Usage Score
8.8
Player Dossier
2019-2023Notre Dame
JD Bertrand
LB • 6'1" • 230 lbs • Roswell, GA, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
JD Bertrand shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 38.9 disruption score.
Efficiency
39.2
Consistency
10.3
Season Value
16.8
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2020 Regular Season · Notre Dame
19202121222323
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Notre Dame
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Toledo
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
JD Bertrand, LB. Best season Best season by value score: 2020 Regular Season · Notre Dame. JD Bertrand shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 38.9 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2020 Regular Season
Notre Dame paired 0 primary output with 8.4 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 39.2 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: Toledo
Win with 4 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 then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2021 Postseason · Notre Dame
Games
13
Havoc Plays / G
0.7
Efficiency
39.2
Usage
8.8
Consistency
10.3
Best Game by takeover score
Oklahoma State
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Oklahoma State: 2. Florida State: 0. Toledo: 4. Purdue: 1. Wisconsin: 0. Cincinnati: 0. Virginia Tech: 0.5. USC: 0. North Carolina: 0. Navy: 0. Virginia: 0. Georgia Tech: 1. Stanford: 0
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Oklahoma State: 9 by 57.5. Florida State: 11 by 45.8. Toledo: 11 by 85.8. Purdue: 12 by 60. Wisconsin: 8 by 33.3. Cincinnati: 6 by 25. Virginia Tech: 10 by 46.7. USC: 7 by 29.2. North Carolina: 6 by 25. Navy: 9 by 37.5. Virginia: 4 by 16.7. Georgia Tech: 4 by 26.7. Stanford: 5 by 20.8
Split Comparison
Wins0.6 · n=11 · -0.4 vs Losses
Losses1 · n=2 · +0.4 vs Wins
First Half1.1 · n=7 · +0.9 vs Second Half
Second Half0.2 · n=6 · -0.9 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Toledo
Best efficiency game
85.8 vs Toledo
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/1 | vs Oklahoma StateSplash game | L 35-37 | 9 | 8 | — | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/28 | @ Stanford | W 45-14 | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/20 | vs Georgia Tech | W 55-0 | 4 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sun 11/14 | @ Virginia | W 28-3 | 4 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/6 | vs Navy | W 34-6 | 9 | 6 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/30 | vs North Carolina | W 44-34 | 6 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/23 | vs USC | W 31-16 | 7 | 5 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/9 | @ Virginia Tech10+ tackles | W 32-29 | 10 | 5 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/2 | vs Cincinnati | L 13-24 | 6 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/25 | @ Wisconsin | W 41-13 | 8 | 7 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/18 | vs Purdue10+ tackles | W 27-13 | 12 | 5 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/11 | vs Toledo10+ tackles · Splash game | W 32-29 | 11 | 10 | — | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 9/5 | @ Florida State10+ tackles | W 41-38 | 11 | 6 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Notre Dame
2019-2023
Opening stop
Season Progression
2019202020212021202220232023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2020 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 0 | 8.4 | 1.9 | 0 |
| 2021 Postseason | Notre Dame | 8.5 | 39.2 | 8.8 | 8.5 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 8.5 | 39.2 | 8.8 | 0 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 12 | 38.6 | 10.2 | 3.5 |
| 2023 Postseason | Notre Dame | 15 | 38.9 | 10.8 | 3 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 15 | 38.9 | 10.8 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Toledo
Win with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4
Primary metric
4 disruption/tackle impact with 69.3 takeover score.
#2
Clemson
3
Primary metric
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 68.2 takeover score.
#3
Louisville
2.5
Primary metric
Loss with 2.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2.5 disruption/tackle impact with 62.3 takeover score.
#4
UNLV
3
Primary metric
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 58.1 takeover score.
#5
USC
2
Primary metric
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 53.2 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2020 Regular Season · Notre Dame
0 primary output · 8.4 efficiency · 1.9 usage
36.7
#2
2023 Postseason · Notre Dame
31.6
15 primary · 38.9 efficiency · 10.8 usage
#3
2023 Regular Season · Notre Dame
31.6
15 primary · 38.9 efficiency · 10.8 usage
Milestones
3
Impact games
3
Splash games
8
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2025 · Rating 0.8908
Calvary Day School · Savannah, GA
- Committed To
- LSU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2025
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
256
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 38 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.