Usage Score
3.7
Player Dossier
2023-2025Kentucky
Sam Greene
LB • 6'2" • 248 lbs • Washington, DC, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Sam Greene shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 17.1 disruption score.
Efficiency
17.1
Consistency
7.4
Season Value
11.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2023 Regular Season · USC
232425
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 3
- Program Path
- USC • Kentucky
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Auburn
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Sam Greene, LB. Best season Best season by value score: 2023 Regular Season · USC. Sam Greene shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 17.1 disruption score.
Sam Greene played LB for USC and Kentucky. Across 3 tracked seasons, Sam Greene recorded 41 tackles. His top tracked season came in 2025 with Kentucky.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2023 Regular Season
USC paired 0 primary output with 4.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2025 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 17.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across USC, Kentucky.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Auburn
Win with 4 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 then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2025 Regular Season · Kentucky
Games
9
Havoc Plays / G
0.6
Efficiency
17.1
Usage
3.7
Consistency
7.4
Best Game by takeover score
Florida
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. Toledo: 0. Ole Miss: 0. Eastern Michigan: 0. South Carolina: 0. Georgia: 0. Texas: 0. Tennessee: 0. Auburn: 4. 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. Toledo: 1 by 4.2. Ole Miss: 3 by 12.5. Eastern Michigan: 3 by 12.5. South Carolina: 4 by 16.7. Georgia: 2 by 8.3. Texas: 1 by 4.2. Tennessee: 3 by 12.5. Auburn: 7 by 69.2. Florida: 1 by 14.2
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins1.3 · Games = 4 · +1.3 vs Losses
Losses0 · Games = 5 · -1.3 vs Wins
First Half0 · Games = 5 · -1.3 vs Second Half
Second Half1.3 · Games = 4 · +1.3 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
9 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Auburn
Best efficiency game
69.2 vs Auburn
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun 11/9 | vs Florida | W 38-7 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/1 | @ AuburnSplash game | W 10-3 | 7 | 6 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 10/25 | vs Tennessee | L 34-56 | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/18 | vs Texas | L 13-16 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/4 | @ Georgia | L 14-35 | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/27 | @ South Carolina | L 13-35 | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/13 | vs Eastern Michigan | W 48-23 | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/6 | vs Ole Miss | L 23-30 | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 8/30 | vs Toledo | W 24-16 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
USC
2023-2024
Opening stop
- 2
Kentucky
2025
Final stop
Season Progression
202320242025
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 Regular Season | USC | 0 | 4.2 | 0.7 | — |
| 2024 Regular Season | USC | 4 | 12.8 | 5.2 | 4 |
| 2025 Regular Season | Kentucky | 5 | 17.1 | 3.7 | 1 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Auburn
Win with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4
Primary metric
4 disruption/tackle impact with 60.6 takeover score.
#2
Rutgers
3
Primary metric
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 52.7 takeover score.
#3
Washington
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 26.6 takeover score.
#4
Florida
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 15.4 takeover score.
#5
South Carolina
0
Primary metric
Loss with 0 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
0 disruption/tackle impact with 6.5 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2023 Regular Season · USC
0 primary output · 4.2 efficiency · 0.7 usage
35
#2
2025 Regular Season · Kentucky
11.9
5 primary · 17.1 efficiency · 3.7 usage
#3
2024 Regular Season · USC
10.4
4 primary · 12.8 efficiency · 5.2 usage
Milestones
1
Impact games
2
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2023 · Rating 0.8878
St. Frances Academy · Baltimore, MD
- Committed To
- USC
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2023
Career Facts
2
Career teams
3
Seasons tracked
41
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 3 tracked seasons, 18 games, and SP opponent-strength context when available. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.