Player Stats

Austin Exford 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
97
TFL
5.5
Sacks
1
Passes defended
5

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonApp State00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonApp State00-0--0-
2016 PostseasonApp State91-0--09.3
2016 Regular SeasonApp State913-0-109.3
2017 PostseasonApp State93-0--036.8
2017 Regular SeasonApp State93021-2036.8
2018 PostseasonApp State132-0--043.9
2018 Regular SeasonApp State13483.50-2043.9

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason

App State paired 6.5 primary output with 21 efficiency.

Supporting note

2018 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 21 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: Charlotte

Win with 2.5 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 · App State

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

0.5

Efficiency

21

Usage

5

Consistency

12.8

Best Game by takeover score

Charlotte

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. Middle Tennessee: 0. Penn State: 0. Charlotte: 2.5. Gardner-Webb: 0. South Alabama: 0. Arkansas State: 1. Louisiana: 0. Georgia Southern: 0. Coastal Carolina: 1. Texas State: 1. Georgia State: 0. Troy: 0. Louisiana: 1

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. Middle Tennessee: 2 by 8.3. Penn State: 3 by 12.5. Charlotte: 6 by 50. Gardner-Webb: 3 by 12.5. South Alabama: 3 by 12.5. Arkansas State: 3 by 22.5. Louisiana: 2 by 8.3. Georgia Southern: 8 by 33.3. Coastal Carolina: 5 by 30.8. Texas State: 5 by 30.8. Georgia State: 4 by 16.7. Troy: 1 by 4.2. Louisiana: 5 by 30.8

Split Comparison

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

Wins0.6 · Games = 11 · +0.6 vs Losses
Losses0 · Games = 2 · -0.6 vs Wins