Usage Score
20.8
Player Dossier
2015-2021Utah
Britain Covey
WR • 5'8" • 172 lbs • Provo, UT, USA
Reliable chain-moverPossession profile
Britain Covey reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
63.9
Consistency
67.5
Season Value
52.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Utah
151516171819202121
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 9
- Program Path
- Utah
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Northern Illinois
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.
Britain Covey, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Utah. Britain Covey reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season
Utah paired 611 primary output with 65.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 63.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2021 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Colorado
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.
2021 Postseason · Utah
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
36.7
Efficiency
63.9
Usage
20.8
Consistency
67.5
Best Game by takeover score
Ohio State
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. Ohio State: 34. Unknown: 14. BYU: 6. San Diego State: 46. Washington State: 8. USC: 67. Arizona State: 30. Oregon State: 40. UCLA: 26. Stanford: 23. Arizona: 40. Oregon: 36. Colorado: 72. Oregon: 72
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. Ohio State: 3 by 75.6. Unknown: 4 by 23.3. BYU: 1 by 40. San Diego State: 8 by 38.3. Washington State: 2 by 26.7. USC: 5 by 89.3. Arizona State: 3 by 66.7. Oregon State: 5 by 53.3. UCLA: 3 by 57.8. Stanford: 3 by 51.1. Arizona: 2 by 100. Oregon: 3 by 80. Colorado: 5 by 96. Oregon: 5 by 96
Split Comparison
Wins41.6 · n=9 · +10.1 vs Losses
Losses31.5 · n=4 · -10.1 vs Wins
First Half29.3 · n=7 · -14.9 vs Second Half
Second Half44.1 · n=7 · +14.9 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Colorado
Best efficiency game
100 vs Arizona
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/1 | @ Ohio State | L 45-48 | — | 3 | 34 | 8.8 | 11.30 | 1 | 19 |
| Sat 12/4 | vs Oregon | W 38-10 | — | 5 | 72 | 14.4 | 14.40 | 0 | 22 |
| Fri 11/26 | vs Colorado | W 28-13 | — | 5 | 72 | 10.9 | 14.40 | 1 | 33 |
| Sun 11/21 | vs Oregon | W 38-7 | — | 3 | 36 | 10.5 | 12 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 11/13 | @ Arizona | W 38-29 | — | 2 | 40 | 14.7 | 20 | 0 | 29 |
| Sat 11/6 | @ Stanford | W 52-7 | — | 3 | 23 | 10.5 | 7.70 | 0 | 14 |
| Sun 10/31 | vs UCLA | W 44-24 | — | 3 | 26 | 7.3 | 8.70 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 10/23 | @ Oregon State | L 34-42 | — | 5 | 40 | 6.9 | 8 | 0 | 15 |
| Sun 10/17 | vs Arizona State | W 35-21 | — | 3 | 30 | 9.4 | 10 | 0 | 14 |
| Sun 10/10 | @ USC | W 42-26 | — | 5 | 67 | 13.4 | 13.40 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 9/25 | vs Washington State | W 24-13 | — | 2 | 8 | 7.3 | 4 | 0 | 9 |
| Sat 9/18 | @ San Diego StateHigh volume | L 31-33 | — | 8 | 46 | 5.8 | 5.80 | 1 | 15 |
| Sun 9/12 | @ BYU | L 17-26 | — | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| Thu 9/2 | vs Unknown | — | — | 4 | 14 | 5.6 | 3.50 | 0 | 5 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Utah
2015-2021
Opening stop
Season Progression
201520152016201720182019202020212021
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Postseason | Utah | 519 | 68.4 | 23.7 | — |
| 2015 Regular Season | Utah | 519 | 68.4 | 23.7 | 0 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Utah | 0 | — | — | -519 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Utah | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Utah | 611 | 65.6 | 25.8 | 611 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Utah | 77 | 48.1 | 13.7 | -534 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Utah | 264 | 82.1 | 31.5 | 187 |
| 2021 Postseason | Utah | 514 | 63.9 | 20.8 | 250 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Utah | 514 | 63.9 | 20.8 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Northern Illinois
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
129
Primary metric
129 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Colorado
72
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
72 receiving yards with a 96 efficiency score.
#3
USC
129
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
129 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Oregon
72
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
72 receiving yards with a 96 efficiency score.
#5
Washington State
134
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
134 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2018 Regular Season · Utah
611 primary output · 65.6 efficiency · 25.8 usage
56.2
#2
2020 Regular Season · Utah
52.6
264 primary · 82.1 efficiency · 31.5 usage
#3
2021 Postseason · Utah
52.6
514 primary · 63.9 efficiency · 20.8 usage
Milestones
3
100+ receiving yards
4
8+ catch outings
2
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2015 · Rating 0.8189
Timpview · Provo, UT
- Committed To
- Utah
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2015
Career Facts
1
Career teams
9
Seasons tracked
1,985
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 9 tracked seasons, 47 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.