Player Dossier

2013-2016

Arkansas

Drew Morgan

WR • 6'0" • Greenwood, AR, USA

Alpha targetExplosive finisher

Drew Morgan reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.

Usage Score

26.3

Efficiency

70.5

Consistency

65.2

Season Value

64.1

Career Arc

Value trend by season

Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Arkansas

13141415151616

Snapshot

Career Teams
1
Seasons Tracked
7
Program Path
Arkansas
Peak Game
Peak game by takeover score: Texas A&M

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.

Drew Morgan, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Arkansas. Drew Morgan reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.

Drew Morgan played WR for Arkansas. Across 4 tracked seasons, Drew Morgan recorded 28 rushing yards, 1,763 receiving yards, and 14 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2015 with Arkansas.

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason

Arkansas paired 843 primary output with 78.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2016 Postseason role shape

target-driven usage with 70.5 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: Florida

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 · Arkansas

Games

13

Receiving Yards / G

56.8

Efficiency

70.5

Usage

26.3

Consistency

65.2

Best Game by takeover score

Virginia Tech

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.

12345678910111213

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Virginia Tech: 75. Louisiana Tech: 47. TCU: 93. Texas State: 28. Texas A&M: 86. Unknown: 47. Alabama: 43. Ole Miss: 34. Auburn: 42. Florida: 95. LSU: 4. Mississippi State: 91. Missouri: 54

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. Virginia Tech: 4 by 100. Louisiana Tech: 5 by 62.7. TCU: 7 by 88.6. Texas State: 3 by 62.2. Texas A&M: 9 by 63.7. Unknown: 4 by 78.3. Alabama: 5 by 57.3. Ole Miss: 4 by 56.7. Auburn: 4 by 70. Florida: 7 by 90.5. LSU: 1 by 26.7. Mississippi State: 6 by 100. Missouri: 6 by 60

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins64.7 · Games = 6 · +14.0 vs Losses
Losses50.7 · Games = 6 · -14.0 vs Wins
First Half59.9 · Games = 7 · +6.5 vs Second Half
Second Half53.3 · Games = 6 · -6.5 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

Florida

Best efficiency game

100 vs Virginia Tech

Result
Thu 12/29@ Virginia TechL 24-3547515.818.80036
Fri 11/25@ MissouriL 24-286548.99019
Sun 11/20@ Mississippi StateW 58-4269115.215.20034
Sun 11/13vs LSUL 10-38143404
Sat 11/5vs FloridaW 31-1079513.613.60121
Sat 10/22@ AuburnL 3-5644210.510.50019
Sat 10/15vs Ole MissW 34-304348.58.50113
Sat 10/8vs AlabamaL 30-495436.28.60023
Sat 10/1vs Unknown44711.811.80017
Sun 9/25@ Texas A&MHigh volumeL 24-459869.69.60021
Sat 9/17vs Texas StateW 42-33289.39.30015
Sat 9/10@ TCUW 41-3879313.313.30124
Sat 9/3vs Louisiana TechW 21-205479.49.40018

Career Arc

Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.

  1. 1

    Arkansas

    2013-2016

    Opening stop

Season Progression

2013201420142015201520162016
SeasonTeamPrimaryEfficiencyUsageDelta
2013 Regular SeasonArkansas0
2014 PostseasonArkansas18183.814181
2014 Regular SeasonArkansas18183.8140
2015 PostseasonArkansas84378.325.6662
2015 Regular SeasonArkansas84378.325.60
2016 PostseasonArkansas73970.526.3-104
2016 Regular SeasonArkansas73970.526.30

Signature Performances

Top Games

#1 Featured game

Texas A&M

Loss with an explosive receiving profile.

155

Primary metric

155 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.

#2

Ole Miss

51

Primary metric

Win with an explosive receiving profile.

51 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.

#3

Florida

95

Primary metric

Win with an explosive receiving profile.

95 receiving yards with a 90.5 efficiency score.

#4

TCU

93

Primary metric

Win with an explosive receiving profile.

93 receiving yards with a 88.6 efficiency score.

#5

Mississippi State

91

Primary metric

Win with an explosive receiving profile.

91 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.

Top Seasons

#1 Season by value score

2015 Postseason · Arkansas

843 primary output · 78.3 efficiency · 25.6 usage

65.3

#2

2015 Regular Season · Arkansas

65.3

843 primary · 78.3 efficiency · 25.6 usage

#3

2016 Postseason · Arkansas

64.1

739 primary · 70.5 efficiency · 26.3 usage

Milestones

3

100+ receiving yards

4

8+ catch outings

2

2+ TD games

Bio, Recruit, and Data Context

Recruit Profile

2★

Class 2013 · Rating 0.7908

Greenwood · Greenwood, AR

Committed To
Arkansas
Commit Date
Jan 1, 2013

Career Facts

1

Career teams

7

Seasons tracked

1,763

Career Receiving Yards

Data Context

Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 33 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.