Usage Score
27.1
Player Dossier
2007-2011Ohio
WR • 5'11" • Lantana, FL, USA
LaVon Brazill reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
27.1
Efficiency
82.3
Consistency
66.9
Season Value
69.1
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Ohio
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.
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.
LaVon Brazill played WR for Ohio. Across 5 tracked seasons, LaVon Brazill recorded 54 passing yards, 239 rushing yards, and 2,515 receiving yards. His top tracked season came in 2011 with Ohio.
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.
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
14
Receiving Yards / G
82.1
Efficiency
82.3
Usage
27.1
Consistency
66.9
Best Game by takeover score
Utah State
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. 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
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. 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
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.
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 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Ohio
2007-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
| 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 |
#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.
#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
7
100+ receiving yards
7
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Recruit Profile
Class 2007 · Rating 0.7222
Lake Worth · Lake Worth, FL
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.