Usage Score
14.1
Player Dossier
2020-2025Clemson
E.J. Williams Jr.
WR • 6'4" • 203 lbs • Phenix City, AL, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
E.J. Williams Jr. reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
71.2
Consistency
51.5
Season Value
59.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason · Indiana
2020212223242525
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Clemson • Indiana
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Purdue
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.
E.J. Williams Jr., WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason · Indiana. E.J. Williams Jr. reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason
Indiana paired 438 primary output with 71.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2025 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 71.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2025 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 Clemson, Indiana.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: UCLA
Win 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.
2025 Postseason · Indiana
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
33.7
Efficiency
71.2
Usage
14.1
Consistency
51.5
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
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Oregon: 13. Alabama: 9. Old Dominion: 45. Kennesaw State: 27. Unknown: 27. Illinois: 17. Iowa: 37. Michigan State: 59. UCLA: 109. Maryland: 15. Penn State: 16. Wisconsin: 52. Ohio State: 12
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. Oregon: 1 by 86.7. Alabama: 1 by 60. Old Dominion: 5 by 60. Kennesaw State: 3 by 60. Unknown: 2 by 90. Illinois: 3 by 37.8. Iowa: 1 by 100. Michigan State: 5 by 78.7. UCLA: 5 by 100. Maryland: 2 by 50. Penn State: 2 by 53.3. Wisconsin: 5 by 69.3. Ohio State: 1 by 80
Split Comparison
Wins34.3 · n=12
First Half25 · n=7 · -18.8 vs Second Half
Second Half43.8 · n=6 · +18.8 vs First Half
All Games33.7 · n=13
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
UCLA
Best efficiency game
100 vs UCLA
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/10 | vs Oregon | W 56-22 | — | 1 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 13 |
| Thu 1/1 | vs Alabama | W 38-3 | — | 1 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
| Sun 12/7 | @ Ohio State | W 13-10 | — | 1 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 11/15 | vs Wisconsin | W 31-7 | — | 5 | 52 | 10.4 | 10.40 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 11/8 | @ Penn State | W 27-24 | — | 2 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 11/1 | @ Maryland | W 55-10 | — | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 7.50 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 10/25 | vs UCLA100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 56-6 | — | 5 | 109 | 21.8 | 21.80 | 2 | 62 |
| Sat 10/18 | vs Michigan State | W 38-13 | — | 5 | 59 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 1 | 19 |
| Sat 9/27 | @ Iowa | W 20-15 | — | 1 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 0 | 37 |
| Sat 9/20 | vs Illinois | W 63-10 | — | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 5.70 | 1 | 11 |
| Fri 9/12 | vs Unknown | — | — | 2 | 27 | 13.5 | 13.50 | 0 | 18 |
| Sat 9/6 | vs Kennesaw State | W 56-9 | — | 3 | 27 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 14 |
| Sat 8/30 | vs Old Dominion | W 27-14 | — | 5 | 45 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 22 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Clemson
2020-2022
Opening stop
- 2
Indiana
2023-2025
Final stop
Season Progression
20202020202120222023202420252025
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Postseason | Clemson | 306 | 68.8 | 8.6 | — |
| 2020 Regular Season | Clemson | 306 | 68.8 | 8.6 | 0 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Clemson | 66 | 46.7 | 8.8 | -240 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Clemson | 70 | 59.5 | 6.3 | 4 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Indiana | 276 | 74 | 18.4 | 206 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Indiana | 49 | 90 | 4.1 | -227 |
| 2025 Postseason | Indiana | 438 | 71.2 | 14.1 | 389 |
| 2025 Regular Season | Indiana | 438 | 71.2 | 14.1 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Purdue
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
97
Primary metric
97 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
UCLA
109
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
109 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Notre Dame
80
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
80 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Northwestern
37
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
37 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Unknown
38
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
38 receiving yards with a 84.4 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2025 Postseason · Indiana
438 primary output · 71.2 efficiency · 14.1 usage
59.2
#2
2025 Regular Season · Indiana
59.2
438 primary · 71.2 efficiency · 14.1 usage
#3
2023 Regular Season · Indiana
54.6
276 primary · 74 efficiency · 18.4 usage
Milestones
1
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2020 · Rating 0.9682
Central · Phenix City, AL
- Committed To
- Clemson
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2020
Career Facts
2
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
1,205
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 44 games, and SP opponent-strength context when available. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.