Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Central Michigan paired 962 primary output with 52.9 efficiency.
Player Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Season Ledger
| Season | Team | Games | Scrimmage | Rush Yds | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Postseason | Central Michigan | 10 | 29 | 12 | 17 | 0 | 34.8 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 10 | 365 | 359 | 6 | 4 | 34.8 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 5 | 307 | 182 | 125 | 1 | 37.8 |
| 2016 Postseason | Central Michigan | 11 | 47 | 21 | 26 | 0 | 74.7 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 11 | 915 | 737 | 178 | 7 | 74.7 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 4 | 127 | 101 | 26 | 2 | 28.7 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 10 | 269 | 38 | 231 | 0 | 37.8 |
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Central Michigan paired 962 primary output with 52.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Regular Season role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 46.3 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: Buffalo
Loss with 62 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
10
Scrimmage Yards / G
26.9
Efficiency
46.3
Usage
7.2
Consistency
56.6
Best Game by takeover score
Buffalo
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. Kansas: 0. Northern Illinois: 20. Maine: -1. Michigan State: 3. Buffalo: 62. Ball State: 47. Akron: 16. Eastern Michigan: 36. Bowling Green: 34. Toledo: 52
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. Northern Illinois: 3 by 68.4. Maine: 1 by 0. Michigan State: 1 by 25. Buffalo: 8 by 62. Ball State: 3 by 62.5. Akron: 3 by 22.2. Eastern Michigan: 6 by 50. Bowling Green: 4 by 70.8. Toledo: 7 by 56
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Next best actions
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.