Usage Score
7.9
Player Dossier
2015-2016Texas A&M
Claude George
LB • 6'2" • Lafayette, LA, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Claude George shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 32.7 disruption score.
Efficiency
32.7
Consistency
41.5
Season Value
29.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season · Texas A&M
1516
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 2
- Program Path
- Texas A&M
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Auburn
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.
Claude George, LB. Best season Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season · Texas A&M. Claude George shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 32.7 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season
Texas A&M paired 18 primary output with 32.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 32.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2016 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Auburn
Win with 4 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.
2016 Regular Season · Texas A&M
Games
12
Havoc Plays / G
1.5
Efficiency
32.7
Usage
7.9
Consistency
41.5
Best Game by takeover score
LSU
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. UCLA: 2. Unknown: 0. Auburn: 4. Arkansas: 1. South Carolina: 1. Tennessee: 1. Alabama: 2. New Mexico State: 3. Mississippi State: 1. Ole Miss: 3. UTSA: 0. LSU: 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. UCLA: 5 by 40.8. Unknown: 3 by 12.5. Auburn: 6 by 65. Arkansas: 3 by 22.5. South Carolina: 4 by 26.7. Tennessee: 5 by 30.8. Alabama: 3 by 32.5. New Mexico State: 5 by 50.8. Mississippi State: 6 by 35. Ole Miss: 7 by 59.2. UTSA: 1 by 4.2. LSU: 3 by 12.5
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins1.7 · Games = 7 · +0.2 vs Losses
Losses1.5 · Games = 4 · -0.2 vs Wins
First Half1.5 · Games = 6 · +0 vs Second Half
Second Half1.5 · Games = 6 · +0 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Auburn
Best efficiency game
65 vs Auburn
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 11/25 | vs LSU | L 39-54 | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/19 | vs UTSA | W 23-10 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/13 | vs Ole MissSplash game | L 28-29 | 7 | 5 | — | 3 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/5 | @ Mississippi State | L 28-35 | 6 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 10/29 | vs New Mexico StateSplash game | W 52-10 | 5 | 2 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/22 | @ Alabama | L 14-33 | 3 | 1 | — | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1 | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/8 | vs Tennessee | W 45-38 | 5 | 4 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/1 | @ South Carolina | W 24-13 | 4 | 3 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 9/25 | vs Arkansas | W 45-24 | 3 | 2 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/17 | @ AuburnSplash game | W 29-16 | 6 | 4 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Unknown | — | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/3 | vs UCLA | W 31-24 | 5 | 3 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Texas A&M
2015-2016
Opening stop
Season Progression
20152016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2016 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 18 | 32.7 | 7.9 | 18 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Auburn
Win with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4
Primary metric
4 disruption/tackle impact with 59.3 takeover score.
#2
Ole Miss
3
Primary metric
Loss with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 50.5 takeover score.
#3
New Mexico State
3
Primary metric
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 48.3 takeover score.
#4
UCLA
2
Primary metric
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 33.4 takeover score.
#5
Alabama
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 30.3 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2016 Regular Season · Texas A&M
18 primary output · 32.7 efficiency · 7.9 usage
29.2
#2
2015 Regular Season · Texas A&M
—
0 primary · — efficiency · — usage
Milestones
0
Impact games
3
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2013 · Rating 0.8056
Acadiana · Lafayette, LA
- Committed To
- Memphis
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2013
Career Facts
1
Career teams
2
Seasons tracked
51
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 2 tracked seasons, 12 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.