Usage Score
24.5
Player Dossier
2016-2019Wisconsin
Quintez Cephus
WR • 6'1" • 207 lbs • Macon, GA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Quintez Cephus reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
85.6
Consistency
63.7
Season Value
68.5
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Wisconsin
161617181919
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Wisconsin
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Purdue
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.
Quintez Cephus, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Wisconsin. Quintez Cephus reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason
Wisconsin paired 901 primary output with 85.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2019 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 85.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2019 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Ohio State
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 92.9th 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.
2019 Postseason · Wisconsin
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
64.4
Efficiency
85.6
Usage
24.5
Consistency
63.7
Best Game by takeover score
Oregon
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011121314
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Oregon: 59. South Florida: 39. Central Michigan: 130. Michigan: 36. Northwestern: 30. Kent State: 28. Michigan State: 28. Illinois: 62. Ohio State: 57. Iowa: 94. Nebraska: 23. Purdue: 79. Minnesota: 114. Ohio State: 122
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. Oregon: 7 by 56.2. South Florida: 3 by 86.7. Central Michigan: 6 by 100. Michigan: 2 by 100. Northwestern: 3 by 66.7. Kent State: 3 by 62.2. Michigan State: 2 by 93.3. Illinois: 5 by 82.7. Ohio State: 3 by 100. Iowa: 5 by 100. Nebraska: 3 by 51.1. Purdue: 5 by 100. Minnesota: 5 by 100. Ohio State: 7 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins60.1 · n=10 · -14.9 vs Losses
Losses75 · n=4 · +14.9 vs Wins
First Half50 · n=7 · -28.7 vs Second Half
Second Half78.7 · n=7 · +28.7 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Ohio State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Ohio State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 1/1 | vs Oregon | L 27-28 | — | 7 | 59 | 8.4 | 8.40 | 1 | 12 |
| Sun 12/8 | vs Ohio State100 receiving yards | L 21-34 | — | 7 | 122 | 17.4 | 17.40 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 11/30 | @ Minnesota100 receiving yards | W 38-17 | — | 5 | 114 | 22.8 | 22.80 | 1 | 47 |
| Sat 11/23 | vs Purdue | W 45-24 | — | 5 | 79 | 15.8 | 15.80 | 1 | 29 |
| Sat 11/16 | @ Nebraska | W 37-21 | — | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 7.70 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 11/9 | vs Iowa | W 24-22 | — | 5 | 94 | 18.8 | 18.80 | 1 | 52 |
| Sat 10/26 | @ Ohio State | L 7-38 | — | 3 | 57 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 35 |
| Sat 10/19 | @ Illinois | L 23-24 | — | 5 | 62 | 12.4 | 12.40 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 10/12 | vs Michigan State | W 38-0 | — | 2 | 28 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 19 |
| Sat 10/5 | vs Kent State | W 48-0 | — | 3 | 28 | 9.3 | 9.30 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 9/28 | vs Northwestern | W 24-15 | — | 3 | 30 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 19 |
| Sat 9/21 | vs Michigan | W 35-14 | — | 2 | 36 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 26 |
| Sat 9/7 | vs Central Michigan100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 61-0 | — | 6 | 130 | 21.7 | 21.70 | 2 | 46 |
| Fri 8/30 | @ South Florida | W 49-0 | — | 3 | 39 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 17 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Wisconsin
2016-2019
Opening stop
Season Progression
201620162017201820192019
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Postseason | Wisconsin | 94 | 75 | 6.9 | — |
| 2016 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 94 | 75 | 6.9 | 0 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 501 | 88.2 | 26.2 | 407 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 0 | — | — | -501 |
| 2019 Postseason | Wisconsin | 901 | 85.6 | 24.5 | 901 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Wisconsin | 901 | 85.6 | 24.5 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Purdue
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
100
Primary metric
100 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Northwestern
99
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
99 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Ohio State
122
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
122 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Minnesota
114
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
114 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Central Michigan
130
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
130 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Postseason · Wisconsin
901 primary output · 85.6 efficiency · 24.5 usage
68.5
#2
2019 Regular Season · Wisconsin
68.5
901 primary · 85.6 efficiency · 24.5 usage
#3
2017 Regular Season · Wisconsin
59.3
501 primary · 88.2 efficiency · 26.2 usage
Milestones
4
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
2
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2016 · Rating 0.8583
Stratford Academy · Macon, GA
- Committed To
- Wisconsin
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2016
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,496
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 30 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.