Usage Score
38.9
Player Dossier
2014-2017LSU
Trey Quinn
WR • 6'0" • 202 lbs • Lake Charles, LA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Trey Quinn reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
73.9
Consistency
71.5
Season Value
71
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · SMU
141515161717
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- LSU • SMU
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Cincinnati
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.
Trey Quinn, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · SMU. Trey Quinn reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason
SMU paired 1,236 primary output with 73.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2017 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 73.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2017 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across LSU, SMU.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Cincinnati
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.
2017 Postseason · SMU
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
95.1
Efficiency
73.9
Usage
38.9
Consistency
71.5
Best Game by takeover score
Louisiana Tech
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. Louisiana Tech: 45. Unknown: 53. North Texas: 96. TCU: 116. Arkansas State: 50. UConn: 116. Houston: 156. Cincinnati: 186. Tulsa: 101. UCF: 47. Navy: 87. Memphis: 44. Tulane: 139
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. Louisiana Tech: 8 by 37.5. Unknown: 4 by 88.3. North Texas: 6 by 100. TCU: 7 by 100. Arkansas State: 5 by 66.7. UConn: 15 by 51.6. Houston: 17 by 61.2. Cincinnati: 17 by 72.9. Tulsa: 8 by 84.2. UCF: 11 by 28.5. Navy: 6 by 96.7. Memphis: 4 by 73.3. Tulane: 6 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins114.7 · n=6 · +32.2 vs Losses
Losses82.5 · n=6 · -32.2 vs Wins
First Half90.3 · n=7 · -10.4 vs Second Half
Second Half100.7 · n=6 · +10.4 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
Cincinnati
Best efficiency game
100 vs Tulane
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 12/21 | vs Louisiana TechHigh volume | L 10-51 | — | 8 | 45 | 5.6 | 5.60 | 1 | 14 |
| Sat 11/25 | vs Tulane100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 41-38 | — | 6 | 139 | 23.2 | 23.20 | 2 | 77 |
| Sat 11/18 | @ Memphis2+ TD | L 45-66 | — | 4 | 44 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 27 |
| Sat 11/11 | @ Navy | L 40-43 | — | 6 | 87 | 14.5 | 14.50 | 1 | 26 |
| Sat 11/4 | vs UCFHigh volume | L 24-31 | — | 11 | 47 | 4.3 | 4.30 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 10/28 | vs Tulsa100 receiving yards · High volume | W 38-34 | — | 8 | 101 | 12.6 | 12.60 | 2 | 28 |
| Sat 10/21 | @ Cincinnati100 receiving yards · High volume | W 31-28 | — | 17 | 186 | 10.9 | 10.90 | 0 | 32 |
| Sat 10/7 | @ Houston100 receiving yards · High volume | L 22-35 | — | 17 | 156 | 9.2 | 9.20 | 1 | 30 |
| Sat 9/30 | vs UConn100 receiving yards · High volume | W 49-28 | — | 15 | 116 | 7.7 | 7.70 | 2 | 21 |
| Sat 9/23 | vs Arkansas State | W 44-21 | — | 5 | 50 | 8.3 | 10 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 9/16 | @ TCU100 receiving yards | L 36-56 | — | 7 | 116 | 16.6 | 16.60 | 1 | 58 |
| Sat 9/9 | vs North Texas | W 54-32 | — | 6 | 96 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Unknown | — | — | 4 | 53 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 1 | 35 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
LSU
2014-2015
Opening stop
- 2
SMU
2016-2017
Final stop
Season Progression
201420152015201620172017
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | LSU | 193 | 63.2 | 17 | — |
| 2015 Postseason | LSU | 83 | 76.7 | 8 | -110 |
| 2015 Regular Season | LSU | 83 | 76.7 | 8 | 0 |
| 2016 Regular Season | SMU | 0 | — | — | -83 |
| 2017 Postseason | SMU | 1,236 | 73.9 | 38.9 | 1,236 |
| 2017 Regular Season | SMU | 1,236 | 73.9 | 38.9 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Cincinnati
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
186
Primary metric
186 receiving yards with a 72.9 efficiency score.
#2
New Mexico State
46
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
46 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Ole Miss
42
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
42 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Texas Tech
46
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
46 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
TCU
116
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
116 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2017 Postseason · SMU
1,236 primary output · 73.9 efficiency · 38.9 usage
71
#2
2017 Regular Season · SMU
71
1,236 primary · 73.9 efficiency · 38.9 usage
#3
2014 Regular Season · LSU
39.1
193 primary · 63.2 efficiency · 17 usage
Milestones
6
100+ receiving yards
6
8+ catch outings
4
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2014 · Rating 0.9631
Barbe · Lake Charles, LA
- Committed To
- LSU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2014
Career Facts
2
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
1,512
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 26 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.