Player Stats

Troy 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
115
TFL
2.5
QB hurries
1
Passes defended
15

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2016 PostseasonBYU102-0--035.8
2016 Regular SeasonBYU1019-0-7035.8
2017 Regular SeasonBYU83610-5050.7
2018 PostseasonBYU100-0--09.9
2018 Regular SeasonBYU1019-0-109.9
2019 PostseasonBYU46-0--043.3
2019 Regular SeasonBYU45-0--043.3
2020 PostseasonBYU104-0-1046.5
2020 Regular SeasonBYU10241.5011046.5

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Regular Season

BYU paired 6 primary output with 26.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2020 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 18.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2020 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UTSA

Win with 2 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.

2020 Postseason · BYU

Games

10

Havoc Plays / G

0.7

Efficiency

18.2

Usage

3.9

Consistency

42.3

Best Game by takeover score

UTSA

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.

12345678910

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. UCF: 1. Navy: 0. Troy: 1. Louisiana Tech: 1.5. UTSA: 2. Houston: 0. Texas State: 0. Western Kentucky: 1. Boise State: 0. North Alabama: 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. UCF: 4 by 26.7. Navy: 2 by 8.3. Troy: 1 by 14.2. Louisiana Tech: 3 by 27.5. UTSA: 2 by 28.3. Houston: 4 by 16.7. Texas State: 4 by 16.7. Western Kentucky: 5 by 30.8. Boise State: 1 by 4.2. North Alabama: 2 by 8.3

Split Comparison

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

First Half1.1 · Games = 5 · +0.9 vs Second Half
Second Half0.2 · Games = 5 · -0.9 vs First Half