Player Stats

Andrew Awe 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
176
TFL
16
Sacks
4.5
QB hurries
7
Passes defended
3

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2020 Regular SeasonRice00-0--0-
2021 Regular SeasonRice00-0--0-
2022 Regular SeasonRice5211.50--023.1
2023 PostseasonRice741.502-028
2023 Regular SeasonRice7140.5011028
2024 Regular SeasonRice1044411-029.6
2025 PostseasonRice125211-070.6
2025 Regular SeasonRice12886.52.522070.6

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason

Rice paired 17 primary output with 45.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

2025 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 45.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UAB

Win with backfield disruption leading the way. 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 Postseason · Rice

Games

12

Havoc Plays / G

1.4

Efficiency

45.8

Usage

12

Consistency

36.9

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.

123456789101112

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Texas State: 4. Louisiana: 0. Houston: 1. Prairie View A&M: 2. Charlotte: 1. Navy: 0. Florida Atlantic: 1. UTSA: 1. UConn: 2. UAB: 4. North Texas: 0. South Florida: 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. Texas State: 5 by 60.8. Louisiana: 7 by 29.2. Houston: 6 by 35. Prairie View A&M: 5 by 40.8. Charlotte: 11 by 55.8. Navy: 9 by 37.5. Florida Atlantic: 10 by 51.7. UTSA: 5 by 30.8. UConn: 6 by 45. UAB: 7 by 69.2. North Texas: 8 by 33.3. South Florida: 14 by 60

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.8 · Games = 5 · +0.7 vs Losses
Losses1.1 · Games = 7 · -0.7 vs Wins