Usage Score
32.1
Player Dossier
2012-2016Northwestern
WR • 6'1" • Benicia, CA, USA
Austin Carr reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
32.1
Efficiency
83.4
Consistency
70.3
Season Value
71.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by Season Value: 2016 Postseason · Northwestern
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.
Austin Carr, WR. Best season Best season by Season Value: 2016 Postseason · Northwestern. Austin Carr reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Austin Carr played WR for Northwestern. Across 5 tracked seasons, Austin Carr recorded -7 rushing yards, 1,649 receiving yards, and 14 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2016 with Northwestern.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Northwestern paired 1,247 primary output with 83.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 83.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2016 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Ohio State
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. 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
13
Receiving Yards / G
95.9
Efficiency
83.4
Usage
32.1
Consistency
70.3
Best Game by takeover score
Ohio State
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. Pittsburgh: 51. Western Michigan: 75. Illinois State: 73. Duke: 135. Nebraska: 109. Iowa: 73. Michigan State: 130. Indiana: 125. Ohio State: 158. Wisconsin: 132. Purdue: 92. Minnesota: 68. Illinois: 26
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. Pittsburgh: 6 by 56.7. Western Michigan: 5 by 100. Illinois State: 7 by 69.5. Duke: 6 by 100. Nebraska: 8 by 90.8. Iowa: 6 by 81.1. Michigan State: 11 by 78.8. Indiana: 7 by 100. Ohio State: 8 by 100. Wisconsin: 12 by 73.3. Purdue: 5 by 100. Minnesota: 5 by 90.7. Illinois: 4 by 43.3
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.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Ohio State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Purdue
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 12/28 | vs Pittsburgh | W 31-24 | — | 6 | 51 | 8.5 | 8.50 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 11/26 | vs Illinois | W 42-21 | — | 4 | 26 | 6.5 | 6.50 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 11/19 | @ Minnesota | L 12-29 | — | 5 | 68 | 13.6 | 13.60 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 11/12 | @ Purdue2+ TD | W 45-17 | — | 5 | 92 | 18.4 | 18.40 | 2 | 37 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Wisconsin100 receiving yards · High volume | L 7-21 | — | 12 | 132 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 32 |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Ohio State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-24 | — | 8 | 158 | 19.8 | 19.80 | 0 | 35 |
| Sat 10/22 | vs Indiana100 receiving yards | W 24-14 | — | 7 | 125 | 17.9 | 17.90 | 1 | 36 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ Michigan State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 54-40 | — | 11 | 130 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 2 | 29 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Iowa2+ TD | W 38-31 | — | 6 | 73 | 12.2 | 12.20 | 3 | 25 |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Nebraska100 receiving yards · High volume | L 13-24 | — | 8 | 109 | 13.6 | 13.60 | 1 | 24 |
| Sun 9/18 | vs Duke100 receiving yards | W 24-13 | — | 6 | 135 | 22.5 | 22.50 | 1 | 58 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Illinois State | L 7-9 | — | 7 | 73 | 10.4 | 10.40 | 1 | 14 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs Western Michigan | L 21-22 | — | 5 | 75 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 29 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Northwestern
2012-2016
Opening stop
Season Value Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | Northwestern | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2013 Regular Season | Northwestern | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Northwestern | 100 | 72.4 | 5.2 | 100 |
| 2015 Postseason | Northwestern | 302 | 95.3 | 12.7 | 202 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Northwestern | 302 | 95.3 | 12.7 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Northwestern | 1,247 | 83.4 | 32.1 | 945 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Northwestern | 1,247 | 83.4 | 32.1 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Ohio State
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
158
Primary metric
158 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Illinois
61
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
61 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Duke
135
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
135 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Eastern Illinois
61
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
61 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Indiana
125
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
125 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#1 Season by Season Value
2016 Postseason · Northwestern
1,247 primary output · 83.4 efficiency · 32.1 usage
71.4
#2
2016 Regular Season · Northwestern
71.4
1,247 primary · 83.4 efficiency · 32.1 usage
#3
2015 Postseason · Northwestern
47.7
302 primary · 95.3 efficiency · 12.7 usage
6
100+ receiving yards
4
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
1,649
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 30 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.
Next best actions
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.