Player Stats

Corey Yeoman 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
35
TFL
0.5
Sacks
0.5

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2022 Regular SeasonTemple00-0--0-
2023 Regular SeasonTemple11350.50.5--035.4
2025 Regular SeasonUT Martin00-0--0-

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2023 Regular Season

Temple paired 1 primary output with 14.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2023 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 14.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value cooled off

2025 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Multi-stop career journey

Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Temple, UT Martin.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Akron

Win with 1 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.

2023 Regular Season · Temple

Games

11

Havoc Plays / G

0.1

Efficiency

14.2

Usage

2.9

Consistency

3

Best Game by takeover score

Akron

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.

1234567891011

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Akron: 1. Rutgers: 0. Norfolk State: 0. Miami: 0. Tulsa: 0. UTSA: 0. North Texas: 0. SMU: 0. South Florida: 0. UAB: 0. Memphis: 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. Akron: 2 by 18.3. Rutgers: 3 by 12.5. Norfolk State: 3 by 12.5. Miami: 3 by 12.5. Tulsa: 2 by 8.3. UTSA: 1 by 4.2. North Texas: 1 by 4.2. SMU: 5 by 20.8. South Florida: 5 by 20.8. UAB: 8 by 33.3. Memphis: 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 = 2 · +0.5 vs Losses
Losses0 · Games = 9 · -0.5 vs Wins