Usage Score
3.9
Player Dossier
2014-2017Alabama
Keith Holcombe
LB • 6'4" • 236 lbs • Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Keith Holcombe shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 21.8 disruption score.
Efficiency
21.8
Consistency
44.4
Season Value
21.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season · Alabama
1415161617
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- Alabama
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: USC
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Keith Holcombe, LB. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season · Alabama. Keith Holcombe shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 21.8 disruption score.
Keith Holcombe played LB for Alabama. Across 4 tracked seasons, Keith Holcombe recorded 62 tackles. His top tracked season came in 2017 with Alabama.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Regular Season
Alabama paired 0 primary output with 0 efficiency.
Supporting note
2017 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 21.8 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: Texas A&M
Win with 2 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 then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2017 Regular Season · Alabama
Games
10
Havoc Plays / G
0.6
Efficiency
21.8
Usage
3.9
Consistency
44.4
Best Game by takeover score
Unknown
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.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Florida State: 1. Fresno State: 1. Colorado State: 1. Vanderbilt: 0. Ole Miss: 0. Texas A&M: 2. Tennessee: 0. LSU: 1. Mississippi State: 0. Unknown: 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. Florida State: 1 by 14.2. Fresno State: 7 by 39.2. Colorado State: 9 by 47.5. Vanderbilt: 1 by 4.2. Ole Miss: 2 by 8.3. Texas A&M: 4 by 36.7. Tennessee: 2 by 8.3. LSU: 4 by 26.7. Mississippi State: 6 by 25. Unknown: 2 by 8.3
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins0.7 · Games = 9
First Half0.6 · Games = 5 · +0 vs Second Half
Second Half0.6 · Games = 5 · +0 vs First Half
All Games0.6 · Games = 10
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
10 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Texas A&M
Best efficiency game
47.5 vs Colorado State
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/18 | vs Unknown | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/12 | @ Mississippi State | W 31-24 | 6 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/5 | vs LSU | W 24-10 | 4 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/21 | vs Tennessee | W 45-7 | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/7 | @ Texas A&M | W 27-19 | 4 | 3 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 10/1 | vs Ole Miss | W 66-3 | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/23 | @ Vanderbilt | W 59-0 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/16 | vs Colorado State | W 41-23 | 9 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 9/9 | vs Fresno State | W 41-10 | 7 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sun 9/3 | vs Florida State | W 24-7 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Alabama
2014-2017
Opening stop
Season Progression
20142015201620162017
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | Alabama | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2015 Regular Season | Alabama | 0 | 0 | — | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Alabama | 2 | 13.3 | 2.6 | 2 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Alabama | 2 | 13.3 | 2.6 | 0 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Alabama | 6 | 21.8 | 3.9 | 4 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
USC
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2
Primary metric
2 disruption/tackle impact with 49.8 takeover score.
#2
Texas A&M
2
Primary metric
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 49.4 takeover score.
#3
Colorado State
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 34.4 takeover score.
#4
Fresno State
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 31.6 takeover score.
#5
LSU
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 27.5 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Regular Season · Alabama
0 primary output · 0 efficiency · — usage
50
#2
2017 Regular Season · Alabama
21.4
6 primary · 21.8 efficiency · 3.9 usage
#3
2016 Postseason · Alabama
6.2
2 primary · 13.3 efficiency · 2.6 usage
Milestones
0
Impact games
0
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2014 · Rating 0.897
Hillcrest · Tuscaloosa, AL
- Committed To
- Alabama
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2014
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
62
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 20 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.