Player Stats

Asantay Brown 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
193
TFL
15
Sacks
5.5
QB hurries
2
Passes defended
5
Touchdowns
2

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonWestern Michigan00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonWestern Michigan20-0--044.3
2016 PostseasonWestern Michigan141220--065
2016 Regular SeasonWestern Michigan14836.52.5-2265
2017 Regular SeasonWestern Michigan12986.5323073.5

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Regular Season

Western Michigan paired 15.5 primary output with 43.5 efficiency.

Supporting note

2017 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 43.5 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value is trending up

2017 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: USC

Loss with 3 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 Regular Season · Western Michigan

Games

12

Havoc Plays / G

1.3

Efficiency

43.5

Usage

12.3

Consistency

50.4

Best Game by takeover score

USC

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. USC: 3. Michigan State: 2. Idaho: 1. Wagner: 1. Ball State: 2. Buffalo: 2. Akron: 1. Eastern Michigan: 0. Central Michigan: 0.5. Kent State: 2. Northern Illinois: 0. Toledo: 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. USC: 7 by 59.2. Michigan State: 10 by 61.7. Idaho: 7 by 39.2. Wagner: 8 by 43.3. Ball State: 6 by 45. Buffalo: 12 by 70. Akron: 7 by 39.2. Eastern Michigan: 4 by 16.7. Central Michigan: 4 by 21.7. Kent State: 2 by 28.3. Northern Illinois: 9 by 37.5. Toledo: 22 by 60

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.3 · Games = 6 · +0.1 vs Losses
Losses1.3 · Games = 6 · -0.1 vs Wins