Player Stats

Antonio Showers 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
85
TFL
14
Sacks
10.5
QB hurries
7

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2018 PostseasonTroy6111--033.5
2018 Regular SeasonTroy6822--033.5
2019 Regular SeasonTroy9163.52.51-046.1
2020 Regular SeasonTroy818111-020.2
2021 Regular SeasonTroy922312-034.2
2022 PostseasonTroy111-0--043.7
2022 Regular SeasonTroy11193.533-043.7

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season

Troy paired 7 primary output with 15.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2022 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 16.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2022 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Alabama A&M

Win with 3.5 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.

2022 Postseason · Troy

Games

11

Havoc Plays / G

0.9

Efficiency

16.2

Usage

5.2

Consistency

15.2

Best Game by takeover score

Alabama A&M

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.

1234567891011

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. UTSA: 0. Ole Miss: 1. Alabama A&M: 3.5. App State: 0. Western Kentucky: 0. Southern Miss: 1. Texas State: 0. South Alabama: 0. Louisiana: 2. Army: 0. UL Monroe: 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. UTSA: 1 by 4.2. Ole Miss: 0 by 10. Alabama A&M: 4 by 51.7. App State: 3 by 12.5. Southern Miss: 0 by 10. Texas State: 1 by 4.2. South Alabama: 1 by 4.2. Louisiana: 5 by 40.8. Army: 2 by 8.3. UL Monroe: 3 by 32.5

Split Comparison

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

Wins0.9 · Games = 9 · +0.4 vs Losses
Losses0.5 · Games = 2 · -0.4 vs Wins