Usage Score
23
Player Dossier
2013-2016Clemson
Mike Williams
WR • 6'3" • Vance, SC, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Mike Williams reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
86.3
Consistency
57
Season Value
66.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · Clemson
131414151616
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Clemson
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: NC State
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.
Mike Williams, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · Clemson. Mike Williams reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason
Clemson paired 1,030 primary output with 93.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 86.3 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: Auburn
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 93.3th 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 · Clemson
Games
15
Receiving Yards / G
90.7
Efficiency
86.3
Usage
23
Consistency
57
Best Game by takeover score
Alabama
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112131415
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Alabama: 94. Ohio State: 96. Auburn: 174. Troy: 24. Unknown: 44. Georgia Tech: 61. Louisville: 70. Boston College: 59. NC State: 146. Florida State: 70. Syracuse: 106. Pittsburgh: 202. Wake Forest: 58. South Carolina: 100. Virginia Tech: 57
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. Alabama: 8 by 78.3. Ohio State: 6 by 100. Auburn: 9 by 100. Troy: 2 by 80. Unknown: 3 by 97.8. Georgia Tech: 6 by 67.8. Louisville: 5 by 93.3. Boston College: 2 by 100. NC State: 12 by 81.1. Florida State: 7 by 66.7. Syracuse: 6 by 100. Pittsburgh: 15 by 89.8. Wake Forest: 6 by 64.4. South Carolina: 6 by 100. Virginia Tech: 5 by 76
Split Comparison
Wins85.8 · n=13
First Half77.8 · n=8 · -27.8 vs Second Half
Second Half105.6 · n=7 · +27.8 vs First Half
All Games90.7 · n=15
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
15 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Auburn
Best efficiency game
100 vs Ohio State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/10 | @ AlabamaHigh volume | W 35-31 | — | 8 | 94 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 1 | 26 |
| Sun 1/1 | vs Ohio State | W 31-0 | — | 6 | 96 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 37 |
| Sun 12/4 | @ Virginia Tech | W 42-35 | — | 5 | 57 | 11.4 | 11.40 | 0 | 20 |
| Sun 11/27 | vs South Carolina100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 56-7 | — | 6 | 100 | 16.7 | 16.70 | 3 | 34 |
| Sun 11/20 | @ Wake Forest | W 35-13 | — | 6 | 58 | 9.7 | 9.70 | 1 | 22 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs Pittsburgh100 receiving yards · High volume | L 42-43 | — | 15 | 202 | 13.5 | 13.50 | 1 | 31 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Syracuse100 receiving yards | W 54-0 | — | 6 | 106 | 17.7 | 17.70 | 1 | 31 |
| Sun 10/30 | @ Florida State | W 37-34 | — | 7 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 10/15 | vs NC State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 24-17 | — | 12 | 146 | 12.2 | 12.20 | 1 | 29 |
| Fri 10/7 | @ Boston College | W 56-10 | — | 2 | 59 | 29.5 | 29.50 | 1 | 50 |
| Sun 10/2 | vs Louisville | W 42-36 | — | 5 | 70 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 20 |
| Thu 9/22 | @ Georgia Tech | W 26-7 | — | 6 | 61 | 10.2 | 10.20 | 1 | 28 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 44 | 14.7 | 14.70 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Troy | W 30-24 | — | 2 | 24 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 18 |
| Sun 9/4 | @ Auburn100 receiving yards · High volume | W 19-13 | — | 9 | 174 | 19.3 | 19.30 | 0 | 34 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Clemson
2013-2016
Opening stop
Season Progression
201320142014201520162016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 Regular Season | Clemson | 316 | 88.7 | 7.7 | — |
| 2014 Postseason | Clemson | 1,030 | 93.9 | 20.6 | 714 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Clemson | 1,030 | 93.9 | 20.6 | 0 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Clemson | 20 | 66.7 | 6.7 | -1,010 |
| 2016 Postseason | Clemson | 1,361 | 86.3 | 23 | 1,341 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Clemson | 1,361 | 86.3 | 23 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
NC State
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
155
Primary metric
155 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Auburn
174
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
174 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Pittsburgh
202
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
202 receiving yards with a 89.8 efficiency score.
#4
Unknown
70
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
70 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Boston College
128
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
128 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2014 Postseason · Clemson
1,030 primary output · 93.9 efficiency · 20.6 usage
69.6
#2
2014 Regular Season · Clemson
69.6
1,030 primary · 93.9 efficiency · 20.6 usage
#3
2016 Postseason · Clemson
66.6
1,361 primary · 86.3 efficiency · 23 usage
Milestones
9
100+ receiving yards
6
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2013 · Rating 0.9111
Lake Marion · Santee, SC
- Committed To
- Clemson
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2013
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
2,727
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 38 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.