Player Stats

Easton Gibbs 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
344
TFL
22.5
Sacks
7
QB hurries
7
Passes defended
10

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2019 Regular SeasonWyoming00-0--0-
2020 Regular SeasonWyoming6422.50--037
2021 PostseasonWyoming13110.50--067.2
2021 Regular SeasonWyoming13786.5214067.2
2022 PostseasonWyoming13111--073.8
2022 Regular SeasonWyoming131118231073.8
2023 PostseasonWyoming123-0-1070.7
2023 Regular SeasonWyoming12984234070.7

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason

Wyoming paired 16 primary output with 47.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

2023 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 47.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2023 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Colorado State

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.

2023 Postseason · Wyoming

Games

12

Havoc Plays / G

1.3

Efficiency

47.6

Usage

11.5

Consistency

46.1

Best Game by takeover score

Colorado State

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.

123456789101112

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Toledo: 1. Texas Tech: 2. Texas: 0. App State: 0. New Mexico: 2. Fresno State: 2.5. Air Force: 0. Boise State: 1.5. Colorado State: 5. UNLV: 0. Hawai'i: 1. Nevada: 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. Toledo: 3 by 22.5. Texas Tech: 6 by 45. Texas: 10 by 41.7. App State: 11 by 45.8. New Mexico: 8 by 53.3. Fresno State: 8 by 58.3. Air Force: 12 by 50. Boise State: 11 by 60.8. Colorado State: 7 by 79.2. UNLV: 9 by 37.5. Hawai'i: 11 by 55.8. Nevada: 5 by 20.8

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.7 · Games = 8 · +1.3 vs Losses
Losses0.4 · Games = 4 · -1.3 vs Wins