Usage Score
29.1
Player Dossier
2011-2014Army
QB • 5'11" • Fontana, CA, USA
Angel Santiago is a pass-first distributor with 29.1 usage in the latest tracked season.
Usage Score
29.1
Efficiency
63.1
Consistency
76.6
Season Value
67
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2014 Regular Season · Army
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.
Angel Santiago, QB. Best season Best season by value score: 2014 Regular Season · Army. Angel Santiago is a pass-first distributor with 29.1 usage in the latest tracked season.
Angel Santiago played QB for Army. Across 4 tracked seasons, Angel Santiago recorded 1,164 passing yards, 1,581 rushing yards, and 24 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2014 with Army.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2014 Regular Season
Army paired 1,302 primary output with 63.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
2014 Regular Season role shape
pass-led usage with 63.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2014 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
Game with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
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
12
Primary Metric / G
108.5
Efficiency
63.1
Usage
29.1
Consistency
76.6
Best Game by takeover score
Navy
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. Buffalo: 125. Stanford: 42. Wake Forest: 139. Unknown: 205. Ball State: 137. Rice: 143. Kent State: 94. Air Force: 53. UConn: 135. Western Kentucky: 118. Unknown: 90. Navy: 21
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. Buffalo: 18 by 81. Stanford: 10 by 72.6. Wake Forest: 26 by 59. Unknown: 16 by 93.8. Ball State: 16 by 83.8. Rice: 34 by 54.9. Kent State: 31 by 35.2. Air Force: 25 by 39.2. UConn: 28 by 76.4. Western Kentucky: 25 by 61.7. Unknown: 21 by 68.7. Navy: 12 by 30.3
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.
12 games
Featured metric
Total Offense
Top game by takeover score
Unknown
Best efficiency game
93.8 vs Unknown
| Result | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/13 | vs Navy | L 10-17 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 30.3 | 10 | 21 | 2.10 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 11/22 | vs Unknown | — | 2 | 4 | 48 | 50.0 | 0 | 0 | 68.7 | 17 | 42 | 2.50 | 0 | 6 |
| Sat 11/15 | @ Western KentuckyDual-threat | L 24-52 | 3 | 6 | 40 | 50.0 | 0 | 0 | 61.7 | 19 | 78 | 4.10 | 2 | 54 |
| Sat 11/8 | vs UConnDual-threat | W 35-21 | 2 | 3 | 38 | 66.7 | 0 | 0 | 76.4 | 25 | 97 | 3.90 | 2 | 17 |
| Sat 11/1 | vs Air Force | L 6-23 | 2 | 11 | 20 | 18.2 | 0 | 0 | 39.2 | 14 | 33 | 2.40 | 0 | 32 |
| Sat 10/18 | @ Kent StateDual-threat | L 17-39 | 3 | 10 | 17 | 30.0 | 0 | 1 | 35.2 | 21 | 77 | 3.70 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 10/11 | vs RiceDual-threat | L 21-41 | 5 | 11 | 37 | 45.5 | 1 | 0 | 54.9 | 23 | 106 | 4.60 | 1 | 24 |
| Sat 10/4 | vs Ball StateDual-threat | W 33-24 | 2 | 3 | 48 | 66.7 | 0 | 0 | 83.8 | 13 | 89 | 6.80 | 1 | 37 |
| Sat 9/27 | @ UnknownDual-threat | — | 6 | 8 | 117 | 75.0 | 0 | 0 | 93.8 | 8 | 88 | 11 | 2 | 53 |
| Sat 9/20 | @ Wake ForestDual-threat | L 21-24 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 50.0 | 0 | 0 | 59 | 22 | 125 | 5.70 | 1 | 37 |
| Sat 9/13 | @ Stanford | L 0-35 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 100.0 | 0 | 0 | 72.6 | 8 | 29 | 3.60 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 9/6 | vs Buffalo | W 47-39 | 6 | 6 | 96 | 100.0 | 0 | 0 | 81 | 12 | 29 | 2.40 | 1 | 9 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Army
2011-2014
Opening stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Regular Season | Army | 246 | 56.3 | 20.7 | — |
| 2012 Regular Season | Army | 12 | 28.4 | 5.7 | -234 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Army | 1,185 | 56.6 | 25.3 | 1,173 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Army | 1,302 | 63.1 | 29.1 | 117 |
#1 Featured game
Unknown
Game with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
221
Primary metric
221 total offense with 81.3 efficiency.
#2
Unknown
205
Primary metric
Game with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
205 total offense with 93.8 efficiency.
#3
Rutgers
149
Primary metric
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
149 total offense with 51.7 efficiency.
#4
UConn
135
Primary metric
Win with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
135 total offense with 76.4 efficiency.
#5
Ball State
137
Primary metric
Win with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
137 total offense with 83.8 efficiency.
#1 Season by value score
2014 Regular Season · Army
1,302 primary output · 63.1 efficiency · 29.1 usage
67
#2
2013 Regular Season · Army
60.3
1,185 primary · 56.6 efficiency · 25.3 usage
#3
2011 Regular Season · Army
34.6
246 primary · 56.3 efficiency · 20.7 usage
0
250+ passing yards
0
300+ total offense
1
3+ takeover TD games
13
Above avg efficiency
Recruit Profile
Class 2010 · Rating 0.8111
Etiwanda · Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Career Facts
1
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
2,745
Career Total Offense
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 30 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.