Usage Score
21.8
Player Dossier
2014-2018Toledo
Cody Thompson
WR • 6'2" • 205 lbs • Huron, OH, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Cody Thompson reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
86
Consistency
65.5
Season Value
57
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Toledo
1415151616171818
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Toledo
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Tulsa
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.
Cody Thompson, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason · Toledo. Cody Thompson reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason
Toledo paired 1,269 primary output with 94.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 86 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Northern Illinois
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. 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.
2018 Postseason · Toledo
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
49.8
Efficiency
86
Usage
21.8
Consistency
65.5
Best Game by takeover score
Florida International
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. Florida International: 55. Unknown: 68. Miami: 19. Nevada: 57. Fresno State: 28. Bowling Green: 78. Eastern Michigan: 37. Buffalo: 0. Western Michigan: 63. Ball State: 75. Northern Illinois: 110. Kent State: 31. Central Michigan: 26
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. Florida International: 5 by 73.3. Unknown: 3 by 100. Miami: 2 by 63.3. Nevada: 4 by 95. Fresno State: 1 by 100. Bowling Green: 6 by 86.7. Eastern Michigan: 3 by 82.2. Western Michigan: 6 by 70. Ball State: 6 by 83.3. Northern Illinois: 8 by 91.7. Kent State: 2 by 100. Central Michigan: 2 by 86.7
Split Comparison
Wins55 · n=6 · +13.5 vs Losses
Losses41.5 · n=6 · -13.5 vs Wins
First Half48.9 · n=7 · -2.0 vs Second Half
Second Half50.8 · n=6 · +2.0 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Northern Illinois
Best efficiency game
100 vs Kent State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/21 | vs Florida International | L 32-35 | — | 5 | 55 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 16 |
| Fri 11/23 | vs Central Michigan | W 51-13 | — | 2 | 26 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 14 |
| Thu 11/15 | @ Kent State | W 56-34 | — | 2 | 31 | 15.5 | 15.50 | 0 | 18 |
| Thu 11/8 | @ Northern Illinois100 receiving yards · High volume | L 15-38 | — | 8 | 110 | 13.8 | 13.80 | 0 | 35 |
| Wed 10/31 | vs Ball State | W 45-13 | — | 6 | 75 | 12.5 | 12.50 | 1 | 23 |
| Thu 10/25 | @ Western Michigan2+ TD | W 51-24 | — | 6 | 63 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 3 | 18 |
| Sat 10/20 | vs Buffalo | L 17-31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/13 | @ Eastern Michigan | L 26-28 | — | 3 | 37 | 12.3 | 12.30 | 1 | 18 |
| Sat 10/6 | vs Bowling Green | W 52-36 | — | 6 | 78 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 23 |
| Sun 9/30 | @ Fresno State | L 27-49 | — | 1 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 9/22 | vs Nevada2+ TD | W 63-44 | — | 4 | 57 | 14.3 | 14.30 | 3 | 20 |
| Sat 9/15 | vs Miami | L 24-49 | — | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 9.50 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 9/1 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 68 | 22.7 | 22.70 | 1 | 38 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Toledo
2014-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
20142015201520162016201720182018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | Toledo | 34 | 56.7 | 7.2 | — |
| 2015 Postseason | Toledo | 825 | 91.8 | 15.4 | 791 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Toledo | 825 | 91.8 | 15.4 | 0 |
| 2016 Postseason | Toledo | 1,269 | 94.6 | 22.2 | 444 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Toledo | 1,269 | 94.6 | 22.2 | 0 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Toledo | 537 | 96.8 | 26.2 | -732 |
| 2018 Postseason | Toledo | 647 | 86 | 21.8 | 110 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Toledo | 647 | 86 | 21.8 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Tulsa
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
178
Primary metric
178 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Northern Illinois
110
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
110 receiving yards with a 91.7 efficiency score.
#3
Arkansas State
174
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
174 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Massachusetts
116
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
116 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Temple
119
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
119 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2016 Postseason · Toledo
1,269 primary output · 94.6 efficiency · 22.2 usage
72.6
#2
2016 Regular Season · Toledo
72.6
1,269 primary · 94.6 efficiency · 22.2 usage
#3
2017 Regular Season · Toledo
61.8
537 primary · 96.8 efficiency · 26.2 usage
Milestones
15
100+ receiving yards
3
8+ catch outings
5
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2014 · Rating 0.7483
Huron · Huron, OH
- Committed To
- Toledo
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2014
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
3,312
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 47 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.