Player Stats

Alex Branch 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
122
TFL
5.5
Sacks
0.5
QB hurries
2
Passes defended
8

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2021 Regular SeasonKent State13-0--042.2
2022 Regular SeasonKent State113410-3027.9
2023 Regular SeasonKent State9321.50.5-3044.9
2024 Regular SeasonKent State320-0--026.6
2025 Regular SeasonAkron9333022049.6

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2025 Regular Season

Akron paired 7 primary output with 23.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

2025 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 23.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value is trending up

2025 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Multi-stop career journey

Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Kent State, Akron.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UAB

Loss 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.

2025 Regular Season · Akron

Games

9

Havoc Plays / G

0.8

Efficiency

23.1

Usage

4.7

Consistency

36.2

Best Game by takeover score

UAB

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.

123456789

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Wyoming: 1. Nebraska: 0. UAB: 3.5. Duquesne: 1. Toledo: 1. Central Michigan: 0.5. Miami (OH): 0. Ball State: 0. Bowling Green: 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. Wyoming: 9 by 47.5. Nebraska: 3 by 12.5. UAB: 5 by 55.8. Duquesne: 3 by 22.5. Toledo: 4 by 26.7. Central Michigan: 4 by 21.7. Miami (OH): 2 by 8.3. Ball State: 1 by 4.2. Bowling Green: 2 by 8.3

Split Comparison

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

Wins0.5 · Games = 3 · -0.4 vs Losses
Losses0.9 · Games = 6 · +0.4 vs Wins