Usage Score
26.1
Player Dossier
2018-2021Baylor
Tyquan Thornton
WR • 6'3" • 180 lbs • Miami, FL, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Tyquan Thornton reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
80.2
Consistency
51.9
Season Value
64.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Baylor
18181919202121
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Baylor
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: West Virginia
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.
Tyquan Thornton, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · Baylor. Tyquan Thornton reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason
Baylor paired 948 primary output with 80.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2021 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 80.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2021 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: West Virginia
Win 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.
2021 Postseason · Baylor
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
67.7
Efficiency
80.2
Usage
26.1
Consistency
51.9
Best Game by takeover score
Ole Miss
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. Ole Miss: 2. Texas State: 46. Unknown: 103. Kansas: 31. Iowa State: 44. Oklahoma State: 52. West Virginia: 187. BYU: 84. Texas: 54. TCU: 121. Oklahoma: 41. Kansas State: 75. Texas Tech: 37. Oklahoma State: 71
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. Ole Miss: 1 by 13.3. Texas State: 5 by 61.3. Unknown: 5 by 100. Kansas: 3 by 68.9. Iowa State: 3 by 97.8. Oklahoma State: 3 by 100. West Virginia: 8 by 100. BYU: 5 by 100. Texas: 5 by 72. TCU: 5 by 100. Oklahoma: 4 by 68.3. Kansas State: 5 by 100. Texas Tech: 4 by 61.7. Oklahoma State: 6 by 78.9
Split Comparison
Wins61.1 · n=11 · -25.4 vs Losses
Losses86.5 · n=2 · +25.4 vs Wins
First Half66.4 · n=7 · -2.6 vs Second Half
Second Half69 · n=7 · +2.6 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
West Virginia
Best efficiency game
100 vs Kansas State
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun 1/2 | @ Ole Miss | W 21-7 | — | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Sat 12/4 | @ Oklahoma State | W 21-16 | — | 6 | 71 | 8.6 | 11.80 | 1 | 21 |
| Sat 11/27 | vs Texas Tech | W 27-24 | — | 4 | 37 | 9.3 | 9.30 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 11/20 | @ Kansas State | W 20-10 | — | 5 | 75 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 11/13 | vs Oklahoma | W 27-14 | — | 4 | 41 | 10.3 | 10.30 | 1 | 12 |
| Sat 11/6 | @ TCU100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | L 28-30 | — | 5 | 121 | 24.2 | 24.20 | 2 | 49 |
| Sat 10/30 | vs Texas | W 31-24 | — | 5 | 54 | 10.8 | 10.80 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 10/16 | vs BYU | W 38-24 | — | 5 | 84 | 16.8 | 16.80 | 0 | 45 |
| Sat 10/9 | vs West Virginia100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-20 | — | 8 | 187 | 23.4 | 23.40 | 2 | 75 |
| Sat 10/2 | @ Oklahoma State | L 14-24 | — | 3 | 52 | 17.3 | 17.30 | 0 | 44 |
| Sat 9/25 | vs Iowa State | W 31-29 | — | 3 | 44 | 14.7 | 14.70 | 1 | 21 |
| Sat 9/18 | @ Kansas | W 45-7 | — | 3 | 31 | 10.3 | 10.30 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 9/11 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | — | — | 5 | 103 | 20.6 | 20.60 | 2 | 48 |
| Sat 9/4 | @ Texas State | W 29-20 | — | 5 | 46 | 9.2 | 9.20 | 0 | 13 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Baylor
2018-2021
Opening stop
Season Progression
2018201820192019202020212021
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Postseason | Baylor | 354 | 77 | 9.8 | — |
| 2018 Regular Season | Baylor | 354 | 77 | 9.8 | 0 |
| 2019 Postseason | Baylor | 782 | 81.4 | 17.4 | 428 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Baylor | 782 | 81.4 | 17.4 | 0 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Baylor | 158 | 65.8 | 14.1 | -624 |
| 2021 Postseason | Baylor | 948 | 80.2 | 26.1 | 790 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Baylor | 948 | 80.2 | 26.1 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
West Virginia
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
187
Primary metric
187 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Iowa State
141
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
141 receiving yards with a 85.5 efficiency score.
#3
Duke
92
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
92 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Oklahoma
53
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
53 receiving yards with a 88.3 efficiency score.
#5
TCU
121
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
121 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2021 Postseason · Baylor
948 primary output · 80.2 efficiency · 26.1 usage
64.4
#2
2021 Regular Season · Baylor
64.4
948 primary · 80.2 efficiency · 26.1 usage
#3
2019 Postseason · Baylor
61.5
782 primary · 81.4 efficiency · 17.4 usage
Milestones
4
100+ receiving yards
2
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2018 · Rating 0.8971
Booker T. Washington · Miami, FL
- Committed To
- Baylor
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2018
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
2,242
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 42 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.