Usage Score
20.4
Player Dossier
2018-2022Georgia
Matt Landers
WR • 6'5" • 203 lbs • Saint Petersburg, FL, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Matt Landers reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
94.8
Consistency
68.9
Season Value
71
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason · Arkansas
1819192021212222
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 3
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Georgia • Toledo • Arkansas
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
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.
Matt Landers, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason · Arkansas. Matt Landers reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason
Arkansas paired 901 primary output with 94.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
2022 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 94.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2022 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 3 team stops, with role shifts visible across Georgia, Toledo, Arkansas.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
Game 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.
2022 Postseason · Arkansas
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
75.1
Efficiency
94.8
Usage
20.4
Consistency
68.9
Best Game by takeover score
Kansas
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. Kansas: 121. Cincinnati: 43. South Carolina: 45. Unknown: 123. Texas A&M: 19. Alabama: 31. BYU: 99. Auburn: 115. Liberty: 119. LSU: 69. Ole Miss: 38. Missouri: 79
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. Kansas: 3 by 100. Cincinnati: 3 by 95.6. South Carolina: 4 by 75. Unknown: 7 by 100. Texas A&M: 1 by 100. Alabama: 2 by 100. BYU: 8 by 82.5. Auburn: 4 by 100. Liberty: 6 by 100. LSU: 2 by 100. Ole Miss: 3 by 84.4. Missouri: 4 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins76.8 · n=6 · +13.4 vs Losses
Losses63.4 · n=5 · -13.4 vs Wins
First Half63.7 · n=6 · -22.8 vs Second Half
Second Half86.5 · n=6 · +22.8 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Unknown
Best efficiency game
100 vs Kansas
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 12/28 | vs Kansas100 receiving yards | W 55-53 | — | 3 | 121 | 34 | 40.30 | 1 | 59 |
| Fri 11/25 | @ Missouri | L 27-29 | — | 4 | 79 | 19.8 | 19.80 | 1 | 37 |
| Sun 11/20 | vs Ole Miss2+ TD | W 42-27 | — | 3 | 38 | 12.7 | 12.70 | 2 | 23 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs LSU | L 10-13 | — | 2 | 69 | 34.5 | 34.50 | 1 | 40 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Liberty100 receiving yards | L 19-21 | — | 6 | 119 | 19.8 | 19.80 | 0 | 36 |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Auburn100 receiving yards | W 41-27 | — | 4 | 115 | 28.8 | 28.80 | 0 | 56 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ BYUHigh volume · 2+ TD | W 52-35 | — | 8 | 99 | 12.4 | 12.40 | 3 | 39 |
| Sat 10/1 | vs Alabama | L 26-49 | — | 2 | 31 | 15.5 | 15.50 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ Texas A&M | L 21-23 | — | 1 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards | — | — | 7 | 123 | 17.6 | 17.60 | 0 | 47 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs South Carolina | W 44-30 | — | 4 | 45 | 10.2 | 11.30 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs Cincinnati | W 31-24 | — | 3 | 43 | 14.3 | 14.30 | 0 | 20 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Georgia
2018-2020
Opening stop
- 2
Toledo
2021
Peak year stop
- 3
Arkansas
2022
Final stop
Season Progression
20182019201920202021202120222022
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Regular Season | Georgia | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2019 Postseason | Georgia | 105 | 63.2 | 8.8 | 105 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Georgia | 105 | 63.2 | 8.8 | 0 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Georgia | 27 | 90 | 7.1 | -78 |
| 2021 Postseason | Toledo | 514 | 89 | 14.2 | 487 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Toledo | 514 | 89 | 14.2 | 0 |
| 2022 Postseason | Arkansas | 901 | 94.8 | 20.4 | 387 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Arkansas | 901 | 94.8 | 20.4 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Unknown
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
123
Primary metric
123 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Liberty
119
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
119 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Auburn
115
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
115 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Eastern Michigan
150
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
150 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Kansas
121
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
121 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2022 Postseason · Arkansas
901 primary output · 94.8 efficiency · 20.4 usage
71
#2
2022 Regular Season · Arkansas
71
901 primary · 94.8 efficiency · 20.4 usage
#3
2021 Postseason · Toledo
54.6
514 primary · 89 efficiency · 14.2 usage
Milestones
6
100+ receiving yards
1
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2017 · Rating 0.86
St. Petersburg · St. Petersburg, FL
- Committed To
- Georgia
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2017
Career Facts
3
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
1,547
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 26 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.