Player Stats

Aquan Robinson 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
18
TFL
1.5
QB hurries
2

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2022 Regular SeasonMassachusetts00-0--0-
2023 Regular SeasonMassachusetts12-0--041.4
2024 Regular SeasonMassachusetts11-0--036.4
2025 Regular SeasonMassachusetts6151.502-046.5

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2025 Regular Season

Massachusetts paired 3.5 primary output with 16.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2025 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 16.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value is trending up

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

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Central Michigan

Loss with 2 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 · Massachusetts

Games

6

Havoc Plays / G

0.6

Efficiency

16.3

Usage

4.7

Consistency

31

Best Game by takeover score

Central Michigan

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.

123456

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Temple: 0. Western Michigan: 0. Kent State: 0.5. Buffalo: 1. Central Michigan: 2. Ohio: 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. Temple: 1 by 4.2. Western Michigan: 2 by 8.3. Kent State: 4 by 21.7. Buffalo: 3 by 22.5. Central Michigan: 3 by 32.5. Ohio: 2 by 8.3

Split Comparison

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

First Half0.2 · Games = 3 · -0.8 vs Second Half
Second Half1 · Games = 3 · +0.8 vs First Half