Player Stats

Chad Moore 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
164
TFL
12.5
Sacks
2
QB hurries
5
Passes defended
10

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2013 Regular SeasonOhio00-0--0-
2014 Regular SeasonOhio00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonOhio00-0--0-
2016 PostseasonOhio13910-1062.5
2016 Regular SeasonOhio13775125062.5
2017 PostseasonOhio124202-065.6
2017 Regular SeasonOhio12744.5114065.6

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason

Ohio paired 17.5 primary output with 41.7 efficiency.

Supporting note

2017 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 41.7 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2017 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UAB

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 compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2017 Postseason · Ohio

Games

12

Havoc Plays / G

1.5

Efficiency

41.7

Usage

9.6

Consistency

40.8

Best Game by takeover score

UAB

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. UAB: 4. Hampton: 0. Purdue: 1. Eastern Michigan: 2. Massachusetts: 2. Central Michigan: 3. Bowling Green: 0.5. Kent State: 1. Miami (OH): 3. Toledo: 1. Akron: 0. Buffalo: 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. UAB: 4 by 56.7. Hampton: 2 by 8.3. Purdue: 7 by 39.2. Eastern Michigan: 8 by 53.3. Massachusetts: 12 by 70. Central Michigan: 9 by 67.5. Bowling Green: 3 by 17.5. Kent State: 5 by 30.8. Miami (OH): 9 by 67.5. Toledo: 6 by 35. Akron: 8 by 33.3. Buffalo: 5 by 20.8

Split Comparison

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

Wins1.7 · Games = 8 · +0.7 vs Losses
Losses1 · Games = 4 · -0.7 vs Wins