31 | — | 8 | 95 | 13.8 | 11.90 | 0 | 20 |
| Fri 11/27 | vs Washington State | W 45-10 | — | 5 | 81 | 15.5 | 16.20 | 0 | 41 |
| Sat 11/21 | @ Oregon State | W 52-7 | — | 7 | 59 | 8.4 | 8.40 | 1 | 19 |
| Sat 11/14 | @ Arizona State100 receiving yards | L 17-27 | — | 5 | 100 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 43 |
| Sun 11/8 | vs Utah | L 23-34 | — | 5 | 67 | 11.2 | 13.40 | 0 | 19 |
| Sun 11/1 | vs Arizona | W 49-3 | — | 3 | 56 | 18.7 | 18.70 | 0 | 40 |
| Sun 10/25 | @ Stanford | L 14-31 | — | 3 | 41 | 13.7 | 13.70 | 0 | 24 |
| Sun 10/18 | vs Oregon | L 20-26 | — | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 7.70 | 1 | 16 |
| Fri 10/9 | @ USC | W 17-12 | — | 6 | 49 | 8.2 | 8.20 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 9/26 | vs California | L 24-30 | — | 3 | 9 | 0.8 | 3 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 9/19 | vs Utah State | W 31-17 | — | 4 | 54 | 9.7 | 13.50 | 0 | 22 |
| Sat 9/12 | vs Unknown | — | — | 4 | 42 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 9/5 | @ Boise State | L 13-16 | — | 2 | 16 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 9 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Washington
2012-2015
Opening stop
Season Progression
20122012201320132014201420152015
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Postseason | Washington | 190 | 53.8 | 8.9 | — |
| 2012 Regular Season | Washington | 190 | 53.8 | 8.9 | 0 |
| 2013 Postseason | Washington | 688 | 61.1 | 23.3 | 498 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Washington | 688 | 61.1 | 23.3 | 0 |
| 2014 Postseason | Washington | 617 | 63.2 | 22.7 | -71 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Washington | 617 | 63.2 | 22.7 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Washington | 692 | 73.4 | 24.6 | 75 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Washington | 692 | 73.4 | 24.6 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
California
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
180
Primary metric
180 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Oregon State
84
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
84 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Illinois
75
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
75 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Arizona State
100
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
100 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Washington State
81
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
81 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Washington
692 primary output · 73.4 efficiency · 24.6 usage
66.7
#2
2015 Regular Season · Washington
66.7
692 primary · 73.4 efficiency · 24.6 usage
#3
2014 Postseason · Washington
59.3
617 primary · 63.2 efficiency · 22.7 usage
Milestones
3
100+ receiving yards
6
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2012 · Rating 0.9268
Dorsey · Los Angeles, CA
- Committed To
- Washington
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2012
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
2,187
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 53 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.