Player Stats

Jordan Glasgow 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
139
TFL
10
Sacks
7
QB hurries
5
Passes defended
1

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2016 Regular SeasonMichigan812-0--038.6
2017 PostseasonMichigan71-0--039.1
2017 Regular SeasonMichigan710-0--039.1
2018 PostseasonMichigan11310--023
2018 Regular SeasonMichigan1124221-023
2019 PostseasonMichigan131010--065.4
2019 Regular SeasonMichigan13796541065.4

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason

Michigan paired 17 primary output with 41.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

2019 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 41.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2019 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Iowa

Win with backfield disruption leading the way. 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 Postseason · Michigan

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

1.3

Efficiency

41.6

Usage

9.8

Consistency

38.3

Best Game by takeover score

Iowa

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. Alabama: 1. Middle Tennessee: 4. Army: 0. Wisconsin: 0. Rutgers: 0. Iowa: 5. Illinois: 1.5. Penn State: 0. Notre Dame: 1. Maryland: 0. Michigan State: 2. Indiana: 1. Ohio State: 1.5

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. Alabama: 10 by 51.7. Middle Tennessee: 6 by 65. Army: 11 by 45.8. Wisconsin: 7 by 29.2. Rutgers: 3 by 12.5. Iowa: 9 by 87.5. Illinois: 11 by 60.8. Penn State: 4 by 16.7. Notre Dame: 4 by 26.7. Maryland: 8 by 33.3. Michigan State: 8 by 53.3. Indiana: 1 by 14.2. Ohio State: 7 by 44.2

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.6 · Games = 9 · +1.0 vs Losses
Losses0.6 · Games = 4 · -1.0 vs Wins