Player Stats

Otaro Alaka 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
231
TFL
35.5
Sacks
11.5
QB hurries
9
Passes defended
3

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonTexas A&M00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonTexas A&M00-0--0-
2016 PostseasonTexas A&M13921--052.8
2016 Regular SeasonTexas A&M13657111052.8
2017 PostseasonTexas A&M126-01-068.1
2017 Regular SeasonTexas A&M1272125.531068.1
2018 Regular SeasonTexas A&M127914.5441074

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season

Texas A&M paired 23.5 primary output with 46.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

2018 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 46.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value is trending up

2018 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: LSU

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.

2018 Regular Season · Texas A&M

Games

12

Havoc Plays / G

2.0

Efficiency

46.6

Usage

12.7

Consistency

49.2

Best Game by takeover score

LSU

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. Northwestern State: 0. Clemson: 2.5. UL Monroe: 0. Alabama: 1. Arkansas: 2. Kentucky: 3. South Carolina: 1. Mississippi State: 3. Auburn: 1. Ole Miss: 3.5. UAB: 1. LSU: 5.5

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. Northwestern State: 1 by 4.2. Clemson: 10 by 66.7. UL Monroe: 5 by 20.8. Alabama: 6 by 35. Arkansas: 7 by 49.2. Kentucky: 6 by 55. South Carolina: 5 by 30.8. Mississippi State: 9 by 67.5. Auburn: 4 by 26.7. Ole Miss: 11 by 80.8. UAB: 4 by 26.7. LSU: 11 by 95.8

Split Comparison

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

Wins2 · Games = 8 · +0.1 vs Losses
Losses1.9 · Games = 4 · -0.1 vs Wins