Player Stats

Isaiah Chambers 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
23
TFL
11
Sacks
8.5
QB hurries
4
Passes defended
1

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2016 Regular SeasonTCU00-0--0-
2017 Regular SeasonHouston00-0--0-
2018 Regular SeasonHouston41064.511073.8
2019 Regular SeasonHouston713543-065.2

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season

Houston paired 12.5 primary output with 39.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2019 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 24.9 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value cooled off

2019 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Multi-stop career journey

Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across TCU, Houston.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Tulsa

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 Regular Season · Houston

Games

7

Havoc Plays / G

1.7

Efficiency

24.9

Usage

9.1

Consistency

64.3

Best Game by takeover score

Tulsa

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.

1234567

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Prairie View A&M: 2. North Texas: 0. Cincinnati: 1. UConn: 1.5. SMU: 1.5. Memphis: 2. Tulsa: 4

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. Prairie View A&M: 2 by 28.3. North Texas: 1 by 4.2. Cincinnati: 1 by 14.2. UConn: 1 by 19.2. SMU: 2 by 23.3. Memphis: 3 by 32.5. Tulsa: 3 by 52.5

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.9 · Games = 4 · +0.4 vs Losses
Losses1.5 · Games = 3 · -0.4 vs Wins