Usage Score
29.8
Player Dossier
2020-2022Houston
Nathaniel Dell
WR • 5'10" • 165 lbs • Daytona Beach, FL, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Nathaniel Dell reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
88.2
Consistency
67.6
Season Value
70.5
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Houston
202021212222
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Houston
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Cincinnati
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.
Nathaniel Dell, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Houston. Nathaniel Dell reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason
Houston paired 1,329 primary output with 88.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 88.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2022 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Cincinnati
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 85.7th 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 · Houston
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
94.9
Efficiency
88.2
Usage
29.8
Consistency
67.6
Best Game by takeover score
Auburn
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011121314
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Auburn: 150. Texas Tech: 80. Rice: 87. Unknown: 134. Navy: 41. Tulsa: 82. Tulane: 53. East Carolina: 33. SMU: 165. South Florida: 164. Temple: 26. Memphis: 100. UConn: 62. Cincinnati: 152
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. Auburn: 10 by 100. Texas Tech: 7 by 76.2. Rice: 7 by 82.9. Unknown: 8 by 100. Navy: 3 by 91.1. Tulsa: 6 by 91.1. Tulane: 4 by 88.3. East Carolina: 4 by 55. SMU: 9 by 100. South Florida: 8 by 100. Temple: 2 by 86.7. Memphis: 7 by 95.2. UConn: 6 by 68.9. Cincinnati: 9 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins87.5 · n=11 · -28.5 vs Losses
Losses116 · n=2 · +28.5 vs Wins
First Half89.6 · n=7 · -10.7 vs Second Half
Second Half100.3 · n=7 · +10.7 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Cincinnati
Best efficiency game
100 vs Auburn
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 12/28 | @ Auburn100 receiving yards · High volume | W 17-13 | — | 10 | 150 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 12/4 | @ Cincinnati100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-35 | — | 9 | 152 | 16.9 | 16.90 | 1 | 53 |
| Sat 11/27 | @ UConn2+ TD | W 45-17 | — | 6 | 62 | 10.3 | 10.30 | 2 | 21 |
| Sat 11/20 | vs Memphis100 receiving yards | W 31-13 | — | 7 | 100 | 14.3 | 14.30 | 1 | 29 |
| Sat 11/13 | @ Temple | W 37-8 | — | 2 | 26 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 11/6 | @ South Florida100 receiving yards · High volume | W 54-42 | — | 8 | 164 | 20.5 | 20.50 | 1 | 55 |
| Sat 10/30 | vs SMU100 receiving yards · High volume | W 44-37 | — | 9 | 165 | 18.3 | 18.30 | 3 | 52 |
| Sat 10/23 | vs East Carolina | W 31-24 | — | 4 | 33 | 8.3 | 8.30 | 1 | 14 |
| Thu 10/7 | @ Tulane | W 40-22 | — | 4 | 53 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 0 | 36 |
| Fri 10/1 | @ Tulsa | W 45-10 | — | 6 | 82 | 13.7 | 13.70 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 9/25 | vs Navy | W 28-20 | — | 3 | 41 | 13.7 | 13.70 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 9/18 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · High volume | — | — | 8 | 134 | 16.8 | 16.80 | 2 | 37 |
| Sat 9/11 | @ Rice | W 44-7 | — | 7 | 87 | 12.4 | 12.40 | 0 | 22 |
| Sat 9/4 | vs Texas Tech | L 21-38 | — | 7 | 80 | 10.6 | 11.40 | 1 | 24 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Houston
2020-2022
Opening stop
Season Progression
202020202021202120222022
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Postseason | Houston | 428 | 87.5 | 16.8 | — |
| 2020 Regular Season | Houston | 428 | 87.5 | 16.8 | 0 |
| 2021 Postseason | Houston | 1,329 | 88.2 | 29.8 | 901 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Houston | 1,329 | 88.2 | 29.8 | 0 |
| 2022 Postseason | Houston | 1,398 | 78.6 | 32.6 | 69 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Houston | 1,398 | 78.6 | 32.6 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Cincinnati
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
152
Primary metric
152 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
South Florida
164
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
164 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
SMU
165
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
165 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Auburn
150
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
150 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Hawai'i
112
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
112 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2021 Postseason · Houston
1,329 primary output · 88.2 efficiency · 29.8 usage
70.5
#2
2021 Regular Season · Houston
70.5
1,329 primary · 88.2 efficiency · 29.8 usage
#3
2022 Postseason · Houston
70.5
1,398 primary · 78.6 efficiency · 32.6 usage
Milestones
13
100+ receiving yards
13
8+ catch outings
9
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2024 · Rating 0.8067
Brownsburg · Brownsburg, IN
- Committed To
- Purdue
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2024
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
3,155
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 35 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.