Player Stats

Koa Farmer 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

Tackles
129
TFL
12.5
Sacks
4
QB hurries
3
Passes defended
4

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonPenn State00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonPenn State70-0--050
2016 PostseasonPenn State122-0--047.9
2016 Regular SeasonPenn State12274.5311047.9
2017 PostseasonPenn State132-0--050.2
2017 Regular SeasonPenn State13465.5121050.2
2018 PostseasonPenn State122-0--028
2018 Regular SeasonPenn State12502.50-2028

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason

Penn State paired 9.5 primary output with 22.7 efficiency.

Supporting note

2018 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 21.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Rutgers

Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. 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.

2018 Postseason · Penn State

Games

12

Havoc Plays / G

0.4

Efficiency

21.8

Usage

3.8

Consistency

11.1

Best Game by takeover score

Rutgers

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.

123456789101112

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Kentucky: 0. App State: 1. Pittsburgh: 0. Illinois: 0. Ohio State: 0.5. Michigan State: 1. Indiana: 0. Iowa: 0. Michigan: 0. Wisconsin: 0. Rutgers: 2. Maryland: 0

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. Kentucky: 2 by 8.3. App State: 5 by 30.8. Pittsburgh: 1 by 4.2. Illinois: 3 by 12.5. Ohio State: 8 by 38.3. Michigan State: 6 by 35. Indiana: 7 by 29.2. Iowa: 5 by 20.8. Michigan: 4 by 16.7. Wisconsin: 1 by 4.2. Rutgers: 8 by 53.3. Maryland: 2 by 8.3

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins0.4 · Games = 8 · +0 vs Losses
Losses0.4 · Games = 4 · +0 vs Wins