Computed from every play, garbage time excluded. FBS rank among players with enough volume
| Defense | Value | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Havoc plays | 2 | 1455th / 2758 |
| Tackles for loss | 2 | 830th / 2112 |
| Run stops | 8 | 1100th / 3422 |
| Sacks | 2 | — |
| Pass breakups | 0 | — |
| Interceptions | 0 | — |
| Forced fumbles | 0 | — |
| Tackles | 15 | — |
Where Ibirogba's plays went: throw and catch spots, air yards and yards after the catch, read from the play-by-play
The play-by-play names the defender on breakups, interceptions and tackles, but not the man in coverage on every throw, so true times-targeted isn't in the text. Coverage plays is the closest stand-in; exact targets come from hand charting.
3 seasons at 2 schools since 2014 · box-score totals, snap share estimated from play-by-play
| Season | Team | G | Snaps | Tkl | TFL | Sacks | INT | PD | Havoc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 so far | Texas Tech#12 · 7-1 | 8 | 45% | 18 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2025 | Wake Forest#57 · 9-4 | 11 | 30% | 21 | 3.5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2024 | Wake Forest#97 · 4-8 | 1 | 2% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Past seasons are summed from ESPN box scores; success rates and snap shares come from the play-by-play. Mateen Ibirogba's team rank is that season's final TDC rank. A dash means the stat wasn't recorded.
Mateen Ibirogba's box score, game by game, from ESPN, with a 0–10 game score for each (hover it for how it works). Click a result for the full game
| Defense | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk | Opponent | Result | Game score | Tkl | Solo | TFL | Sacks | Hur | PD | INT | TD |
| 1 | W 33–10 | 6.0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | · | · | |
| 2 | @ | W 35–24 | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | · | · |
| 3 | W 28–26 | 5.6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | · | · | |
| 4 | W 49–14 | 4.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | · | · | |
| 5 | @ | W 29–7 | 7.5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | · | · |
| 7 | W 53–25 | 7.7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | · | · | |
| 8 | @ | L 24–37 | 5.6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | · | · |
| 9 | W 34–26 | 7.8 | 5 | 2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2 | 0 | · | · | |
| 2026 · 8 games | 6.4 | 18 | 10 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 5 | 0 | · | · | ||
FBS rank among qualifying players
| Defense | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Tackles | 18 | 1481st / 5664 |
| Solo | 10 | — |
| Tackles for loss | 2.5 | 766th / 2634 |
| Sacks | 2.5 | 229th / 1383 |
| QB hurries | 5 | 71st / 1549 |
| Passes defended | 0 | — |
| Defensive TD | 0 | — |
Estimated snaps from a model trained on real NFL snap counts. Ranges in brackets are where the real number lands 80% of the time: wide for a single game, tighter over the season. How it works
| Game | Start | Opp. plays | Est. snaps | Plays made | Penalties | Snap share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 · Abilene Christian | ✓ DL | 61 | ~32 (12–50) | 3 | · | 52% |
| Wk 2 · Oregon State | ✓ DL | 74 | · | · | · | — |
| Wk 3 · Houston | ✓ DL | 75 | ~41 (20–52) | 2 | · | 55% |
| Wk 4 · Sam Houston | ✓ DL | 67 | ~25 (10–39) | 1 | · | 37% |
| Wk 5 · Colorado | ✓ DL | 80 | ~40 (20–50) | 3 | 1 | 50% |
| Wk 7 · Arizona State | — | 72 | ~33 (13–52) | 2 | · | 46% |
| Wk 8 · Cincinnati | — | 71 | ~34 (13–54) | 2 | · | 48% |
| Wk 9 · Arizona | — | 74 | ~51 (25–64) | 5 | · | 69% |
| Season | 5 GS | 571 | 256 (164–329) | 18 | 1 | 45% |
8 DLs on the Texas Tech roster, ordered by tkl
| # | Player | Pos | Class | Tkl | TFL | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | A.J. Holmes Jr. | DL | SR | 25 | 7.5 | 6.5 | — | 0 |
| 98 | Mateen Ibirogba | DL | SR | 18 | 2.5 | 2.5 | — | 0 |
| 1 | Julien Laventure | DL | SR | 13 | 3 | 0 | — | 0 |
| 92 | Bryce Butler | DL | SR | 13 | 0 | 0 | — | 2 |
| 51 | Jayden Cofield | DL | SR | 4 | 0 | 0 | — | 0 |
| 90 | Ayden Johnson | DL | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 91 | Krush Johnson | DL | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 93 | Dylan Singleton | DL | SO | — | — | — | — | — |
Stats, EPA and usage come from CollegeFootballData.com and refresh daily. FBS ranks only count players with enough volume for the stat to mean something. Qualifying for EPA takes —+ plays per team game. Texas Tech depth chart →