Usage Score
5.2
Player Dossier
2009-2018Boston College
Jeff Smith
RB • 6'1" • 195 lbs • St. Petersburg, FL, USA
Explosive all-purpose backBig-play efficiency
Jeff Smith leans explosive all-purpose back traits and 68.7 efficiency.
Efficiency
68.7
Consistency
36.6
Season Value
46.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Boston College
091011121314151616171718
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 12
- Program Path
- Boston College
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Syracuse
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.
Jeff Smith, RB. Best season Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Boston College. Jeff Smith leans explosive all-purpose back traits and 68.7 efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Boston College paired 594 primary output with 67.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Regular Season role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 68.7 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: Wake Forest
Win with 187 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. 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 Regular Season · Boston College
Games
12
Scrimmage Yards / G
45.4
Efficiency
68.7
Usage
5.2
Consistency
36.6
Best Game by takeover score
Syracuse
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Massachusetts: 74. Unknown: 20. Wake Forest: 187. Purdue: 6. Temple: 36. NC State: 37. Louisville: 18. Miami: 26. Virginia Tech: 18. Clemson: -7. Florida State: 61. Syracuse: 69
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. Massachusetts: 7 by 94. Unknown: 1 by 100. Wake Forest: 9 by 100. Purdue: 2 by 31.3. Temple: 4 by 75. NC State: 2 by 62.5. Louisville: 3 by 62.5. Miami: 4 by 49. Virginia Tech: 2 by 87.5. Clemson: 1 by 0. Florida State: 4 by 62.5. Syracuse: 1 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins59.8 · n=6 · +26.6 vs Losses
Losses33.2 · n=5 · -26.6 vs Wins
First Half60 · n=6 · +29.2 vs Second Half
Second Half30.8 · n=6 · -29.2 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Scrimmage Yards
Top game by takeover score
Wake Forest
Best efficiency game
100 vs Syracuse
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/24 | vs Syracuse | L 21-42 | — | — | — | — | 1 | 69 | 69 |
| Sat 11/17 | @ Florida State | L 21-22 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 59 | 15.3 |
| Sun 11/11 | vs Clemson | L 7-27 | 1 | -7 | -7 | 0 | — | — | -7 |
| Sat 11/3 | @ Virginia Tech | W 31-21 | 1 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Fri 10/26 | vs Miami | W 27-14 | 2 | 7 | 3.50 | 0 | 2 | 19 | 6.5 |
| Sat 10/13 | vs Louisville | W 38-20 | 3 | 18 | 6 | 1 | — | — | 6 |
| Sat 10/6 | @ NC State | L 23-28 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 35 | 18.5 |
| Sat 9/29 | vs Temple | W 45-35 | — | — | — | — | 4 | 36 | 9 |
| Sat 9/22 | @ Purdue | L 13-30 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | — | — | 3 |
| Thu 9/13 | @ Wake Forest150 scrimmage yards · 2+ TD | W 41-34 | 3 | 42 | 14 | 0 | 6 | 145 | 20.8 |
| Sat 9/8 | vs Unknown | — | 1 | 20 | 20 | 0 | — | — | 20 |
| Sat 9/1 | vs Massachusetts | W 55-21 | 4 | 35 | 8.80 | 0 | 3 | 39 | 10.6 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Boston College
2009-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
200920102011201220132014201520162016201720172018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 Regular Season | Boston College | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2010 Regular Season | Boston College | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Boston College | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Boston College | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Boston College | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Boston College | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Boston College | 450 | 57 | 16.5 | 450 |
| 2016 Postseason | Boston College | 594 | 67.5 | 9.3 | 144 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Boston College | 594 | 67.5 | 9.3 | 0 |
| 2017 Postseason | Boston College | 403 | 80.1 | 4.4 | -191 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Boston College | 403 | 80.1 | 4.4 | 0 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Boston College | 545 | 68.7 | 5.2 | 142 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Syracuse
Loss with 117 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
117
Primary metric
117 scrimmage yards and 31.7 usage.
#2
Wake Forest
187
Primary metric
Win with 187 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
187 scrimmage yards and 15 usage.
#3
Syracuse
76
Primary metric
Win with 76 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
76 scrimmage yards and 4.2 usage.
#4
Notre Dame
100
Primary metric
Loss with 100 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
100 scrimmage yards and 10.4 usage.
#5
UConn
121
Primary metric
Win with 121 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
121 scrimmage yards and 16.7 usage.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2016 Postseason · Boston College
594 primary output · 67.5 efficiency · 9.3 usage
53
#2
2016 Regular Season · Boston College
53
594 primary · 67.5 efficiency · 9.3 usage
#3
2015 Regular Season · Boston College
48.8
450 primary · 57 efficiency · 16.5 usage
Milestones
4
100+ rush yards
1
150+ scrimmage yards
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
12
Seasons tracked
1,992
Career Scrimmage Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 12 tracked seasons, 46 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.