Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season
UTSA paired 10 primary output with 36.8 efficiency.
Player Stats
Andrew Martel 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
- 160
- TFL
- 11
- Sacks
- 4
- QB hurries
- 2
- Passes defended
- 1
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Tackles | TFL | Sacks | QB Hur | PD | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Regular Season | UTSA | 9 | 10 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 37 |
| 2017 Regular Season | UTSA | 10 | 23 | 1 | 1 | - | - | 0 | 18.7 |
| 2018 Regular Season | UTSA | 11 | 45 | 4 | 2 | - | - | 0 | 34.6 |
| 2019 Regular Season | UTSA | 12 | 82 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 61.7 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2019 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 36.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2019 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Texas A&M
Loss with 2.5 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.
2019 Regular Season · UTSA
Games
12
Havoc Plays / G
0.8
Efficiency
36.8
Usage
8.8
Consistency
36.7
Best Game by takeover score
Texas A&M
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. Incarnate Word: 0. Baylor: 1. Army: 0. North Texas: 1. UTEP: 0. UAB: 0. Rice: 0. Texas A&M: 2.5. Old Dominion: 2.5. Southern Miss: 1. Florida Atlantic: 0. Louisiana Tech: 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. Incarnate Word: 4 by 16.7. Baylor: 3 by 22.5. Army: 10 by 41.7. North Texas: 10 by 51.7. UTEP: 7 by 29.2. UAB: 7 by 29.2. Rice: 5 by 20.8. Texas A&M: 7 by 54.2. Old Dominion: 8 by 58.3. Southern Miss: 7 by 39.2. Florida Atlantic: 5 by 20.8. Louisiana Tech: 9 by 57.5
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins0.6 · Games = 4 · -0.3 vs Losses
Losses0.9 · Games = 8 · +0.3 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Andrew Martel
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.