Player Stats

Carter Coughlin 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
152
TFL
39
Sacks
22
QB hurries
4
Passes defended
4

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2016 PostseasonMinnesota9411--034.6
2016 Regular SeasonMinnesota92031--034.6
2017 Regular SeasonMinnesota123711.56.51-057.9
2018 PostseasonMinnesota122-0--074.7
2018 Regular SeasonMinnesota12401491-074.7
2019 PostseasonMinnesota135-0--064.1
2019 Regular SeasonMinnesota13449.54.524064.1

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason

Minnesota paired 24 primary output with 34.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

2019 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 31.1 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: Penn State

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 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 · Minnesota

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

1.5

Efficiency

31.1

Usage

10.6

Consistency

53.5

Best Game by takeover score

Penn 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. Auburn: 0. South Dakota State: 0. Fresno State: 2. Georgia Southern: 0. Purdue: 2. Illinois: 0.5. Nebraska: 2. Rutgers: 4. Maryland: 2. Penn State: 4. Iowa: 0.5. Northwestern: 3. Wisconsin: 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. Auburn: 5 by 20.8. South Dakota State: 3 by 12.5. Fresno State: 2 by 28.3. Georgia Southern: 6 by 25. Purdue: 5 by 40.8. Illinois: 3 by 17.5. Nebraska: 3 by 32.5. Rutgers: 4 by 56.7. Maryland: 2 by 28.3. Penn State: 8 by 73.3. Iowa: 1 by 9.2. Northwestern: 6 by 55. Wisconsin: 1 by 4.2

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.8 · Games = 11 · +1.5 vs Losses
Losses0.3 · Games = 2 · -1.5 vs Wins