Usage Score
7.9
Player Dossier
2015-2018Clemson
Christian Wilkins
DT • 6'4" • 300 lbs • Springfield, MA, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Christian Wilkins shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 28.3 disruption score.
Efficiency
28.3
Consistency
45.7
Season Value
29.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Clemson
15161617171818
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Clemson
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Miami
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.
Christian Wilkins, DT. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Clemson. Christian Wilkins shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 28.3 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Clemson paired 0 primary output with 0 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 28.3 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: Duke
Win with 3.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. 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
14
Havoc Plays / G
1.4
Efficiency
28.3
Usage
7.9
Consistency
45.7
Best Game by takeover score
Notre Dame
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011121314
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Notre Dame: 1. Unknown: 2. Texas A&M: 1. Georgia Southern: 0.5. Georgia Tech: 3. Syracuse: 1. Wake Forest: 0. NC State: 0. Florida State: 0.5. Louisville: 3. Boston College: 1. Duke: 3.5. South Carolina: 2. Pittsburgh: 1.5
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. Notre Dame: 1 by 14.2. Unknown: 7 by 49.2. Texas A&M: 4 by 26.7. Georgia Southern: 2 by 13.3. Georgia Tech: 3 by 42.5. Syracuse: 2 by 18.3. Wake Forest: 3 by 12.5. NC State: 2 by 8.3. Florida State: 2 by 13.3. Louisville: 5 by 50.8. Boston College: 5 by 30.8. Duke: 5 by 55.8. South Carolina: 3 by 32.5. Pittsburgh: 3 by 27.5
Split Comparison
Wins1.4 · n=13
First Half1.2 · n=7 · -0.4 vs Second Half
Second Half1.6 · n=7 · +0.4 vs First Half
All Games1.4 · n=14
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Duke
Best efficiency game
55.8 vs Duke
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/29 | vs Notre Dame | W 30-3 | 1 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0.50 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 12/2 | @ Pittsburgh | W 42-10 | 3 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sun 11/25 | vs South Carolina | W 56-35 | 3 | 3 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/18 | vs Duke | W 35-6 | 5 | 3 | — | 1.50 | 1 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sun 11/11 | @ Boston College | W 27-7 | 5 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/3 | vs LouisvilleSplash game | W 77-16 | 5 | 1 | — | 2.50 | 0.50 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/27 | @ Florida State | W 59-10 | 2 | 1 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/20 | vs NC State | W 41-7 | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/6 | @ Wake Forest | W 63-3 | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/29 | vs Syracuse | W 27-23 | 2 | 2 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/22 | @ Georgia TechSplash game | W 49-21 | 3 | 2 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/15 | vs Georgia Southern | W 38-7 | 2 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/8 | @ Texas A&M | W 28-26 | 4 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/1 | vs Unknown | — | 7 | 6 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Clemson
2015-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
2015201620162017201720182018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Postseason | Clemson | 0 | 0 | — | — |
| 2016 Postseason | Clemson | 25.5 | 30.3 | 6.5 | 25.5 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Clemson | 25.5 | 30.3 | 6.5 | 0 |
| 2017 Postseason | Clemson | 17 | 30 | 6.1 | -8.5 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Clemson | 17 | 30 | 6.1 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Clemson | 20 | 28.3 | 7.9 | 3 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Clemson | 20 | 28.3 | 7.9 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Miami
Win with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4
Primary metric
4 disruption/tackle impact with 61.6 takeover score.
#2
Auburn
4.5
Primary metric
Win with 4.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4.5 disruption/tackle impact with 61.4 takeover score.
#3
Auburn
3.5
Primary metric
Win with 3.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3.5 disruption/tackle impact with 59 takeover score.
#4
Florida State
3.5
Primary metric
Win with 3.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3.5 disruption/tackle impact with 56.6 takeover score.
#5
Duke
3.5
Primary metric
Win with 3.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3.5 disruption/tackle impact with 56.2 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Clemson
0 primary output · 0 efficiency · — usage
50
#2
2016 Postseason · Clemson
36.7
25.5 primary · 30.3 efficiency · 6.5 usage
#3
2016 Regular Season · Clemson
36.7
25.5 primary · 30.3 efficiency · 6.5 usage
Milestones
2
Impact games
6
Splash games
1
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
5★
Class 2015 · Rating 0.9893
Suffield Academy · Suffield, CT
- Committed To
- Clemson
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2015
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
155
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 44 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.