Usage Score
5.7
Player Dossier
2018-2021Wisconsin
John Chenal
FB • 6'2" • 256 lbs • Grantsburg, WI, USA
Balanced backfield optionSteady chain mover
John Chenal leans balanced backfield option traits and 20.2 efficiency.
Efficiency
20.2
Consistency
21.4
Season Value
36.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season · Wisconsin
181920202121
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Wisconsin
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Michigan
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.
John Chenal, FB. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season · Wisconsin. John Chenal leans balanced backfield option traits and 20.2 efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season
Wisconsin paired 80 primary output with 35.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 20.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2021 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Illinois
Win with 42 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. 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.
2021 Postseason · Wisconsin
Games
12
Scrimmage Yards / G
9.8
Efficiency
20.2
Usage
5.7
Consistency
21.4
Best Game by takeover score
Arizona State
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Game-by-Game Trend
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. Arizona State: 25. Penn State: 2. Eastern Michigan: 0. Notre Dame: 11. Michigan: 3. Illinois: 42. Army: 2. Purdue: 0. Iowa: 22. Rutgers: 3. Northwestern: 1. Nebraska: 6
Volume vs Efficiency
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.
Low volumeHigh quality
High volumeHigh quality
Low volumeLower quality
High volumeLower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Arizona State: 6 by 31.4. Penn State: 2 by 10.4. Notre Dame: 3 by 38.2. Michigan: 2 by 15.6. Illinois: 11 by 35.4. Army: 2 by 10.4. Purdue: 1 by 0. Iowa: 5 by 41.8. Rutgers: 3 by 10.4. Northwestern: 1 by 8.3. Nebraska: 3 by 20.8
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins11.2 · Games = 9 · +5.9 vs Losses
Losses5.3 · Games = 3 · -5.9 vs Wins
First Half13.8 · Games = 6 · +8.2 vs Second Half
Second Half5.7 · Games = 6 · -8.2 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Scrimmage Yards
Top game by takeover score
Illinois
Best efficiency game
41.8 vs Iowa
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/31 | @ Arizona State | W 20-13 | 4 | 9 | 2.30 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 4.2 |
| Sat 11/20 | vs Nebraska | W 35-28 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0 | — | — | 2 |
| Sat 11/13 | vs Northwestern | W 35-7 | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sat 11/6 | @ Rutgers | W 52-3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sat 10/30 | vs Iowa | W 27-7 | 4 | 15 | 3.80 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 4.4 |
| Sat 10/23 | @ Purdue | W 30-13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| Sun 10/17 | vs Army | W 20-14 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | — | — | 1 |
| Sat 10/9 | @ Illinois | W 24-0 | 9 | 28 | 3.10 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 3.8 |
| Sat 10/2 | vs Michigan | L 17-38 | 2 | 3 | 1.50 | 0 | — | — | 1.5 |
| Sat 9/25 | vs Notre Dame | L 13-41 | 3 | 11 | 3.70 | 0 | — | — | 3.7 |
| Sat 9/11 | vs Eastern Michigan | W 34-7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/4 | vs Penn State | L 10-16 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | — | — | 1 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Wisconsin
2018-2021
Opening stop
Season Progression
201820192020202020212021
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2019 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 80 | 35.7 | 3.9 | 80 |
| 2020 Postseason | Wisconsin | 80 | 44.9 | 3.9 | 0 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 80 | 44.9 | 3.9 | 0 |
| 2021 Postseason | Wisconsin | 117 | 20.2 | 5.7 | 37 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 117 | 20.2 | 5.7 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Michigan
Win with 71 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
71
Primary metric
71 scrimmage yards and 9.5 usage.
#2
Kent State
24
Primary metric
Win with 24 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
24 scrimmage yards and 5.6 usage.
#3
Illinois
42
Primary metric
Win with 42 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
42 scrimmage yards and 15.5 usage.
#4
Michigan State
18
Primary metric
Win with 18 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
18 scrimmage yards and 7.8 usage.
#5
South Florida
14
Primary metric
Win with 14 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value.
14 scrimmage yards and 3.2 usage.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Regular Season · Wisconsin
80 primary output · 35.7 efficiency · 3.9 usage
40.1
#2
2021 Postseason · Wisconsin
36.4
117 primary · 20.2 efficiency · 5.7 usage
#3
2021 Regular Season · Wisconsin
36.4
117 primary · 20.2 efficiency · 5.7 usage
Milestones
0
100+ rush yards
0
150+ scrimmage yards
0
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2018 · Rating 0.8198
Grantsburg · Grantsburg, WI
- Committed To
- Wisconsin
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2018
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
277
Career Scrimmage Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 25 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.