Player Stats

Sojourn Shelton 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
30
TFL
1
QB hurries
1
Passes defended
12

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2013 Regular SeasonWisconsin50-0--038.3
2014 Regular SeasonWisconsin00-0--0-
2015 PostseasonWisconsin20-0--021.9
2015 Regular SeasonWisconsin20-0--021.9
2016 PostseasonWisconsin143-0--049.2
2016 Regular SeasonWisconsin142710112049.2

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason

Wisconsin paired 18 primary output with 21.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

2016 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 21.8 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: Nebraska

Win with 3 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 · Wisconsin

Games

14

Havoc Plays / G

1.3

Efficiency

21.8

Usage

3.9

Consistency

42.7

Best Game by takeover score

Nebraska

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.

1234567891011121314

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Western Michigan: 0. LSU: 1. Akron: 1. Georgia State: 3. Michigan State: 2. Michigan: 0. Ohio State: 1. Iowa: 0. Nebraska: 3. Northwestern: 3. Illinois: 1. Purdue: 1. Minnesota: 2. Penn State: 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. Western Michigan: 3 by 12.5. LSU: 3 by 22.5. Akron: 2 by 18.3. Georgia State: 2 by 38.3. Michigan State: 3 by 32.5. Michigan: 4 by 16.7. Ohio State: 4 by 26.7. Iowa: 1 by 4.2. Nebraska: 4 by 46.7. Northwestern: 0 by 30. Illinois: 2 by 18.3. Purdue: 0 by 10. Minnesota: 1 by 24.2. Penn State: 1 by 4.2

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.5 · Games = 11 · +1.2 vs Losses
Losses0.3 · Games = 3 · -1.2 vs Wins