Usage Score
27.7
Player Dossier
2008-2011Mississippi State
QB • 6'4" • Montgomery, AL, USA
Chris Relf is a balanced quarterback profile with 27.7 usage in the latest tracked season.
Usage Score
27.7
Efficiency
55.3
Consistency
59.5
Season Value
53.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Mississippi State
Snapshot
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.
Chris Relf, QB. Best season Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Mississippi State. Chris Relf is a balanced quarterback profile with 27.7 usage in the latest tracked season.
Chris Relf played QB for Mississippi State. Across 4 tracked seasons, Chris Relf recorded 3,297 passing yards, 1,575 rushing yards, and 3 receiving yards. His top tracked season came in 2010 with Mississippi State.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason
Mississippi State paired 2,502 primary output with 60.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
pass-led usage with 55.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2011 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Auburn
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
11
Primary Metric / G
144.3
Efficiency
55.3
Usage
27.7
Consistency
59.5
Best Game by takeover score
Wake Forest
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Wake Forest: 193. Memphis: 253. Auburn: 301. LSU: 106. Louisiana Tech: 184. Georgia: 188. UAB: 58. Kentucky: 105. Unknown: 83. Alabama: -3. Ole Miss: 119
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. Wake Forest: 34 by 55.1. Memphis: 34 by 70.3. Auburn: 60 by 59.2. LSU: 33 by 48.6. Louisiana Tech: 38 by 51. Georgia: 46 by 49.6. UAB: 15 by 55.6. Kentucky: 15 by 57.3. Unknown: 10 by 80.8. Alabama: 5 by 25. Ole Miss: 23 by 56.2
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
11 games
Featured metric
Total Offense
Top game by takeover score
Auburn
Best efficiency game
80.8 vs Unknown
| Result | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/30 | @ Wake ForestDual-threat | W 23-17 | 12 | 19 | 129 | 63.2 | 1 | 2 | 55.1 | 15 | 64 | 4.30 | 0 | 27 |
| Sun 11/27 | vs Ole Miss | W 31-3 | 8 | 13 | 70 | 61.5 | 2 | 1 | 56.2 | 10 | 49 | 4.90 | 0 | 17 |
| Sun 11/13 | vs Alabama | L 7-24 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 3 | -3 | -1 | 0 | 3 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Unknown | — | 5 | 6 | 61 | 83.3 | 2 | 0 | 80.8 | 4 | 22 | 5.50 | 0 | 9 |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Kentucky3+ TD | W 28-16 | 6 | 9 | 92 | 66.7 | 1 | 1 | 57.3 | 6 | 13 | 2.20 | 2 | 12 |
| Sat 10/8 | @ UAB | W 21-3 | 6 | 10 | 46 | 60.0 | 0 | 0 | 55.6 | 5 | 12 | 2.40 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Georgia | L 10-24 | 19 | 31 | 157 | 61.3 | 0 | 2 | 49.6 | 15 | 31 | 2.10 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Louisiana Tech | W 26-20 | 14 | 29 | 164 | 48.3 | 1 | 1 | 51 | 9 | 20 | 2.20 | 0 | 6 |
| Fri 9/16 | vs LSU | L 6-19 | 11 | 17 | 96 | 64.7 | 0 | 1 | 48.6 | 16 | 10 | 0.60 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 9/10 | @ AuburnDual-threat | L 34-41 | 20 | 33 | 195 | 60.6 | 1 | 1 | 59.2 | 27 | 106 | 3.90 | 0 | 17 |
| Fri 9/2 | @ MemphisDual-threat | W 59-14 | 13 | 21 | 202 | 61.9 | 2 | 0 | 70.3 | 13 | 51 | 3.90 | 0 | 10 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Mississippi State
2008-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 0 | 34.8 | 12.2 | — |
| 2009 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 783 | 60.5 | 16.8 | 783 |
| 2010 Postseason | Mississippi State | 2,502 | 60.4 | 31.5 | 1,719 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 2,502 | 60.4 | 31.5 | 0 |
| 2011 Postseason | Mississippi State | 1,587 | 55.3 | 27.7 | -915 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 1,587 | 55.3 | 27.7 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Ole Miss
Win with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
174
Primary metric
174 total offense with 79.8 efficiency.
#2
Auburn
301
Primary metric
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
301 total offense with 59.2 efficiency.
#3
Arkansas
327
Primary metric
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
327 total offense with 65.5 efficiency.
#4
Georgia
257
Primary metric
Win with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
257 total offense with 76.7 efficiency.
#5
Ole Miss
354
Primary metric
Win with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
354 total offense with 75 efficiency.
#1 Season by value score
2010 Postseason · Mississippi State
2,502 primary output · 60.4 efficiency · 31.5 usage
63.8
#2
2010 Regular Season · Mississippi State
63.8
2,502 primary · 60.4 efficiency · 31.5 usage
#3
2011 Postseason · Mississippi State
53.6
1,587 primary · 55.3 efficiency · 27.7 usage
6
250+ passing yards
4
300+ total offense
0
3+ takeover TD games
15
Above avg efficiency
Recruit Profile
Class 2007 · Rating 0.8089
Carver · Montgomery, AL
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
4,872
Career Total Offense
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 36 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.