Usage Score
9.3
Player Dossier
2013-2017USC
Chris Hawkins
CB • 5'11" • 190 lbs • Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Chris Hawkins shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 34.5 disruption score.
Efficiency
34.5
Consistency
14.3
Season Value
18.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season · USC
13141516161717
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- USC
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Boston College
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.
Chris Hawkins, CB. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season · USC. Chris Hawkins shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 34.5 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season
USC paired 2 primary output with 20 efficiency.
Supporting note
2017 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 34.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2017 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Stanford
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. It landed in the 85.7th 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.
2017 Postseason · USC
Games
14
Havoc Plays / G
0.9
Efficiency
34.5
Usage
9.3
Consistency
14.3
Best Game by takeover score
Ohio State
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011121314
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Ohio State: 0. Western Michigan: 0. Stanford: 0. Texas: 0. California: 3. Washington State: 0. Oregon State: 0. Utah: 1. Notre Dame: 2.5. Arizona State: 0. Arizona: 2. Colorado: 0. UCLA: 2. Stanford: 2
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. Ohio State: 6 by 25. Western Michigan: 5 by 20.8. Stanford: 6 by 25. Texas: 5 by 20.8. California: 5 by 50.8. Washington State: 4 by 16.7. Oregon State: 7 by 29.2. Utah: 7 by 39.2. Notre Dame: 4 by 41.7. Arizona State: 2 by 8.3. Arizona: 8 by 53.3. Colorado: 5 by 20.8. UCLA: 10 by 61.7. Stanford: 13 by 70
Split Comparison
Wins0.9 · n=11 · +0.1 vs Losses
Losses0.8 · n=3 · -0.1 vs Wins
First Half0.4 · n=7 · -0.9 vs Second Half
Second Half1.4 · n=7 · +0.9 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Stanford
Best efficiency game
70 vs Stanford
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/30 | @ Ohio State | L 7-24 | 6 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 12/2 | vs Stanford10+ tackles · Splash game | W 31-28 | 13 | 9 | — | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/19 | vs UCLA10+ tackles | W 28-23 | 10 | 4 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/11 | @ Colorado | W 38-24 | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/5 | vs Arizona | W 49-35 | 8 | 5 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 10/29 | @ Arizona State | W 48-17 | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/21 | @ Notre Dame | L 14-49 | 4 | 1 | — | 1.50 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 10/15 | vs Utah | W 28-27 | 7 | 4 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/7 | vs Oregon State | W 38-10 | 7 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/30 | @ Washington State | L 27-30 | 4 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/23 | @ California | W 30-20 | 5 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | — | — |
| Sun 9/17 | vs Texas | W 27-24 | 5 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 9/10 | vs Stanford | W 42-24 | 6 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Western Michigan | W 49-31 | 5 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
USC
2013-2017
Opening stop
Season Progression
2013201420152016201620172017
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 Regular Season | USC | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2014 Regular Season | USC | 1 | 20 | — | 1 |
| 2015 Regular Season | USC | 2 | 20 | — | 1 |
| 2016 Postseason | USC | 7 | 23 | 6.7 | 5 |
| 2016 Regular Season | USC | 7 | 23 | 6.7 | 0 |
| 2017 Postseason | USC | 12.5 | 34.5 | 9.3 | 5.5 |
| 2017 Regular Season | USC | 12.5 | 34.5 | 9.3 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Boston College
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1
Primary metric
1 disruption/tackle impact with 60 takeover score.
#2
Oregon
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 60 takeover score.
#3
Arkansas State
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 60 takeover score.
#4
Stanford
2
Primary metric
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 54.4 takeover score.
#5
California
3
Primary metric
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 53.3 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Regular Season · USC
2 primary output · 20 efficiency · — usage
40.8
#2
2014 Regular Season · USC
40.4
1 primary · 20 efficiency · — usage
#3
2017 Postseason · USC
18.3
12.5 primary · 34.5 efficiency · 9.3 usage
Milestones
3
Impact games
1
Splash games
2
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2013 · Rating 0.9752
Rancho Cucamonga · Rancho Cucamonga, CA
- Committed To
- USC
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2013
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
131
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 28 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.