Usage Score
9.6
Player Dossier
2012-2016Mississippi State
A.J. Jefferson
DL • 6'3" • Summit, MS, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
A.J. Jefferson shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 28.9 disruption score.
Efficiency
28.9
Consistency
25.2
Season Value
27.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season · Mississippi State
1213141516
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Program Path
- Mississippi State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: South Alabama
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.
A.J. Jefferson, DL. Best season Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season · Mississippi State. A.J. Jefferson shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 28.9 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season
Mississippi State paired 14.5 primary output with 28.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2016 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 28.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2016 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: South Alabama
Loss with backfield disruption leading the way. 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.
2016 Regular Season · Mississippi State
Games
9
Havoc Plays / G
1.6
Efficiency
28.9
Usage
9.6
Consistency
25.2
Best Game by takeover score
Arkansas
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. South Alabama: 6. South Carolina: 3. LSU: 0.5. Massachusetts: 2.5. Auburn: 0. BYU: 2. Texas A&M: 0. Alabama: 0.5. Arkansas: 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. South Alabama: 7 by 79.2. South Carolina: 5 by 50.8. LSU: 5 by 25.8. Massachusetts: 4 by 41.7. Auburn: 2 by 8.3. BYU: 3 by 32.5. Texas A&M: 1 by 4.2. Alabama: 1 by 9.2. Arkansas: 2 by 8.3
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins1.8 · Games = 3 · +0.3 vs Losses
Losses1.5 · Games = 6 · -0.3 vs Wins
First Half2.4 · Games = 5 · +1.8 vs Second Half
Second Half0.6 · Games = 4 · -1.8 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
South Alabama
Best efficiency game
79.2 vs South Alabama
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun 11/20 | vs Arkansas | L 42-58 | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/12 | @ Alabama | L 3-51 | 1 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Texas A&M | W 35-28 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/15 | @ BYU | L 21-28 | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/8 | vs Auburn | L 14-38 | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/24 | @ MassachusettsSplash game | W 47-35 | 4 | 2 | — | 2.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/17 | @ LSU | L 20-23 | 5 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/10 | vs South CarolinaSplash game | W 27-14 | 5 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/3 | vs South Alabama2+ sacks · Splash game | L 20-21 | 7 | 5 | — | 4 | 2 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Mississippi State
2012-2016
Opening stop
Season Progression
20122013201420152016
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2013 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Mississippi State | 14.5 | 28.9 | 9.6 | 14.5 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
South Alabama
Loss with backfield disruption leading the way.
6
Primary metric
6 disruption/tackle impact with 68.5 takeover score.
#2
South Carolina
3
Primary metric
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 38 takeover score.
#3
Massachusetts
2.5
Primary metric
Win with 2.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2.5 disruption/tackle impact with 33.9 takeover score.
#4
BYU
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 26.3 takeover score.
#5
LSU
0.5
Primary metric
Loss with 0.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
0.5 disruption/tackle impact with 14 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2016 Regular Season · Mississippi State
14.5 primary output · 28.9 efficiency · 9.6 usage
27.6
#2
2012 Regular Season · Mississippi State
—
0 primary · — efficiency · — usage
#3
2013 Regular Season · Mississippi State
—
0 primary · — efficiency · — usage
Milestones
1
Impact games
3
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2012 · Rating 0.8908
North Pike · Summit, MS
- Committed To
- Mississippi State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2012
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
30
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 9 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.