Usage Score
7.6
Player Dossier
2019-2023Tennessee
Aaron Beasley
LB • 6'1" • 225 lbs • Franklin, GA, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Aaron Beasley shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 34.8 disruption score.
Efficiency
33.2
Consistency
36.9
Season Value
22.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Tennessee
191920212122222323
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 9
- Program Path
- Tennessee
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
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.
Aaron Beasley, LB. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Tennessee. Aaron Beasley shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 34.8 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason
Tennessee paired 0 primary output with 4.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 33.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2023 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Ole Miss
Loss with 2 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 then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2021 Postseason · Tennessee
Games
13
Havoc Plays / G
0.7
Efficiency
33.2
Usage
7.6
Consistency
36.9
Best Game by takeover score
Purdue
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Purdue: 1.5. Bowling Green: 0.5. Pittsburgh: 0. Unknown: 1. Florida: 0. Missouri: 1.5. South Carolina: 0.5. Ole Miss: 2. Alabama: 0.5. Kentucky: 0. Georgia: 0. South Alabama: 0. Vanderbilt: 1.5
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Purdue: 5 by 35.8. Bowling Green: 3 by 17.5. Pittsburgh: 3 by 12.5. Unknown: 2 by 18.3. Florida: 6 by 25. Missouri: 8 by 48.3. South Carolina: 9 by 42.5. Ole Miss: 10 by 61.7. Alabama: 7 by 34.2. Kentucky: 14 by 50. Georgia: 3 by 12.5. South Alabama: 4 by 16.7. Vanderbilt: 10 by 56.7
Split Comparison
Wins0.7 · n=6 · +0 vs Losses
Losses0.7 · n=6 · +0 vs Wins
First Half0.7 · n=7 · +0.0 vs Second Half
Second Half0.7 · n=6 · -0.0 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Ole Miss
Best efficiency game
61.7 vs Ole Miss
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 12/30 | @ Purdue | L 45-48 | 5 | 2 | — | 1.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/27 | vs Vanderbilt10+ tackles | W 45-21 | 10 | 4 | — | 1.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 11/21 | vs South Alabama | W 60-14 | 4 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/13 | vs Georgia | L 17-41 | 3 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/6 | @ Kentucky10+ tackles | W 45-42 | 14 | 6 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/23 | @ Alabama | L 24-52 | 7 | 4 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/16 | vs Ole Miss10+ tackles | L 26-31 | 10 | 5 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/9 | vs South Carolina | W 45-20 | 9 | 4 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/2 | @ Missouri | W 62-24 | 8 | 6 | — | 1.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/25 | @ Florida | L 14-38 | 6 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/18 | vs Unknown | — | 2 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0.50 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/11 | vs Pittsburgh | L 34-41 | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Fri 9/3 | vs Bowling Green | W 38-6 | 3 | 1 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Tennessee
2019-2023
Opening stop
Season Progression
201920192020202120212022202220232023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Postseason | Tennessee | 0 | 4.2 | 0.8 | — |
| 2019 Regular Season | Tennessee | 0 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 0 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Tennessee | 0.5 | 11.4 | 2.7 | 0.5 |
| 2021 Postseason | Tennessee | 9 | 33.2 | 7.6 | 8.5 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Tennessee | 9 | 33.2 | 7.6 | 0 |
| 2022 Postseason | Tennessee | 16 | 35.5 | 12.5 | 7 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Tennessee | 16 | 35.5 | 12.5 | 0 |
| 2023 Postseason | Tennessee | 18.5 | 34.8 | 9.4 | 2.5 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Tennessee | 18.5 | 34.8 | 9.4 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Unknown
Game with backfield disruption leading the way.
7
Primary metric
7 disruption/tackle impact with 70.1 takeover score.
#2
Clemson
4
Primary metric
Win with backfield disruption leading the way.
4 disruption/tackle impact with 66.1 takeover score.
#3
South Carolina
4
Primary metric
Loss with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4 disruption/tackle impact with 61.4 takeover score.
#4
Ole Miss
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 58 takeover score.
#5
Vanderbilt
1.5
Primary metric
Win with 1.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1.5 disruption/tackle impact with 49.8 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Postseason · Tennessee
0 primary output · 4.2 efficiency · 0.8 usage
35
#2
2019 Regular Season · Tennessee
35
0 primary · 4.2 efficiency · 0.8 usage
#3
2022 Postseason · Tennessee
26.1
16 primary · 35.5 efficiency · 12.5 usage
Milestones
3
Impact games
4
Splash games
4
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2025 · Rating 0.8828
Fulshear · Fulshear, TX
- Committed To
- —
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2025
Career Facts
1
Career teams
9
Seasons tracked
228
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 9 tracked seasons, 43 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.