Usage Score
4.2
Player Dossier
2016-2021Arizona
Antonio Parks
S • 5'9" • 190 lbs • New Orleans, LA, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Antonio Parks shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 21.1 disruption score.
Efficiency
21.1
Consistency
15.4
Season Value
14.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season · UTSA
1617181920202121
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Arizona • UTSA
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Army
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.
Antonio Parks, S. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season · UTSA. Antonio Parks shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 21.1 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season
UTSA paired 0 primary output with 10.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 21.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2021 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Arizona, UTSA.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: UTEP
Win with 2 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.
2021 Postseason · UTSA
Games
13
Havoc Plays / G
0.5
Efficiency
21.1
Usage
4.2
Consistency
15.4
Best Game by takeover score
San Diego 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. San Diego State: 0. Illinois: 0. Middle Tennessee: 1. Memphis: 1. UNLV: 0. Western Kentucky: 0. Rice: 0. Louisiana Tech: 1. UTEP: 2. Southern Miss: 1. UAB: 0. North Texas: 0. Western Kentucky: 1
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. San Diego State: 6 by 25. Illinois: 5 by 20.8. Middle Tennessee: 2 by 18.3. Memphis: 1 by 14.2. UNLV: 6 by 25. Western Kentucky: 7 by 29.2. Rice: 1 by 4.2. Louisiana Tech: 3 by 22.5. UTEP: 3 by 32.5. Southern Miss: 2 by 18.3. UAB: 3 by 12.5. North Texas: 6 by 25. Western Kentucky: 4 by 26.7
Split Comparison
Wins0.6 · n=11 · +0.6 vs Losses
Losses0 · n=2 · -0.6 vs Wins
First Half0.3 · n=7 · -0.5 vs Second Half
Second Half0.8 · n=6 · +0.5 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
UTEP
Best efficiency game
32.5 vs UTEP
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 12/22 | @ San Diego State | L 24-38 | 6 | 6 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 12/4 | vs Western Kentucky | W 49-41 | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/27 | @ North Texas | L 23-45 | 6 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/20 | vs UAB | W 34-31 | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/13 | vs Southern Miss | W 27-17 | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/7 | @ UTEP | W 44-23 | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 2 | — | — |
| Sat 10/23 | @ Louisiana Tech | W 45-16 | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 10/16 | vs Rice | W 45-0 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/9 | @ Western Kentucky | W 52-46 | 7 | 6 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/2 | vs UNLV | W 24-17 | 6 | 5 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/25 | @ Memphis | W 31-28 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 9/18 | vs Middle Tennessee | W 27-13 | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/4 | @ Illinois | W 37-30 | 5 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Arizona
2016-2018
Opening stop
- 2
UTSA
2019-2021
Final stop
Season Progression
20162017201820192020202020212021
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Regular Season | Arizona | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2017 Regular Season | Arizona | 1 | 6.6 | 1 | 1 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Arizona | 0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | -1 |
| 2019 Regular Season | UTSA | 0 | 10.4 | 1.9 | 0 |
| 2020 Postseason | UTSA | 7 | 23.2 | 6.4 | 7 |
| 2020 Regular Season | UTSA | 7 | 23.2 | 6.4 | 0 |
| 2021 Postseason | UTSA | 7 | 21.1 | 4.2 | 0 |
| 2021 Regular Season | UTSA | 7 | 21.1 | 4.2 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Army
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2
Primary metric
2 disruption/tackle impact with 46 takeover score.
#2
UTEP
2
Primary metric
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 45.2 takeover score.
#3
UTEP
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 38.5 takeover score.
#4
BYU
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 35.9 takeover score.
#5
Louisiana Tech
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 32 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Regular Season · UTSA
0 primary output · 10.4 efficiency · 1.9 usage
37.4
#2
2018 Regular Season · Arizona
34.1
0 primary · 2.1 efficiency · 0.3 usage
#3
2020 Postseason · UTSA
22.7
7 primary · 23.2 efficiency · 6.4 usage
Milestones
0
Impact games
0
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2015 · Rating 0.8386
East St. John · Reserve, LA
- Committed To
- Arizona
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2015
Career Facts
2
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
117
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 37 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.