Player Stats

Sae Tautu 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
49
TFL
11
Sacks
6
QB hurries
1
Passes defended
3

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2010 Regular SeasonBYU00-0--0-
2011 Regular SeasonBYU00-0--0-
2012 Regular SeasonBYU00-0--0-
2013 Regular SeasonBYU00-0--0-
2014 Regular SeasonBYU00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonBYU00-0--0-
2016 PostseasonBYU1230.50--072.2
2016 Regular SeasonBYU124610.5613072.2

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason

BYU paired 21 primary output with 34.5 efficiency.

Supporting note

2016 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 34.5 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2016 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Mississippi State

Win with 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.

2016 Postseason · BYU

Games

12

Havoc Plays / G

1.8

Efficiency

34.5

Usage

11.9

Consistency

55.4

Best Game by takeover score

Mississippi 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.

123456789101112

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Wyoming: 0.5. Arizona: 2. Utah: 0. UCLA: 1. Toledo: 1.5. Michigan State: 4. Mississippi State: 5. Boise State: 2. Cincinnati: 1.5. Southern Utah: 1.5. Massachusetts: 1. Utah State: 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. Wyoming: 3 by 17.5. Arizona: 3 by 32.5. Utah: 2 by 8.3. UCLA: 1 by 14.2. Toledo: 5 by 35.8. Michigan State: 6 by 65. Mississippi State: 8 by 83.3. Boise State: 9 by 57.5. Cincinnati: 4 by 31.7. Southern Utah: 3 by 27.5. Massachusetts: 3 by 22.5. Utah State: 2 by 18.3

Split Comparison

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

Wins2 · Games = 9 · +1 vs Losses
Losses1 · Games = 3 · -1 vs Wins