TactiQ
Sign InGet Started
TactiQ
Football Intelligence
Founding Beta

TactiQ is built around Player & Club Data, Match Intelligence, Predictive Modeling, and Research & Visualization — understand the system, not the surface.

Core
Club football as the permanent base
Launch
World Cup as the launch amplifier
Transparency
Public roadmap and visible system progress
The standard
Methodology →

Every score is deterministic, evidence-gated, and confidence-labelled. Football intelligence should be explainable — not a black box with a number on the front. The methodology is part of the product, not a legal page.

Deterministic scoringMulti-agent consensus gatedPublication gate active
Core
PlayersClubsMatchesWorld Cup 2026Roadmap
Product
CompareRankingsForecastMethodologyMembership
Legal
PrivacyTerms© 2026 TactiQ. All rights reserved.
Player Profile

Loading player profile...

Pulling current player details into TactiQ.

Player Profile

Jeff Chabot

TactiQ Score, per-90 performance stats, and multi-season form — with direct routes into compare and rankings.

Current Team
VfB Stuttgart
Position
Centre Back
Also: Defender
Date of Birth
Feb 12, 1998 (28)
Jersey Number
#24
League
Bundesliga
Back to PlayersCompare PlayerOpen RankingsView Methodology
Jeff Chabot
Jeff Chabot
Current profile snapshot
Current Team
VfB Stuttgart
Position
Centre Back
Also: Defender
Date of Birth
Feb 12, 1998 (28)
Jersey Number
#24
TactiQ Score
75.0
86% confidence
TactiQ Score v2
75.0
Form Score
72.2
Confidence
86%
Role
center_back
League
Bundesliga
Per 90 minutes
Goals
—
Assists
—
Key Pass
0.24
Tackles
1.35
Rating
7.04
Multi-season trend
AI Analysis
Generated May 6, 2026

A Bundesliga center-back sitting at 48.04 on the FQ scale — below the 50-59 "typical performer" band and firmly in fringe territory. The most distinctive feature of this evaluation is not a specific weakness but an absence: all role-critical sub-scores (defense, physical duel, progression) are null, meaning the score is built on thin positional signal rather than granular defensive data. With 2,061 minutes across 24 matches, sample size is not the issue — the data gaps reflect a measurement limitation, not low minutes.

Why this score

The FQ score of 48.04 is driven primarily by below-baseline overall output with no sub-score able to pull it upward — the defenseScore, which is the primary evaluation dimension for a center-back, is null. Without it, the score defaults to a low baseline, and the per-90 data (1.35 tackles, 0.22 key passes, 7.07 rating) does not provide enough signal to elevate it.

Form Trajectory

Form score of 49.72 sits just 1.68 points above the FQ score of 48.04 — within the ±5 stable band. There is no meaningful upward or downward trend; performance is flat and consistent with the overall rating.

Similar Profiles
Players with comparable scoring profiles in the same role
Leandro Daniel Cabrera Sasía

Closest comparable at 48.49 FQ, operating in the same fringe-to-typical band; both sit below the 50-59 baseline, though Cabrera Sasía edges this player by 0.45 points.

Compare →
Rankings
See where this player sits across all scored players.

Top 50 players by TactiQ Score — filter by position, form, and confidence.

Open Rankings →
Compare
Put this player next to another and find the real edges.

TactiQ Score, form, confidence, and season stats compared side by side — instantly.

Compare Player →
Methodology
Understand exactly how this score was built.

Every TactiQ Score is deterministic and traceable. Read the full methodology behind the numbers.

View Methodology →
Latest available season snapshot

Live statistics currently available for this profile

8 metrics surfaced
Appearances
26
Minutes
2206
Key passes
6
Rating
7.04
Tackles
33
Shots on target
7
Successful dribbles
4
Clean sheets
8
Current indicators
What the live season sample is surfacing right now
Heavy minute load
2206 minutes suggest a significant current role in the squad rotation.
2 Seasons Ago
TQ 72.5Form 72.7
Previous
TQ 68.9Form 69.0
Current
TQ 71.8Form 72.2
Per 90 minutes
Goals
—
Assists
—
Key Passes
0.24
Tackles
1.35
Rating
7.04
Pau Francisco Torres

Comparable FQ score of 47.13 places Torres in the same evaluation tier; the marginal gap of under 1 point suggests near-identical overall output levels, though positional context may differ.

Compare →
Eric Anders Smith

At 46.79, Smith is the lowest of the three comparables and sits 1.25 points below this player — a negligible difference that underlines how tightly clustered this group is at the lower end of the adequate-starter threshold.

Compare →
Defensive activity
33 tackles indicate active intervention volume in the current season sample.
Defensive outcomes
8 clean sheets are surfacing in the current live snapshot.
Strengths
Where this player is genuinely above baseline
No clearly elite traits identified in current data.
Watchpoints
Real gaps relative to this player's role
Defensive sub-score unavailable

The defenseScore is null despite 2,061 minutes played — the single most important dimension for a center-back cannot be assessed. Tackles at 1.35 per 90 are the only defensive proxy available, and that figure alone is insufficient to evaluate duels won, aerial success, or interception volume.

Ball-playing output

Key passes of 0.22 per 90 indicate minimal creative contribution from deep, which is within acceptable range for a center-back but cannot be contextualised against a progression sub-score that is also null.

Reading the score

What each number means

TactiQ Score

A 0–100 measure of overall quality. Combines statistical output with league difficulty, multi-season weighting, and a consistency factor. Target range for strong players: 70–85.

Form Score

Weighted toward recent matches. Can diverge from the TactiQ Score when current form is meaningfully stronger or weaker than the multi-season average.

Confidence

How much evidence supports this score. Lower confidence means thinner data — fewer seasons, fewer appearances, or gaps in coverage. A provisional score is real signal with appropriate caveats.

Methodology

TactiQ Scores are deterministic — given the same evidence, they produce the same output. The evidence packet system, confidence labels, and publication gate are all explained in full.

Read the full methodology →