Player Stats

John Clay College Stats

Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.

Stat Footprint

Career production snapshot

Scrimmage yards
3,485
Rushing yards
3,413
Receiving yards
72
Touchdowns
41

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesScrimmageRush YdsRec YdsTDOverall
2008 PostseasonWisconsin1339390061.6
2008 Regular SeasonWisconsin138478452961.6
2009 PostseasonWisconsin131271216284.1
2009 Regular SeasonWisconsin131,4511,396551684.1
2010 PostseasonWisconsin1176760171.4
2010 Regular SeasonWisconsin1194593691371.4

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason

Wisconsin paired 1,578 primary output with 55.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2010 Postseason role shape

backfield-heavy usage with 54.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2010 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: San José State

Win driven by a workhorse rushing load. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2010 Postseason · Wisconsin

Games

11

Scrimmage Yards / G

92.8

Efficiency

54.6

Usage

30.1

Consistency

80.5

Best Game by takeover score

San José State

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.

1234567891011

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. TCU: 76. UNLV: 123. San José State: 137. Arizona State: 123. Austin Peay: 118. Michigan State: 80. Minnesota: 111. Ohio State: 104. Iowa: 100. Purdue: 42. Northwestern: 7

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. TCU: 11 by 72. UNLV: 17 by 75.4. San José State: 23 by 62. Arizona State: 22 by 58.2. Austin Peay: 15 by 81.9. Michigan State: 17 by 49. Minnesota: 21 by 55.1. Ohio State: 21 by 51.6. Iowa: 25 by 40.4. Purdue: 12 by 36.5. Northwestern: 4 by 18.2

Split Comparison

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

Wins96.1 · Games = 9 · +18.1 vs Losses
Losses78 · Games = 2 · -18.1 vs Wins