Player Stats

Curtis Mikell 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
85
TFL
7.5
Sacks
2
Passes defended
18
Touchdowns
2

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonSouthern Miss40-0--050
2015 PostseasonSouthern Miss40-0--050
2015 Regular SeasonSouthern Miss40-0--050
2016 PostseasonSouthern Miss1250.50-2042.6
2016 Regular SeasonSouthern Miss123132-2242.6
2017 PostseasonSouthern Miss132-0-1057.4
2017 Regular SeasonSouthern Miss134740-13057.4

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason

Southern Miss paired 19 primary output with 30.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2017 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 30.3 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: North Texas

Loss with 3.5 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.

2017 Postseason · Southern Miss

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

1.5

Efficiency

30.3

Usage

4.2

Consistency

63.9

Best Game by takeover score

North Texas

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. Florida State: 1. Kentucky: 2. Southern: 0. UL Monroe: 1.5. North Texas: 3.5. UTSA: 2. UTEP: 2. Louisiana Tech: 1. UAB: 2. Tennessee: 1. Rice: 0. Charlotte: 1. Marshall: 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. Florida State: 2 by 18.3. Kentucky: 2 by 28.3. Southern: 1 by 4.2. UL Monroe: 1 by 19.2. North Texas: 12 by 85. UTSA: 7 by 49.2. UTEP: 6 by 45. Louisiana Tech: 1 by 14.2. UAB: 5 by 40.8. Tennessee: 4 by 26.7. Rice: 3 by 12.5. Charlotte: 1 by 14.2. Marshall: 4 by 36.7

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.2 · Games = 8 · -0.7 vs Losses
Losses1.9 · Games = 5 · +0.7 vs Wins