Usage Score
37.8
Player Dossier
2016-2018Texas A&M
Trayveon Williams
RB • 5'9" • 200 lbs • Houston, TX, USA
Workhorse runnerSteady chain mover
Trayveon Williams leans workhorse runner traits and 63 efficiency.
Efficiency
63
Consistency
75.1
Season Value
69
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason · Texas A&M
161617171818
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Texas A&M
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: NC State
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.
Trayveon Williams, RB. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason · Texas A&M. Trayveon Williams leans workhorse runner traits and 63 efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason
Texas A&M paired 2,037 primary output with 63 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Postseason role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 63 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: NC State
Win with 236 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. It landed in the 84.6th 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 · Texas A&M
Games
13
Scrimmage Yards / G
156.7
Efficiency
63
Usage
37.8
Consistency
75.1
Best Game by takeover score
NC State
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. NC State: 236. Unknown: 242. Clemson: 71. UL Monroe: 128. Alabama: 37. Arkansas: 165. Kentucky: 210. South Carolina: 82. Mississippi State: 71. Auburn: 181. Ole Miss: 243. UAB: 175. LSU: 196
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. NC State: 19 by 100. Unknown: 21 by 98. Clemson: 20 by 26.2. UL Monroe: 22 by 60.6. Alabama: 9 by 41.3. Arkansas: 30 by 55.7. Kentucky: 30 by 65.1. South Carolina: 20 by 42.7. Mississippi State: 14 by 37.4. Auburn: 22 by 73.6. Ole Miss: 34 by 75.7. UAB: 21 by 84.7. LSU: 36 by 58
Split Comparison
Wins179.4 · n=8 · +89.4 vs Losses
Losses90 · n=4 · -89.4 vs Wins
First Half155.6 · n=7 · -2.4 vs Second Half
Second Half158 · n=6 · +2.4 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Scrimmage Yards
Top game by takeover score
NC State
Best efficiency game
100 vs NC State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/1 | vs NC State100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 52-13 | 19 | 236 | 12.40 | 3 | — | — | 12.4 |
| Sun 11/25 | vs LSU100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 74-72 | 35 | 198 | 5.70 | 2 | 1 | -2 | 5.4 |
| Sun 11/18 | vs UAB100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 41-20 | 20 | 167 | 8.40 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 8.3 |
| Sat 11/10 | vs Ole Miss100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 38-24 | 31 | 228 | 7.40 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 7.1 |
| Sat 11/3 | @ Auburn100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | L 24-28 | 17 | 107 | 6.30 | 2 | 5 | 74 | 8.2 |
| Sat 10/27 | @ Mississippi State | L 13-28 | 10 | 26 | 2.60 | 0 | 4 | 45 | 5.1 |
| Sat 10/13 | @ South Carolina | W 26-23 | 19 | 78 | 4.10 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.1 |
| Sat 10/6 | vs Kentucky100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 20-14 | 24 | 138 | 5.80 | 1 | 6 | 72 | 7 |
| Sat 9/29 | vs Arkansas100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | W 24-17 | 29 | 152 | 5.20 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 5.5 |
| Sat 9/22 | @ Alabama | L 23-45 | 8 | 31 | 3.90 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 4.1 |
| Sat 9/15 | vs UL Monroe100 rush yards | W 48-10 | 22 | 128 | 5.80 | 1 | — | — | 5.8 |
| Sat 9/8 | vs Clemson | L 26-28 | 17 | 31 | 1.80 | 0 | 3 | 40 | 3.5 |
| Fri 8/31 | vs Unknown100 rush yards · 150 scrimmage yards | — | 20 | 240 | 12 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 11.5 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Texas A&M
2016-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
201620162017201720182018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Postseason | Texas A&M | 1,148 | 61.2 | 23.7 | — |
| 2016 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 1,148 | 61.2 | 23.7 | 0 |
| 2017 Postseason | Texas A&M | 990 | 49.6 | 28.2 | -158 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 990 | 49.6 | 28.2 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Texas A&M | 2,037 | 63 | 37.8 | 1,047 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 2,037 | 63 | 37.8 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
NC State
Win with 236 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
236
Primary metric
236 scrimmage yards and 39.6 usage.
#2
Ole Miss
243
Primary metric
Win driven by a workhorse rushing load.
243 scrimmage yards and 53.1 usage.
#3
Tennessee
217
Primary metric
Win driven by a workhorse rushing load.
217 scrimmage yards and 43.3 usage.
#4
Unknown
242
Primary metric
Game driven by a workhorse rushing load.
242 scrimmage yards and 25 usage.
#5
UCLA
203
Primary metric
Loss driven by a workhorse rushing load.
203 scrimmage yards and 30.6 usage.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2018 Postseason · Texas A&M
2,037 primary output · 63 efficiency · 37.8 usage
69
#2
2018 Regular Season · Texas A&M
69
2,037 primary · 63 efficiency · 37.8 usage
#3
2016 Postseason · Texas A&M
51.2
1,148 primary · 61.2 efficiency · 23.7 usage
Milestones
15
100+ rush yards
12
150+ scrimmage yards
8
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2016 · Rating 0.898
C.E. King · Houston, TX
- Committed To
- Texas A&M
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2016
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
4,175
Career Scrimmage Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 38 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.