Player Stats

T.J. Edwards 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
273
TFL
30
Sacks
8
QB hurries
8
Passes defended
11
Touchdowns
2

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonWisconsin00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonWisconsin00-0--0-
2016 PostseasonWisconsin1310-0--064.8
2016 Regular SeasonWisconsin13798.5332064.8
2017 PostseasonWisconsin146-0--070.8
2017 Regular SeasonWisconsin147511227270.8
2018 PostseasonWisconsin130-0--070.7
2018 Regular SeasonWisconsin1310310.5332070.7

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason

Wisconsin paired 26 primary output with 42.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2018 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 47.4 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: Michigan

Loss with 5 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 · Wisconsin

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

1.7

Efficiency

47.4

Usage

14.7

Consistency

52.6

Best Game by takeover score

Michigan

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.

12345678910111213

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Miami: 1. Western Kentucky: 1. New Mexico: 2. BYU: 1.5. Iowa: 2. Nebraska: 4. Michigan: 5. Illinois: 1. Northwestern: 0. Rutgers: 2. Penn State: 0. Purdue: 2. Minnesota: 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. Western Kentucky: 7 by 39.2. New Mexico: 4 by 36.7. BYU: 3 by 27.5. Iowa: 5 by 40.8. Nebraska: 7 by 69.2. Michigan: 10 by 91.7. Illinois: 5 by 30.8. Northwestern: 13 by 50. Rutgers: 7 by 49.2. Penn State: 14 by 50. Purdue: 10 by 61.7. Minnesota: 18 by 50

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.9 · Games = 8 · +0.6 vs Losses
Losses1.3 · Games = 5 · -0.6 vs Wins