Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason
Kentucky paired 209 primary output with 75.3 efficiency.
Player Stats
David Bouvier College Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Career production snapshot
- Receiving yards
- 218
- Receptions
- 17
- Touchdowns
- 2
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | Kentucky | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2015 Regular Season | Kentucky | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2016 Postseason | Kentucky | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 45.5 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Kentucky | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2018 Postseason | Kentucky | 11 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 66.2 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Kentucky | 11 | 15 | 205 | 2 | 66.2 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2018 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 75.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Central Michigan
Win 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 compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2018 Postseason · Kentucky
Games
11
Receiving Yards / G
19
Efficiency
75.3
Usage
12.2
Consistency
49.1
Best Game by takeover score
Central Michigan
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. Penn State: 4. Central Michigan: 48. Florida: 43. Murray State: 0. South Carolina: 21. Texas A&M: 0. Vanderbilt: 0. Missouri: 43. Georgia: 15. Tennessee: 19. Louisville: 16
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. Penn State: 1 by 26.7. Central Michigan: 3 by 100. Florida: 2 by 100. South Carolina: 1 by 100. Missouri: 2 by 100. Georgia: 3 by 33.3. Tennessee: 3 by 42.2. Louisville: 1 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins21.9 · Games = 8 · +10.5 vs Losses
Losses11.3 · Games = 3 · -10.5 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring David Bouvier
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.