Player Stats

Fred Warner 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
173
TFL
19.5
Sacks
2.5
Passes defended
11
Touchdowns
3

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonBYU10-0--141.6
2015 Regular SeasonBYU20-0--043.2
2016 PostseasonBYU13101.50--077.5
2016 Regular SeasonBYU137691.5-6277.5
2017 Regular SeasonBYU138791-5065

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason

BYU paired 21 primary output with 43.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

2017 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 40.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value cooled off

2017 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Utah State

Loss with 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 Regular Season · BYU

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

1.2

Efficiency

40.2

Usage

11.5

Consistency

47.6

Best Game by takeover score

Utah State

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. LSU: 1.5. Portland State: 1. Utah: 1. Wisconsin: 0.5. Utah State: 5. Boise State: 0. Mississippi State: 0. East Carolina: 2.5. San José State: 0. Fresno State: 1.5. UNLV: 1. Massachusetts: 2. Hawai'i: 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. LSU: 8 by 48.3. Portland State: 10 by 51.7. Utah: 8 by 43.3. Wisconsin: 7 by 34.2. Utah State: 8 by 83.3. Boise State: 10 by 41.7. Mississippi State: 5 by 20.8. East Carolina: 11 by 70.8. San José State: 1 by 4.2. Fresno State: 8 by 48.3. UNLV: 1 by 14.2. Massachusetts: 5 by 40.8. Hawai'i: 5 by 20.8

Split Comparison

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

Wins0.5 · Games = 4 · -1.1 vs Losses
Losses1.6 · Games = 9 · +1.1 vs Wins