Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason
Central Michigan paired 25 primary output with 53.5 efficiency.
Player Stats
Jordan Kwiatkowski 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
- 250
- TFL
- 28
- Sacks
- 2.5
- QB hurries
- 3
- Passes defended
- 7
- Touchdowns
- 2
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Tackles | TFL | Sacks | QB Hur | PD | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 5 | 10 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 39.7 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 9 | 31 | 0.5 | 0 | - | 2 | 0 | 14.7 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 12 | 97 | 14 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 65 |
| 2025 Postseason | Central Michigan | 13 | 8 | 1.5 | 0 | - | - | 0 | 73.8 |
| 2025 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 13 | 104 | 12 | 2.5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 73.8 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2025 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 53.5 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: Kent State
Win with 5.5 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 Postseason · Central Michigan
Games
13
Havoc Plays / G
1.9
Efficiency
53.5
Usage
12.7
Consistency
41.6
Best Game by takeover score
Kent State
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. Northwestern: 1.5. San José State: 1. Pittsburgh: 1.5. Michigan: 0. Wagner: 1. Eastern Michigan: 0. Akron: 0.5. Bowling Green: 4.5. Massachusetts: 2.5. Western Michigan: 0. Buffalo: 3. Kent State: 5.5. Toledo: 4
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. Northwestern: 8 by 48.3. San José State: 4 by 26.7. Pittsburgh: 8 by 48.3. Michigan: 5 by 20.8. Wagner: 5 by 30.8. Eastern Michigan: 4 by 16.7. Akron: 10 by 46.7. Bowling Green: 14 by 95. Massachusetts: 10 by 66.7. Western Michigan: 9 by 37.5. Buffalo: 9 by 67.5. Kent State: 14 by 100. Toledo: 12 by 90
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins2.5 · Games = 7 · +1.3 vs Losses
Losses1.3 · Games = 6 · -1.3 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Jordan Kwiatkowski
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.