Usage Score
27.3
Player Dossier
2015-2017USC
Deontay Burnett
WR • 6'0" • 170 lbs • Compton, CA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Deontay Burnett reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
81.3
Consistency
67.1
Season Value
68.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · USC
151516161717
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- USC
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Western Michigan
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.
Deontay Burnett, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · USC. Deontay Burnett reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason
USC paired 1,114 primary output with 81.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2017 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 81.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2017 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Western 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 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.
2017 Postseason · USC
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
79.6
Efficiency
81.3
Usage
27.3
Consistency
67.1
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: 139. Western Michigan: 142. Stanford: 121. Texas: 123. California: 76. Washington State: 45. Oregon State: 20. Utah: 99. Notre Dame: 113. Arizona State: 49. Arizona: 44. Colorado: 79. UCLA: 55. Stanford: 9
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: 12 by 77.2. Western Michigan: 7 by 100. Stanford: 9 by 89.6. Texas: 8 by 100. California: 9 by 56.3. Washington State: 6 by 50. Oregon State: 2 by 66.7. Utah: 8 by 82.5. Notre Dame: 8 by 94.2. Arizona State: 4 by 81.7. Arizona: 2 by 100. Colorado: 6 by 87.8. UCLA: 4 by 91.7. Stanford: 1 by 60
Split Comparison
Wins74.3 · n=11 · -24.7 vs Losses
Losses99 · n=3 · +24.7 vs Wins
First Half95.1 · n=7 · +31.1 vs Second Half
Second Half64 · n=7 · -31.1 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
Western Michigan
Best efficiency game
100 vs Arizona
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/30 | @ Ohio State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 7-24 | — | 12 | 139 | 11.6 | 11.60 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 12/2 | vs Stanford | W 31-28 | — | 1 | 9 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
| Sun 11/19 | vs UCLA | W 28-23 | — | 4 | 55 | 13.8 | 13.80 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 11/11 | @ Colorado | W 38-24 | — | 6 | 79 | 13.2 | 13.20 | 1 | 37 |
| Sun 11/5 | vs Arizona | W 49-35 | — | 2 | 44 | 22 | 22 | 0 | 41 |
| Sun 10/29 | @ Arizona State | W 48-17 | — | 4 | 49 | 12.3 | 12.30 | 1 | 32 |
| Sat 10/21 | @ Notre Dame100 receiving yards · High volume | L 14-49 | — | 8 | 113 | 14.1 | 14.10 | 1 | 34 |
| Sun 10/15 | vs UtahHigh volume | W 28-27 | — | 8 | 99 | 12.4 | 12.40 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 10/7 | vs Oregon State | W 38-10 | — | 2 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 16 |
| Sat 9/30 | @ Washington State | L 27-30 | — | 6 | 45 | 7.5 | 7.50 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 9/23 | @ CaliforniaHigh volume | W 30-20 | — | 9 | 76 | 8.4 | 8.40 | 1 | 19 |
| Sun 9/17 | vs Texas100 receiving yards · High volume | W 27-24 | — | 8 | 123 | 15.4 | 15.40 | 2 | 25 |
| Sun 9/10 | vs Stanford100 receiving yards · High volume | W 42-24 | — | 9 | 121 | 12.4 | 13.40 | 2 | 35 |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Western Michigan100 receiving yards | W 49-31 | — | 7 | 142 | 20.3 | 20.30 | 0 | 42 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
USC
2015-2017
Opening stop
Season Progression
201520152016201620172017
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Postseason | USC | 161 | 68.9 | 7.6 | — |
| 2015 Regular Season | USC | 161 | 68.9 | 7.6 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | USC | 622 | 71.3 | 18.8 | 461 |
| 2016 Regular Season | USC | 622 | 71.3 | 18.8 | 0 |
| 2017 Postseason | USC | 1,114 | 81.3 | 27.3 | 492 |
| 2017 Regular Season | USC | 1,114 | 81.3 | 27.3 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Western Michigan
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
142
Primary metric
142 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Penn State
164
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
164 receiving yards with a 84.1 efficiency score.
#3
Ohio State
139
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
139 receiving yards with a 77.2 efficiency score.
#4
Stanford
121
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
121 receiving yards with a 89.6 efficiency score.
#5
California
82
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
82 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2017 Postseason · USC
1,114 primary output · 81.3 efficiency · 27.3 usage
68.9
#2
2017 Regular Season · USC
68.9
1,114 primary · 81.3 efficiency · 27.3 usage
#3
2016 Postseason · USC
48.1
622 primary · 71.3 efficiency · 18.8 usage
Milestones
6
100+ receiving yards
7
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2022 · Rating 0.7906
Decatur Central · Indianapolis, IN
- Committed To
- Western Michigan
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2022
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,897
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 32 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.