Usage Score
14.6
Player Dossier
2014-2018Clemson
Hunter Renfrow
WR • 5'10" • 180 lbs • Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Hunter Renfrow reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
68.8
Consistency
52.1
Season Value
57.5
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Clemson
141515161617171818
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 9
- 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.
Hunter Renfrow, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Clemson. Hunter Renfrow reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason
Clemson paired 602 primary output with 65.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 68.8 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: South Carolina
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 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.
2018 Postseason · Clemson
Games
15
Receiving Yards / G
36.3
Efficiency
68.8
Usage
14.6
Consistency
52.1
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: 10. Notre Dame: 62. Unknown: 24. Texas A&M: 59. Georgia Southern: 44. Georgia Tech: 28. Syracuse: 45. Wake Forest: 21. NC State: 41. Florida State: 28. Louisville: 15. Boston College: 80. Duke: 7. South Carolina: 80. Pittsburgh: 0
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: 2 by 33.3. Notre Dame: 4 by 100. Unknown: 3 by 53.3. Texas A&M: 4 by 98.3. Georgia Southern: 2 by 100. Georgia Tech: 3 by 62.2. Syracuse: 3 by 100. Wake Forest: 2 by 70. NC State: 5 by 54.7. Florida State: 4 by 46.7. Louisville: 1 by 100. Boston College: 8 by 66.7. Duke: 1 by 46.7. South Carolina: 5 by 100. Pittsburgh: 2 by 0
Split Comparison
Wins37.1 · n=14
First Half36.6 · n=8 · +0.8 vs Second Half
Second Half35.9 · n=7 · -0.8 vs First Half
All Games36.3 · 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
South Carolina
Best efficiency game
100 vs Notre Dame
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/8 | @ Alabama | W 44-16 | — | 2 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Sat 12/29 | vs Notre Dame | W 30-3 | — | 4 | 62 | 15.5 | 15.50 | 0 | 32 |
| Sun 12/2 | @ Pittsburgh | W 42-10 | — | 2 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 0 | 3 |
| Sun 11/25 | vs South Carolina | W 56-35 | — | 5 | 80 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 25 |
| Sun 11/18 | vs Duke | W 35-6 | — | 1 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| Sun 11/11 | @ Boston CollegeHigh volume | W 27-7 | — | 8 | 80 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 33 |
| Sat 11/3 | vs Louisville | W 77-16 | — | 1 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 10/27 | @ Florida State | W 59-10 | — | 4 | 28 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 10/20 | vs NC State | W 41-7 | — | 5 | 41 | 8.2 | 8.20 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 10/6 | @ Wake Forest | W 63-3 | — | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 0 | 18 |
| Sat 9/29 | vs Syracuse | W 27-23 | — | 3 | 45 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 9/22 | @ Georgia Tech | W 49-21 | — | 3 | 28 | 9.3 | 9.30 | 1 | 17 |
| Sat 9/15 | vs Georgia Southern | W 38-7 | — | 2 | 44 | 22 | 22 | 0 | 31 |
| Sat 9/8 | @ Texas A&M | W 28-26 | — | 4 | 59 | 14.8 | 14.80 | 0 | 40 |
| Sat 9/1 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 24 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 16 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Clemson
2014-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
201420152015201620162017201720182018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | Clemson | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2015 Postseason | Clemson | 492 | 86.9 | 11.7 | 492 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Clemson | 492 | 86.9 | 11.7 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Clemson | 495 | 73.9 | 13.1 | 3 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Clemson | 495 | 73.9 | 13.1 | 0 |
| 2017 Postseason | Clemson | 602 | 65.7 | 20.3 | 107 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Clemson | 602 | 65.7 | 20.3 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Clemson | 544 | 68.8 | 14.6 | -58 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Clemson | 544 | 68.8 | 14.6 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
South Carolina
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
80
Primary metric
80 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
NC State
93
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
93 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
South Carolina
75
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
75 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Louisville
71
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
71 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Alabama
88
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
88 receiving yards with a 83.8 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2017 Postseason · Clemson
602 primary output · 65.7 efficiency · 20.3 usage
63.4
#2
2017 Regular Season · Clemson
63.4
602 primary · 65.7 efficiency · 20.3 usage
#3
2016 Postseason · Clemson
60
495 primary · 73.9 efficiency · 13.1 usage
Milestones
0
100+ receiving yards
3
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
9
Seasons tracked
2,133
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 9 tracked seasons, 53 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.