Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason
Penn State paired 19 primary output with 34.8 efficiency.
Player Stats
Cam Brown 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
- 166
- TFL
- 13
- Sacks
- 4.5
- QB hurries
- 12
- Passes defended
- 11
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Tackles | TFL | Sacks | QB Hur | PD | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Regular Season | Penn State | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - |
| 2017 Postseason | Penn State | 12 | 2 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 22.3 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Penn State | 12 | 29 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 22.3 |
| 2018 Postseason | Penn State | 13 | 3 | - | 0 | 1 | - | 0 | 65.1 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Penn State | 13 | 60 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 65.1 |
| 2019 Postseason | Penn State | 13 | 3 | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 55.3 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Penn State | 13 | 69 | 5.5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 55.3 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2019 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 34.6 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: Pittsburgh
Win with 5.5 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 · Penn State
Games
13
Havoc Plays / G
1.2
Efficiency
34.6
Usage
7.1
Consistency
45.9
Best Game by takeover score
Pittsburgh
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.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Memphis: 1. Idaho: 0. Buffalo: 0. Pittsburgh: 5.5. Maryland: 0. Purdue: 0. Iowa: 1.5. Michigan: 2. Michigan State: 2. Minnesota: 1. Indiana: 0. Ohio State: 0. Rutgers: 2.5
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. Memphis: 3 by 22.5. Idaho: 1 by 4.2. Buffalo: 10 by 41.7. Pittsburgh: 7 by 79.2. Maryland: 3 by 12.5. Purdue: 3 by 12.5. Iowa: 4 by 31.7. Michigan: 10 by 61.7. Michigan State: 6 by 45. Minnesota: 6 by 35. Indiana: 6 by 25. Ohio State: 6 by 25. Rutgers: 7 by 54.2
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins1.3 · Games = 11 · +0.8 vs Losses
Losses0.5 · Games = 2 · -0.8 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Cam Brown
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.