Usage Score
27.9
Player Dossier
2018-2022Florida State
Tre'Shaun Harrison
WR • 6'1" • 191 lbs • Seattle, WA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Tre'Shaun Harrison reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
69.3
Consistency
39.1
Season Value
58.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season · Oregon State
181920212122
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Florida State • Oregon State
- 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.
Tre'Shaun Harrison, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season · Oregon State. Tre'Shaun Harrison reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season
Oregon State paired 604 primary output with 69.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2022 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 69.3 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 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Florida State, Oregon State.
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 Regular Season · Oregon State
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
50.3
Efficiency
69.3
Usage
27.9
Consistency
39.1
Best Game by takeover score
Oregon
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. Boise State: 33. Fresno State: 53. Unknown: 133. USC: 22. Utah: 96. Stanford: 104. Washington State: 13. Colorado: 23. Washington: 15. California: 79. Arizona State: 18. Oregon: 15
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. Boise State: 3 by 73.3. Fresno State: 5 by 70.7. Unknown: 8 by 100. USC: 3 by 48.9. Utah: 5 by 100. Stanford: 7 by 99. Washington State: 1 by 86.7. Colorado: 2 by 76.7. Washington: 5 by 20. California: 8 by 65.8. Arizona State: 3 by 40. Oregon: 2 by 50
Split Comparison
Wins42.3 · n=8 · -2.1 vs Losses
Losses44.3 · n=3 · +2.1 vs Wins
First Half73.5 · n=6 · +46.3 vs Second Half
Second Half27.2 · n=6 · -46.3 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 Utah
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/26 | vs Oregon | W 38-34 | — | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 7.50 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 11/19 | @ Arizona State | W 31-7 | — | 3 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 11 |
| Sun 11/13 | vs CaliforniaHigh volume | W 38-10 | — | 8 | 79 | 9.9 | 9.90 | 1 | 34 |
| Sat 11/5 | @ Washington | L 21-24 | — | 5 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
| Sun 10/23 | vs Colorado | W 42-9 | — | 2 | 23 | 11.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 12 |
| Sun 10/16 | vs Washington State | W 24-10 | — | 1 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
| Sun 10/9 | @ Stanford100 receiving yards | W 28-27 | — | 7 | 104 | 12.8 | 14.90 | 1 | 56 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Utah | L 16-42 | — | 5 | 96 | 19.2 | 19.20 | 0 | 63 |
| Sun 9/25 | vs USC | L 14-17 | — | 3 | 22 | 7.3 | 7.30 | 0 | 10 |
| Sun 9/18 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · High volume | — | — | 8 | 133 | 16.6 | 16.60 | 1 | 26 |
| Sun 9/11 | @ Fresno State | W 35-32 | — | 5 | 53 | 10.6 | 10.60 | 1 | 17 |
| Sun 9/4 | vs Boise State | W 34-17 | — | 3 | 33 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 26 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Florida State
2018-2019
Opening stop
- 2
Oregon State
2020-2022
Final stop
Season Progression
201820192020202120212022
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Regular Season | Florida State | 72 | 45.8 | 9.6 | — |
| 2019 Regular Season | Florida State | 289 | 71.2 | 13.9 | 217 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Oregon State | 142 | 92.5 | 27.2 | -147 |
| 2021 Postseason | Oregon State | 401 | 75.9 | 15.9 | 259 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Oregon State | 401 | 75.9 | 15.9 | 0 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Oregon State | 604 | 69.3 | 27.9 | 203 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Unknown
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
133
Primary metric
133 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Stanford
91
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
91 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Utah
72
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
72 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Unknown
94
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
94 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Stanford
104
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
104 receiving yards with a 99 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2022 Regular Season · Oregon State
604 primary output · 69.3 efficiency · 27.9 usage
58.9
#2
2021 Postseason · Oregon State
54.6
401 primary · 75.9 efficiency · 15.9 usage
#3
2021 Regular Season · Oregon State
54.6
401 primary · 75.9 efficiency · 15.9 usage
Milestones
2
100+ receiving yards
2
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2018 · Rating 0.9336
Garfield · Seattle, WA
- Committed To
- Florida State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2018
Career Facts
2
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,508
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 43 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.