Usage Score
18.2
Player Dossier
2013-2017Penn State
DaeSean Hamilton
WR • 6'1" • 206 lbs • Fredericksburg, VA, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
DaeSean Hamilton reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
93.3
Consistency
54.2
Season Value
65.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Penn State
1314141515161717
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Penn State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Rutgers
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.
DaeSean Hamilton, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Penn State. DaeSean Hamilton reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason
Penn State paired 857 primary output with 93.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2017 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 93.3 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: Michigan
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 92.3th 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.
2017 Postseason · Penn State
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
65.9
Efficiency
93.3
Usage
18.2
Consistency
54.2
Best Game by takeover score
Washington
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. Washington: 110. Akron: 74. Pittsburgh: 45. Georgia State: 44. Iowa: 46. Indiana: 122. Northwestern: 35. Michigan: 115. Ohio State: 13. Michigan State: 112. Rutgers: 40. Nebraska: 42. Maryland: 59
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: 5 by 100. Akron: 3 by 100. Pittsburgh: 3 by 100. Georgia State: 3 by 97.8. Iowa: 2 by 100. Indiana: 9 by 90.4. Northwestern: 2 by 100. Michigan: 6 by 100. Ohio State: 1 by 86.7. Michigan State: 7 by 100. Rutgers: 3 by 88.9. Nebraska: 4 by 70. Maryland: 5 by 78.7
Split Comparison
Wins66.5 · n=11 · +4.0 vs Losses
Losses62.5 · n=2 · -4.0 vs Wins
First Half68 · n=7 · +4.5 vs Second Half
Second Half63.5 · n=6 · -4.5 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Michigan
Best efficiency game
100 vs Washington
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/30 | vs Washington100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 35-28 | — | 5 | 110 | 22 | 22 | 2 | 48 |
| Sat 11/25 | @ Maryland | W 66-3 | — | 5 | 59 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 0 | 32 |
| Sat 11/18 | vs Nebraska | W 56-44 | — | 4 | 42 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 11/11 | vs Rutgers | W 35-6 | — | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 1 | 25 |
| Sat 11/4 | @ Michigan State100 receiving yards | L 24-27 | — | 7 | 112 | 16 | 16 | 1 | 31 |
| Sat 10/28 | @ Ohio State | L 38-39 | — | 1 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 13 |
| Sat 10/21 | vs Michigan100 receiving yards | W 42-13 | — | 6 | 115 | 19.2 | 19.20 | 0 | 36 |
| Sat 10/7 | @ Northwestern | W 31-7 | — | 2 | 35 | 17.5 | 17.50 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 9/30 | vs Indiana100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-14 | — | 9 | 122 | 12.4 | 13.60 | 3 | 25 |
| Sat 9/23 | @ Iowa | W 21-19 | — | 2 | 46 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 9/16 | vs Georgia State | W 56-0 | — | 3 | 44 | 14.7 | 14.70 | 1 | 27 |
| Sat 9/9 | vs Pittsburgh | W 33-14 | — | 3 | 45 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Akron | W 52-0 | — | 3 | 74 | 24.7 | 24.70 | 0 | 29 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Penn State
2013-2017
Opening stop
Season Progression
20132014201420152015201620172017
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 Regular Season | Penn State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2014 Postseason | Penn State | 899 | 70.4 | 28.1 | 899 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Penn State | 899 | 70.4 | 28.1 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Penn State | 580 | 71.2 | 21.6 | -319 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Penn State | 580 | 71.2 | 21.6 | 0 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Penn State | 506 | 83.4 | 16 | -74 |
| 2017 Postseason | Penn State | 857 | 93.3 | 18.2 | 351 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Penn State | 857 | 93.3 | 18.2 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Rutgers
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
86
Primary metric
86 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Maryland
96
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
96 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Wisconsin
118
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
118 receiving yards with a 98.3 efficiency score.
#4
UCF
165
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
165 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Michigan
115
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
115 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2017 Postseason · Penn State
857 primary output · 93.3 efficiency · 18.2 usage
65.7
#2
2017 Regular Season · Penn State
65.7
857 primary · 93.3 efficiency · 18.2 usage
#3
2014 Postseason · Penn State
64.4
899 primary · 70.4 efficiency · 28.1 usage
Milestones
9
100+ receiving yards
7
8+ catch outings
2
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2013 · Rating 0.8769
Mountain View · Stafford, VA
- Committed To
- Penn State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2013
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
2,842
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 51 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.