Usage Score
14.4
Player Dossier
2014-2018Rice
Austin Walter
RB • 5'8" • 202 lbs • Crosby, TX, USA
Balanced backfield optionSteady chain mover
Austin Walter leans balanced backfield option traits and 56.2 efficiency.
Efficiency
58.5
Consistency
58.3
Season Value
46.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Rice
1415161718
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- Rice
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Wake Forest
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.
Austin Walter, RB. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Rice. Austin Walter leans balanced backfield option traits and 56.2 efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season
Rice paired 1,089 primary output with 56.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2017 Regular Season role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 58.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2018 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: UAB
Loss with 122 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. 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.
2017 Regular Season · Rice
Games
12
Scrimmage Yards / G
51.6
Efficiency
58.5
Usage
14.4
Consistency
58.3
Best Game by takeover score
North Texas
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.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Stanford: 58. UTEP: 32. Houston: 49. Florida International: 14. Pittsburgh: 112. Army: 31. UTSA: -11. Louisiana Tech: 45. UAB: 122. Southern Miss: 62. Old Dominion: 90. North Texas: 15
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. Stanford: 4 by 100. UTEP: 4 by 83.3. Houston: 9 by 48.5. Florida International: 9 by 10.1. Pittsburgh: 8 by 90.6. Army: 7 by 46. UTSA: 2 by 0. Louisiana Tech: 9 by 53. UAB: 9 by 100. Southern Miss: 11 by 52.9. Old Dominion: 9 by 91.7. North Texas: 6 by 26
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Losses53.4 · Games = 11
First Half49.3 · Games = 6 · -4.5 vs Second Half
Second Half53.8 · Games = 6 · +4.5 vs First Half
All Games51.6 · Games = 12
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Scrimmage Yards
Top game by takeover score
UAB
Best efficiency game
100 vs UAB
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/25 | vs North Texas | L 14-30 | 6 | 15 | 2.50 | 0 | — | — | 2.5 |
| Sat 11/18 | @ Old Dominion | L 21-24 | 7 | 66 | 9.40 | 1 | 2 | 24 | 10 |
| Sat 11/11 | vs Southern Miss | L 34-43 | 7 | 33 | 4.70 | 1 | 4 | 29 | 5.6 |
| Sat 11/4 | @ UAB | L 21-52 | 8 | 89 | 11.10 | 1 | 1 | 33 | 13.6 |
| Sat 10/28 | vs Louisiana Tech | L 28-42 | 7 | 36 | 5.10 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 5 |
| Sat 10/21 | @ UTSA | L 7-20 | 1 | -14 | -14 | 0 | 1 | 3 | -5.5 |
| Sat 10/7 | vs Army | L 12-49 | 5 | 22 | 4.40 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 4.4 |
| Sat 9/30 | @ Pittsburgh | L 10-42 | 6 | 39 | 6.50 | 0 | 2 | 73 | 14 |
| Sat 9/23 | vs Florida International | L 7-13 | 7 | 4 | 0.60 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 1.6 |
| Sun 9/17 | @ Houston | L 3-38 | 8 | 33 | 4.10 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 5.4 |
| Sun 9/10 | @ UTEP | W 31-14 | 4 | 32 | 8 | 0 | — | — | 8 |
| Sun 8/27 | vs Stanford | L 7-62 | 3 | 45 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 14.5 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Rice
2014-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
20142015201620172018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | Rice | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2015 Regular Season | Rice | 445 | 52.9 | 10.6 | 445 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Rice | 416 | 45.5 | 11.6 | -29 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Rice | 619 | 58.5 | 14.4 | 203 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Rice | 1,089 | 56.2 | 25.2 | 470 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Wake Forest
Loss with 197 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
197
Primary metric
197 scrimmage yards and 37.7 usage.
#2
UAB
122
Primary metric
Loss with 122 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
122 scrimmage yards and 18.4 usage.
#3
Unknown
104
Primary metric
Game with 104 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
104 scrimmage yards and 20.3 usage.
#4
Pittsburgh
112
Primary metric
Loss with 112 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
112 scrimmage yards and 21.1 usage.
#5
Louisiana Tech
96
Primary metric
Loss with 96 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
96 scrimmage yards and 19 usage.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2018 Regular Season · Rice
1,089 primary output · 56.2 efficiency · 25.2 usage
62.2
#2
2017 Regular Season · Rice
46.9
619 primary · 58.5 efficiency · 14.4 usage
#3
2015 Regular Season · Rice
36.2
445 primary · 52.9 efficiency · 10.6 usage
Milestones
9
100+ rush yards
1
150+ scrimmage yards
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2014 · Rating 0.8383
Crosby · Crosby, TX
- Committed To
- Rice
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2014
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
2,569
Career Scrimmage Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 49 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.