Usage Score
18
Player Dossier
2014-2016Clemson
Artavis Scott
WR • 5'10" • Clearwater, FL, USA
Reliable chain-moverPossession profile
Artavis Scott reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
52.7
Consistency
53.7
Season Value
48.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · Clemson
141415151616
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Clemson
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: South Carolina
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.
Artavis Scott, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · Clemson. Artavis Scott reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason
Clemson paired 965 primary output with 72.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 52.7 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: Pittsburgh
Loss 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 · Clemson
Games
15
Receiving Yards / G
40.9
Efficiency
52.7
Usage
18
Consistency
53.7
Best Game by takeover score
Alabama
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112131415
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Alabama: 6. Ohio State: 16. Auburn: 30. Troy: 71. Unknown: 28. Georgia Tech: 14. Louisville: 40. Boston College: 45. NC State: 23. Florida State: 33. Syracuse: 45. Pittsburgh: 125. Wake Forest: 13. South Carolina: 77. Virginia Tech: 48
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. Alabama: 3 by 13.3. Ohio State: 2 by 53.3. Auburn: 3 by 66.7. Troy: 7 by 67.6. Unknown: 3 by 62.2. Georgia Tech: 3 by 31.1. Louisville: 3 by 88.9. Boston College: 4 by 75. NC State: 4 by 38.3. Florida State: 4 by 55. Syracuse: 7 by 42.9. Pittsburgh: 13 by 64.1. Wake Forest: 4 by 21.7. South Carolina: 8 by 64.2. Virginia Tech: 7 by 45.7
Split Comparison
Wins35.5 · n=13
First Half31.3 · n=8 · -20.8 vs Second Half
Second Half52 · n=7 · +20.8 vs First Half
All Games40.9 · n=15
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
15 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Pittsburgh
Best efficiency game
88.9 vs Louisville
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/10 | @ Alabama | W 35-31 | — | 3 | 6 | 1.5 | 2 | 0 | 9 |
| Sun 1/1 | vs Ohio State | W 31-0 | — | 2 | 16 | 4.8 | 8 | 0 | 9 |
| Sun 12/4 | @ Virginia Tech | W 42-35 | — | 7 | 48 | 6.9 | 6.90 | 0 | 15 |
| Sun 11/27 | vs South CarolinaHigh volume | W 56-7 | — | 8 | 77 | 8.6 | 9.60 | 1 | 20 |
| Sun 11/20 | @ Wake Forest | W 35-13 | — | 4 | 13 | 3.3 | 3.30 | 0 | 7 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs Pittsburgh100 receiving yards · High volume | L 42-43 | — | 13 | 125 | 9.6 | 9.60 | 1 | 28 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Syracuse | W 54-0 | — | 7 | 45 | 6.4 | 6.40 | 1 | 18 |
| Sun 10/30 | @ Florida State | W 37-34 | — | 4 | 33 | 8.3 | 8.30 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 10/15 | vs NC State | W 24-17 | — | 4 | 23 | 5.8 | 5.80 | 1 | 10 |
| Fri 10/7 | @ Boston College | W 56-10 | — | 4 | 45 | 9.4 | 11.30 | 0 | 17 |
| Sun 10/2 | vs Louisville | W 42-36 | — | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 1 | 23 |
| Thu 9/22 | @ Georgia Tech | W 26-7 | — | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 4.70 | 0 | 8 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 28 | 9.3 | 9.30 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Troy | W 30-24 | — | 7 | 71 | 9 | 10.10 | 0 | 18 |
| Sun 9/4 | @ Auburn | W 19-13 | — | 3 | 30 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 20 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Clemson
2014-2016
Opening stop
Season Progression
201420142015201520162016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Postseason | Clemson | 965 | 72.6 | 27.9 | — |
| 2014 Regular Season | Clemson | 965 | 72.6 | 27.9 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Clemson | 901 | 64.7 | 26.7 | -64 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Clemson | 901 | 64.7 | 26.7 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Clemson | 614 | 52.7 | 18 | -287 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Clemson | 614 | 52.7 | 18 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
South Carolina
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
185
Primary metric
185 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Boston College
162
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
162 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Unknown
164
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
164 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Wake Forest
122
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
122 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Pittsburgh
125
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
125 receiving yards with a 64.1 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2014 Postseason · Clemson
965 primary output · 72.6 efficiency · 27.9 usage
64.8
#2
2014 Regular Season · Clemson
64.8
965 primary · 72.6 efficiency · 27.9 usage
#3
2015 Postseason · Clemson
63.7
901 primary · 64.7 efficiency · 26.7 usage
Milestones
6
100+ receiving yards
11
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2014 · Rating 0.9674
East Lake · Tarpon Springs, FL
- Committed To
- Clemson
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2014
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
2,480
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 42 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.