Usage Score
8
Player Dossier
2020-2023Temple
Alex Odom
S • 6'0" • 205 lbs • Swedesboro, NJ, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Alex Odom shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 26.9 disruption score.
Efficiency
35.7
Consistency
35
Season Value
22.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season · Temple
20212223
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 4
- Program Path
- Temple
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: South Florida
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.
Alex Odom, S. Best season Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season · Temple. Alex Odom shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 26.9 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season
Temple paired 8 primary output with 35.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
2022 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 35.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value cooled off
2023 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: South Florida
Win with 3 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.
2022 Regular Season · Temple
Games
11
Havoc Plays / G
0.7
Efficiency
35.7
Usage
8
Consistency
35
Best Game by takeover score
East Carolina
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. Duke: 0. Unknown: 0.5. Massachusetts: 1. Memphis: 0. UCF: 0.5. Tulsa: 2. Navy: 0. South Florida: 3. Houston: 0. Cincinnati: 0. East Carolina: 1
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. Duke: 7 by 29.2. Unknown: 5 by 25.8. Massachusetts: 9 by 47.5. Memphis: 5 by 20.8. UCF: 5 by 25.8. Tulsa: 11 by 65.8. Navy: 5 by 20.8. South Florida: 8 by 63.3. Houston: 10 by 41.7. Cincinnati: 4 by 16.7. East Carolina: 6 by 35
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins2 · Games = 2 · +1.6 vs Losses
Losses0.4 · Games = 8 · -1.6 vs Wins
First Half0.7 · Games = 6 · -0.1 vs Second Half
Second Half0.8 · Games = 5 · +0.1 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
11 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
South Florida
Best efficiency game
65.8 vs Tulsa
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/26 | vs East Carolina | L 46-49 | 6 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 11/19 | vs Cincinnati | L 3-23 | 4 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/12 | @ Houston10+ tackles | L 36-43 | 10 | 7 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/5 | vs South FloridaSplash game | W 54-28 | 8 | 6 | — | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Navy | L 20-27 | 5 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Fri 10/21 | vs Tulsa10+ tackles | L 16-27 | 11 | 6 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Thu 10/13 | @ UCF | L 13-70 | 5 | 2 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Memphis | L 3-24 | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Massachusetts | W 28-0 | 9 | 6 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Unknown | — | 5 | 2 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Fri 9/2 | @ Duke | L 0-30 | 7 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Temple
2020-2023
Opening stop
Season Progression
2020202120222023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Regular Season | Temple | 0.5 | 16.9 | 3.6 | — |
| 2021 Regular Season | Temple | 6 | 29.3 | 6.7 | 5.5 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Temple | 8 | 35.7 | 8 | 2 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Temple | 2.5 | 26.9 | 4.9 | -5.5 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
South Florida
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3
Primary metric
3 disruption/tackle impact with 63.4 takeover score.
#2
UAB
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 56.6 takeover score.
#3
South Florida
1.5
Primary metric
Loss with 1.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1.5 disruption/tackle impact with 53.8 takeover score.
#4
East Carolina
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 51.3 takeover score.
#5
Tulsa
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 47.7 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2022 Regular Season · Temple
8 primary output · 35.7 efficiency · 8 usage
22.3
#2
2021 Regular Season · Temple
18.6
6 primary · 29.3 efficiency · 6.7 usage
#3
2023 Regular Season · Temple
10.6
2.5 primary · 26.9 efficiency · 4.9 usage
Milestones
1
Impact games
1
Splash games
5
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2020 · Rating 0.8059
Kingsway · Swedesboro, NJ
- Committed To
- Temple
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2020
Career Facts
1
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
198
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 35 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.