Player Stats

Tycen Anderson 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
233
TFL
9
Sacks
2
QB hurries
1
Passes defended
16

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2017 PostseasonToledo1051.50-1030.8
2017 Regular SeasonToledo1021-0-2030.8
2018 PostseasonToledo13410--032.6
2018 Regular SeasonToledo1341-0-4032.6
2019 Regular SeasonToledo12843.50-5065.3
2020 Regular SeasonToledo63411-2033.5
2021 PostseasonToledo102-0-1034.2
2021 Regular SeasonToledo10422111034.2

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season

Toledo paired 8.5 primary output with 36.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2021 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 24.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2021 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Bowling Green

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.

2021 Postseason · Toledo

Games

10

Havoc Plays / G

0.6

Efficiency

24.3

Usage

3.8

Consistency

10

Best Game by takeover score

Bowling Green

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. Middle Tennessee: 1. Ball State: 0. Massachusetts: 0. Northern Illinois: 0. Central Michigan: 0. Western Michigan: 0. Eastern Michigan: 0. Bowling Green: 4. Ohio: 1. Akron: 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. Middle Tennessee: 2 by 18.3. Ball State: 2 by 8.3. Massachusetts: 1 by 4.2. Northern Illinois: 8 by 33.3. Central Michigan: 4 by 16.7. Western Michigan: 9 by 37.5. Eastern Michigan: 3 by 12.5. Bowling Green: 4 by 56.7. Ohio: 10 by 51.7. Akron: 1 by 4.2

Split Comparison

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

Wins0.8 · Games = 6 · +0.6 vs Losses
Losses0.3 · Games = 4 · -0.6 vs Wins