Usage Score
18.6
Player Dossier
2017-2019Clemson
Tee Higgins
WR • 6'4" • 215 lbs • Oak Ridge, TN, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Tee Higgins reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
91.6
Consistency
63.7
Season Value
68.5
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Clemson
1718181919
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- Clemson
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Virginia
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.
Tee Higgins, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Clemson. Tee Higgins reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason
Clemson paired 1,167 primary output with 91.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2019 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 91.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2019 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Virginia
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.
2019 Postseason · Clemson
Games
15
Receiving Yards / G
77.8
Efficiency
91.6
Usage
18.6
Consistency
63.7
Best Game by takeover score
LSU
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112131415
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. LSU: 52. Ohio State: 33. Georgia Tech: 98. Texas A&M: 70. Syracuse: 150. Charlotte: 58. North Carolina: 129. Florida State: 44. Louisville: 3. Boston College: 36. Unknown: 74. NC State: 73. Wake Forest: 64. South Carolina: 101. Virginia: 182
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. LSU: 3 by 100. Ohio State: 4 by 55. Georgia Tech: 4 by 100. Texas A&M: 4 by 100. Syracuse: 7 by 100. Charlotte: 1 by 100. North Carolina: 6 by 100. Florida State: 2 by 100. Louisville: 1 by 20. Boston College: 2 by 100. Unknown: 5 by 98.7. NC State: 4 by 100. Wake Forest: 4 by 100. South Carolina: 3 by 100. Virginia: 9 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins80.1 · n=13
First Half79.3 · n=8 · +3.1 vs Second Half
Second Half76.1 · n=7 · -3.1 vs First Half
All Games77.8 · n=15
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
15 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Virginia
Best efficiency game
100 vs LSU
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/14 | @ LSU | L 25-42 | — | 3 | 52 | 22 | 17.30 | 0 | 21 |
| Sun 12/29 | @ Ohio State | W 29-23 | — | 4 | 33 | 8.3 | 8.30 | 0 | 21 |
| Sun 12/8 | vs Virginia100 receiving yards · High volume | W 62-17 | — | 9 | 182 | 20.2 | 20.20 | 3 | 54 |
| Sat 11/30 | @ South Carolina100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 38-3 | — | 3 | 101 | 33.7 | 33.70 | 2 | 65 |
| Sat 11/16 | vs Wake Forest2+ TD | W 52-3 | — | 4 | 64 | 16 | 16 | 3 | 30 |
| Sun 11/10 | @ NC State | W 55-10 | — | 4 | 73 | 18.3 | 18.30 | 1 | 33 |
| Sat 11/2 | vs Unknown | — | — | 5 | 74 | 14.8 | 14.80 | 1 | 25 |
| Sat 10/26 | vs Boston College | W 59-7 | — | 2 | 36 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 10/19 | @ Louisville | W 45-10 | — | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Sat 10/12 | vs Florida State | W 45-14 | — | 2 | 44 | 22 | 22 | 0 | 40 |
| Sat 9/28 | @ North Carolina100 receiving yards | W 21-20 | — | 6 | 129 | 21.5 | 21.50 | 1 | 38 |
| Sat 9/21 | vs Charlotte | W 52-10 | — | 1 | 58 | 58 | 58 | 1 | 58 |
| Sat 9/14 | @ Syracuse100 receiving yards | W 41-6 | — | 7 | 150 | 21.4 | 21.40 | 0 | 58 |
| Sat 9/7 | vs Texas A&M | W 24-10 | — | 4 | 70 | 17.5 | 17.50 | 0 | 29 |
| Fri 8/30 | vs Georgia Tech | W 52-14 | — | 4 | 98 | 24.5 | 24.50 | 1 | 62 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Clemson
2017-2019
Opening stop
Season Progression
20172018201820192019
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 Regular Season | Clemson | 345 | 74.3 | 9.1 | — |
| 2018 Postseason | Clemson | 936 | 83.2 | 18 | 591 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Clemson | 936 | 83.2 | 18 | 0 |
| 2019 Postseason | Clemson | 1,167 | 91.6 | 18.6 | 231 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Clemson | 1,167 | 91.6 | 18.6 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Virginia
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
182
Primary metric
182 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
South Carolina
142
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
142 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Unknown
178
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
178 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Syracuse
150
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
150 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
NC State
119
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
119 receiving yards with a 99.2 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Postseason · Clemson
1,167 primary output · 91.6 efficiency · 18.6 usage
68.5
#2
2019 Regular Season · Clemson
68.5
1,167 primary · 91.6 efficiency · 18.6 usage
#3
2018 Postseason · Clemson
62.1
936 primary · 83.2 efficiency · 18 usage
Milestones
8
100+ receiving yards
2
8+ catch outings
6
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
5★
Class 2017 · Rating 0.9899
Oak Ridge · Oak Ridge, TN
- Committed To
- Clemson
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2017
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
2,448
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 37 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.