Player Stats

Mika Tafua 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
126
TFL
31
Sacks
16.5
QB hurries
11
Passes defended
9
Touchdowns
1

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2018 PostseasonUtah102-0--042.7
2018 Regular SeasonUtah10207.5212042.7
2019 PostseasonUtah1481.50.5--048.1
2019 Regular SeasonUtah143972.522148.1
2020 Regular SeasonUtah492232049.6
2021 PostseasonUtah141-0--074.5
2021 Regular SeasonUtah1447139.553074.5

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason

Utah paired 30.5 primary output with 36.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

2021 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 36.1 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: Arizona

Win with 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.

2021 Postseason · Utah

Games

14

Havoc Plays / G

2.2

Efficiency

36.1

Usage

11.8

Consistency

63.3

Best Game by takeover score

Arizona

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.

1234567891011121314

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Ohio State: 0. Weber State: 2. BYU: 0. San Diego State: 4. Washington State: 2. USC: 5. Arizona State: 0. Oregon State: 3. UCLA: 1. Stanford: 2.5. Arizona: 5. Oregon: 2. Colorado: 2. Oregon: 2

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. Ohio State: 1 by 4.2. Weber State: 3 by 32.5. BYU: 3 by 12.5. San Diego State: 3 by 52.5. Washington State: 3 by 32.5. USC: 4 by 66.7. Arizona State: 2 by 8.3. Oregon State: 6 by 55. UCLA: 5 by 30.8. Stanford: 5 by 45.8. Arizona: 6 by 75. Oregon: 2 by 28.3. Colorado: 3 by 32.5. Oregon: 2 by 28.3

Split Comparison

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

Wins2.4 · Games = 10 · +0.6 vs Losses
Losses1.8 · Games = 4 · -0.6 vs Wins