Usage Score
—
Player Dossier
2018-2021UTSA
TE • 6'4" • 250 lbs • Tupelo, MS, USA
Peter Gray reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
—
Efficiency
—
Consistency
100
Season Value
100
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · UTSA
Snapshot
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.
Peter Gray, TE. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · UTSA. Peter Gray reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season
UTSA paired 0 primary output with — efficiency.
Supporting note
2020 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with — efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value cooled off
2021 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
3
Receiving Yards / G
0
Efficiency
—
Usage
—
Consistency
100
Best Game by takeover score
North Texas
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Texas State: 0. Middle Tennessee: 0. North Texas: 0
Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
3 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
North Texas
Best efficiency game
— vs North Texas
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
UTSA
2018-2021
Opening stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Regular Season | UTSA | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2019 Regular Season | UTSA | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2020 Regular Season | UTSA | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2021 Regular Season | UTSA | 0 | — | — | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Florida International
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
0
Primary metric
0 receiving yards with a — efficiency score.
#2
UAB
0
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
0 receiving yards with a — efficiency score.
#3
North Texas
0
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
0 receiving yards with a — efficiency score.
#4
Middle Tennessee
0
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
0 receiving yards with a — efficiency score.
#5
Texas State
0
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
0 receiving yards with a — efficiency score.
#1 Season by value score
2018 Regular Season · UTSA
0 primary output · — efficiency · — usage
100
#2
2020 Regular Season · UTSA
100
0 primary · — efficiency · — usage
#3
2019 Regular Season · UTSA
—
0 primary · — efficiency · — usage
0
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Recruit Profile
Class 2018 · Rating 0.8064
Tupelo · Tupelo, MS
Career Facts
1
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
0
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 5 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.
Peter Gray quick answers
Recruiting profile
3-star recruit