Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason
Wisconsin paired 30 primary output with 69.2 efficiency.
Player Stats
Leo Chenal 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
- 156
- TFL
- 26
- Sacks
- 12
- QB hurries
- 8
- Passes defended
- 1
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Tackles | TFL | Sacks | QB Hur | PD | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 8 | 20 | 2 | 1 | 2 | - | 0 | 22.1 |
| 2020 Postseason | Wisconsin | 6 | 5 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 51.5 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 6 | 35 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 51.5 |
| 2021 Postseason | Wisconsin | 9 | 9 | 1.5 | 1 | - | - | 0 | 81.9 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 9 | 87 | 16.5 | 7 | 4 | - | 0 | 81.9 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 69.2 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: Purdue
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.
2021 Postseason · Wisconsin
Games
9
Havoc Plays / G
3.3
Efficiency
69.2
Usage
22.8
Consistency
58.3
Best Game by takeover score
Purdue
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. Arizona State: 2.5. Notre Dame: 1. Illinois: 1. Army: 3.5. Purdue: 9. Iowa: 3.5. Northwestern: 5. Nebraska: 1.5. Minnesota: 3
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. Arizona State: 9 by 62.5. Notre Dame: 8 by 43.3. Illinois: 5 by 30.8. Army: 17 by 85. Purdue: 9 by 87.5. Iowa: 9 by 72.5. Northwestern: 14 by 100. Nebraska: 11 by 60.8. Minnesota: 14 by 80
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins3.7 · Games = 7 · +1.7 vs Losses
Losses2 · Games = 2 · -1.7 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Leo Chenal
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.