Player Stats

Uchenna Nwosu 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
128
TFL
19
Sacks
12.5
QB hurries
11
Passes defended
18

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonUSC00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonUSC00-0--0-
2016 PostseasonUSC123-0--051.9
2016 Regular SeasonUSC12507.5325051.9
2017 PostseasonUSC144221-079.1
2017 Regular SeasonUSC14719.57.5813079.1

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason

USC paired 44 primary output with 50.9 efficiency.

Supporting note

2017 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 50.9 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: Arizona State

Win with backfield disruption leading the way. 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.

2017 Postseason · USC

Games

14

Havoc Plays / G

3.1

Efficiency

50.9

Usage

13.6

Consistency

65.4

Best Game by takeover score

Arizona State

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.

1234567891011121314

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Ohio State: 5. Western Michigan: 1. Stanford: 7. Texas: 3. California: 2. Washington State: 3. Oregon State: 0. Utah: 3. Notre Dame: 1. Arizona State: 7. Arizona: 3. Colorado: 3. UCLA: 4. Stanford: 2

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. Ohio State: 4 by 66.7. Western Michigan: 7 by 39.2. Stanford: 4 by 66.7. Texas: 9 by 67.5. California: 4 by 36.7. Washington State: 6 by 55. Oregon State: 4 by 16.7. Utah: 3 by 42.5. Notre Dame: 2 by 18.3. Arizona State: 8 by 83.3. Arizona: 8 by 63.3. Colorado: 5 by 50.8. UCLA: 8 by 73.3. Stanford: 3 by 32.5

Split Comparison

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

Wins3.2 · Games = 11 · +0.2 vs Losses
Losses3 · Games = 3 · -0.2 vs Wins