Player Stats

Algernon Brown 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

Scrimmage yards
1,595
Rushing yards
1,310
Receiving yards
285
Touchdowns
16

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesScrimmageRush YdsRec YdsTDOverall
2010 Regular SeasonBYU00000-
2011 Regular SeasonBYU00000-
2012 Regular SeasonBYU00000-
2013 Regular SeasonBYU92422348236.4
2014 PostseasonBYU986797055.9
2014 Regular SeasonBYU9377245132155.9
2015 PostseasonBYU1121129070.9
2015 Regular SeasonBYU11759697621370.9
2016 Regular SeasonBYU81104367026.3

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason

BYU paired 780 primary output with 51.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

2016 Regular Season role shape

backfield-heavy usage with 37.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value cooled off

2016 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Toledo

Win with 37 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. 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.

2016 Regular Season · BYU

Games

8

Scrimmage Yards / G

13.8

Efficiency

37.3

Usage

4.2

Consistency

41.9

Best Game by takeover score

Toledo

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.

12345678

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Arizona: 21. Utah: -3. Toledo: 37. Michigan State: 6. Boise State: 8. Cincinnati: 11. Southern Utah: 28. Massachusetts: 2

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. Arizona: 4 by 36.5. Utah: 1 by 0. Toledo: 2 by 100. Michigan State: 3 by 11.5. Boise State: 2 by 41.7. Cincinnati: 2 by 45.8. Southern Utah: 7 by 41.7. Massachusetts: 1 by 20.8

Split Comparison

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

Wins17.5 · Games = 6 · +15 vs Losses
Losses2.5 · Games = 2 · -15 vs Wins