Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2013 Regular Season
Northwestern paired 0 primary output with — efficiency.
Player Stats
Andrew Scanlan College Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Career production snapshot
- Receiving yards
- 336
- Receptions
- 30
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | Northwestern | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2013 Regular Season | Northwestern | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Northwestern | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 23.8 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Northwestern | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | 50 |
| 2016 Postseason | Northwestern | 13 | 4 | 35 | 0 | 62.3 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Northwestern | 13 | 25 | 296 | 0 | 62.3 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 68.6 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: Purdue
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 compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2016 Postseason · Northwestern
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
25.5
Efficiency
68.6
Usage
10.8
Consistency
44.7
Best Game by takeover score
Purdue
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. Pittsburgh: 35. Western Michigan: 19. Illinois State: 5. Duke: 8. Nebraska: 8. Iowa: 18. Michigan State: 32. Indiana: 23. Ohio State: 0. Wisconsin: 46. Purdue: 78. Minnesota: 54. Illinois: 5
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. Pittsburgh: 4 by 58.3. Western Michigan: 2 by 63.3. Illinois State: 1 by 33.3. Duke: 1 by 53.3. Nebraska: 1 by 53.3. Iowa: 1 by 100. Michigan State: 2 by 100. Indiana: 2 by 76.7. Wisconsin: 5 by 61.3. Purdue: 5 by 100. Minnesota: 4 by 90. Illinois: 1 by 33.3
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins28.4 · Games = 7 · +6.4 vs Losses
Losses22 · Games = 6 · -6.4 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Andrew Scanlan
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.