Usage Score
27.1
Player Profile
LaVon Brazill
WR • 5'11" • Lantana, FL, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
LaVon Brazill reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
82.3
Consistency
66.9
Season Value
69.1
Career Arc
Season-by-season value trend
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Ohio
07080909101111
Quick Facts
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Primary stop by seasons
- Ohio
- Best season by value score
- Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Ohio
- Peak game by takeover score
- Peak game by takeover score: Temple
LaVon Brazill, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Ohio. LaVon Brazill reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason
Ohio paired 1,150 primary output with 82.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 82.3 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: Temple
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2011 Postseason · Ohio
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
82.1
Efficiency
82.3
Usage
27.1
Consistency
66.9
Best Game by takeover score
Utah State
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011121314
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Utah State: 108. New Mexico State: 64. Unknown: 27. Marshall: 32. Rutgers: 74. Kent State: 102. Buffalo: 17. Ball State: 157. Akron: 102. Temple: 165. Central Michigan: 101. Bowling Green: 43. Miami (OH): 34. Northern Illinois: 124
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. Utah State: 8 by 90. New Mexico State: 3 by 100. Unknown: 5 by 36. Marshall: 3 by 71.1. Rutgers: 4 by 100. Kent State: 8 by 85. Buffalo: 3 by 37.8. Ball State: 8 by 100. Akron: 3 by 100. Temple: 7 by 100. Central Michigan: 4 by 100. Bowling Green: 5 by 57.3. Miami (OH): 3 by 75.6. Northern Illinois: 8 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins83.4 · n=9 · -9.6 vs Losses
Losses93 · n=4 · +9.6 vs Wins
First Half60.6 · n=7 · -43.1 vs Second Half
Second Half103.7 · n=7 · +43.1 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Temple
Best efficiency game
100 vs Northern Illinois
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/17 | @ Utah State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 24-23 | — | 8 | 108 | 13.5 | 13.50 | 1 | 44 |
| Sat 12/3 | @ Northern Illinois100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-23 | — | 8 | 124 | 14.4 | 15.50 | 0 | 44 |
| Wed 11/23 | vs Miami (OH) | W 21-14 | — | 3 | 34 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 0 | 16 |
| Thu 11/17 | @ Bowling Green | W 29-28 | — | 5 | 43 | 8.6 | 8.60 | 1 | 24 |
| Fri 11/11 | @ Central Michigan100 receiving yards | W 43-28 | — | 4 | 101 | 25.3 | 25.30 | 1 | 63 |
| Thu 11/3 | vs Temple100 receiving yards | W 35-31 | — | 7 | 165 | 23.6 | 23.60 | 0 | 56 |
| Sat 10/22 | @ Akron100 receiving yards | W 37-20 | — | 3 | 102 | 34 | 34 | 1 | 78 |
| Sat 10/15 | vs Ball State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-23 | — | 8 | 157 | 19.6 | 19.60 | 2 | 74 |
| Sat 10/8 | @ Buffalo | L 37-38 | — | 3 | 17 | 21 | 5.70 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 10/1 | vs Kent State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 17-10 | — | 8 | 102 | 12.8 | 12.80 | 1 | 22 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ Rutgers | L 26-38 | — | 4 | 74 | 15.2 | 18.50 | 1 | 32 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Marshall2+ TD | W 44-7 | — | 3 | 32 | 6.5 | 10.70 | 2 | 22 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Unknown | — | — | 5 | 27 | 5.4 | 5.40 | 1 | 15 |
| Sun 9/4 | @ New Mexico State | W 44-24 | — | 3 | 64 | 17 | 21.30 | 0 | 44 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Ohio
2007-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
2007200820092009201020112011
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 Regular Season | Ohio | 201 | 71.8 | 14.2 | — |
| 2008 Regular Season | Ohio | 384 | 72.1 | 17.1 | 183 |
| 2009 Postseason | Ohio | 702 | 71.7 | 23.6 | 318 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Ohio | 702 | 71.7 | 23.6 | 0 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Ohio | 78 | 45.3 | 26.6 | -624 |
| 2011 Postseason | Ohio | 1,150 | 82.3 | 27.1 | 1,072 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Ohio | 1,150 | 82.3 | 27.1 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Temple
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
165
Primary metric
165 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Ball State
157
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
157 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Bowling Green
93
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
93 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Temple
59
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
59 receiving yards with a 98.3 efficiency score.
#5
Bowling Green
70
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
70 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2011 Postseason · Ohio
1,150 primary output · 82.3 efficiency · 27.1 usage
69.1
#2
2011 Regular Season · Ohio
69.1
1,150 primary · 82.3 efficiency · 27.1 usage
#3
2009 Postseason · Ohio
55.7
702 primary · 71.7 efficiency · 23.6 usage
Milestones
7
100+ receiving yards
7
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2007 · Rating 0.7222
Lake Worth · Lake Worth, FL
- Committed To
- Ohio
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2007
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
2,515
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 49 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.
Career Metric Focus
Switch the career lens without tearing down the page.