Usage Score
8.5
Player Dossier
2012-2016SMU
Gehrig Dieter
WR • 6'3" • South Bend, IN, USA
Reliable chain-moverPossession profile
Gehrig Dieter reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
66.9
Consistency
27.9
Season Value
31.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Bowling Green
1213141415151616
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 3
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- SMU • Bowling Green • Alabama
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Ohio
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.
Gehrig Dieter, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Bowling Green. Gehrig Dieter reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Bowling Green paired 1,033 primary output with 75.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 66.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2016 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 3 team stops, with role shifts visible across SMU, Bowling Green, Alabama.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Western Kentucky
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.
2016 Postseason · Alabama
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
16.5
Efficiency
66.9
Usage
8.5
Consistency
27.9
Best Game by takeover score
Clemson
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. Clemson: 0. Washington: 10. USC: 45. Western Kentucky: 56. Ole Miss: 47. Kent State: 10. Kentucky: 11. Arkansas: 6. Tennessee: 0. Mississippi State: 10. Unknown: 1. Auburn: 12. Florida: 6
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. Washington: 1 by 66.7. USC: 1 by 100. Western Kentucky: 2 by 100. Ole Miss: 2 by 100. Kent State: 1 by 66.7. Kentucky: 1 by 73.3. Arkansas: 1 by 40. Mississippi State: 1 by 66.7. Unknown: 3 by 2.2. Auburn: 1 by 80. Florida: 1 by 40
Split Comparison
Wins19.4 · n=11
First Half25.6 · n=7 · +19.7 vs Second Half
Second Half5.8 · n=6 · -19.7 vs First Half
All Games16.5 · 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
Western Kentucky
Best efficiency game
100 vs Ole Miss
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/10 | vs Clemson | L 31-35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 12/31 | vs Washington | W 24-7 | — | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 12/3 | @ Florida | W 54-16 | — | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 6 |
| Sat 11/26 | vs Auburn | W 30-12 | — | 1 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
| Sun 11/20 | vs Unknown2+ TD | — | — | 3 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.30 | 2 | 1 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs Mississippi State | W 51-3 | — | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ Tennessee | W 49-10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/8 | @ Arkansas | W 49-30 | — | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| Sat 10/1 | vs Kentucky | W 34-6 | — | 1 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Kent State | W 48-0 | — | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 9/17 | @ Ole Miss | W 48-43 | — | 2 | 47 | 23.5 | 23.50 | 0 | 30 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Western Kentucky | W 38-10 | — | 2 | 56 | 28 | 28 | 0 | 40 |
| Sun 9/4 | vs USC | W 52-6 | — | 1 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 1 | 45 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
SMU
2012
Opening stop
- 2
Bowling Green
2013-2015
Peak year stop
- 3
Alabama
2016
Final stop
Season Progression
20122013201420142015201520162016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | SMU | 168 | 80.6 | 9.5 | — |
| 2013 Regular Season | Bowling Green | 0 | — | — | -168 |
| 2014 Postseason | Bowling Green | 460 | 72.6 | 21.4 | 460 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Bowling Green | 460 | 72.6 | 21.4 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Bowling Green | 1,033 | 75.4 | 24.7 | 573 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Bowling Green | 1,033 | 75.4 | 24.7 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Alabama | 214 | 66.9 | 8.5 | -819 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Alabama | 214 | 66.9 | 8.5 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Ohio
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
136
Primary metric
136 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
South Alabama
108
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
108 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Tennessee
133
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
133 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Baylor
64
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
64 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Western Kentucky
56
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
56 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Bowling Green
1,033 primary output · 75.4 efficiency · 24.7 usage
68.3
#2
2015 Regular Season · Bowling Green
68.3
1,033 primary · 75.4 efficiency · 24.7 usage
#3
2014 Postseason · Bowling Green
53.5
460 primary · 72.6 efficiency · 21.4 usage
Milestones
4
100+ receiving yards
6
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2012 · Rating 0.8497
Washington · South Bend, IN
- Committed To
- SMU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2012
Career Facts
3
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
1,875
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 39 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.