Usage Score
9.4
Player Dossier
2022-2025UNLV
DE • 6'4" • 275 lbs • Katy, TX, USA
Tunmise Adeleye shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 28.1 disruption score.
Usage Score
9.4
Efficiency
28.1
Consistency
42.6
Season Value
29.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season · Texas A&M
Snapshot
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.
Tunmise Adeleye, DE. Best season Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season · Texas A&M. Tunmise Adeleye shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 28.1 disruption score.
Tunmise Adeleye played DE for Texas A&M, Michigan State, Texas State, and UNLV. Across 4 tracked seasons, Tunmise Adeleye recorded 69 tackles. His top tracked season came in 2025 with UNLV.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2022 Regular Season
Texas A&M paired 0 primary output with 12.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2025 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 28.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 4 team stops, with role shifts visible across Texas A&M, Michigan State, Texas State, UNLV.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Utah State
Win with backfield disruption leading the way. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
13
Havoc Plays / G
1.3
Efficiency
28.1
Usage
9.4
Consistency
42.6
Best Game by takeover score
Ohio
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
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. Ohio: 0. Sam Houston: 2. Unknown: 0.5. UCLA: 1.5. Wyoming: 0.5. Air Force: 0. Boise State: 3. New Mexico: 2. Colorado State: 2. Utah State: 4. Hawai'i: 0. Nevada: 1. Boise State: 0
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. Ohio: 5 by 20.8. Sam Houston: 2 by 28.3. Unknown: 2 by 13.3. UCLA: 4 by 31.7. Wyoming: 2 by 13.3. Air Force: 6 by 25. Boise State: 4 by 46.7. New Mexico: 5 by 40.8. Colorado State: 4 by 36.7. Utah State: 4 by 56.7. Hawai'i: 3 by 12.5. Nevada: 4 by 26.7. Boise State: 3 by 12.5
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Utah State
Best efficiency game
56.7 vs Utah State
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 12/24 | @ Ohio | L 10-17 | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 12/6 | @ Boise State | L 21-38 | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/30 | @ Nevada | W 42-17 | 4 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 11/22 | vs Hawai'i | W 38-10 | 3 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/16 | vs Utah State2+ sacks · Splash game | W 29-26 | 4 | 3 | — | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/9 | @ Colorado State | W 42-10 | 4 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/1 | vs New Mexico | L 35-40 | 5 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/18 | @ Boise State | L 31-56 | 4 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 10/11 | vs Air Force | W 51-48 | 6 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/4 | @ Wyoming | W 31-17 | 2 | 1 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 9/7 | vs UCLA | W 30-23 | 4 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 8/30 | @ Sam Houston | W 38-21 | 2 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 8/23 | vs Unknown | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Texas A&M
2022
Opening stop
Michigan State
2023
Peak year stop
Texas State
2024
Peak year stop
UNLV
2025
Final stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 0 | 12.5 | 1.9 | — |
| 2023 Regular Season | Michigan State | 3 | 11.3 | 2.4 | 3 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Texas State | 4.5 | 14 | 4.2 | 1.5 |
| 2025 Postseason | UNLV | 16.5 | 28.1 | 9.4 | 12 |
| 2025 Regular Season | UNLV | 16.5 | 28.1 | 9.4 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Utah State
Win with backfield disruption leading the way.
4
Primary metric
4 disruption/tackle impact with 57.7 takeover score.
#2
Boise State
3
Primary metric
Loss with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 53.1 takeover score.
#3
Unknown
3
Primary metric
Game with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 49.6 takeover score.
#4
Unknown
2.5
Primary metric
Game with 2.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2.5 disruption/tackle impact with 47 takeover score.
#5
New Mexico
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 34.4 takeover score.
#1 Season by value score
2022 Regular Season · Texas A&M
0 primary output · 12.5 efficiency · 1.9 usage
38.1
#2
2025 Postseason · UNLV
29.4
16.5 primary · 28.1 efficiency · 9.4 usage
#3
2025 Regular Season · UNLV
29.4
16.5 primary · 28.1 efficiency · 9.4 usage
0
Impact games
1
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Recruit Profile
Class 2021 · Rating 0.9811
Tompkins · Katy, TX
Career Facts
4
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
69
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 26 games, and SP opponent-strength context when available. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.