Usage Score
6.6
Player Dossier
2009-2012Indiana
TE • 6'3" • Memphis, TN, USA
Charles Love III reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
6.6
Efficiency
63.3
Consistency
72.6
Season Value
59.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2010 Regular Season · Indiana
Snapshot
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.
Charles Love III, TE. Best season Best season by value score: 2010 Regular Season · Indiana. Charles Love III reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Charles Love III played TE for Indiana. Across 4 tracked seasons, Charles Love III recorded 51 receiving yards and 1 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2012 with Indiana.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Regular Season
Indiana paired 0 primary output with — efficiency.
Supporting note
2012 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 63.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2012 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Wisconsin
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
3
Receiving Yards / G
17
Efficiency
63.3
Usage
6.6
Consistency
72.6
Best Game by takeover score
Wisconsin
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Massachusetts: 19. Navy: 6. Wisconsin: 26
Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.
Low volumeHigh quality
High volumeHigh quality
Low volumeLower quality
High volumeLower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Massachusetts: 2 by 63.3. Navy: 1 by 40. Wisconsin: 2 by 86.7
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
3 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Wisconsin
Best efficiency game
86.7 vs Wisconsin
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Indiana
2009-2012
Opening stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 Regular Season | Indiana | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2010 Regular Season | Indiana | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Indiana | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Indiana | 51 | 63.3 | 6.6 | 51 |
#1 Featured game
Wisconsin
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
26
Primary metric
26 receiving yards with a 86.7 efficiency score.
#2
Massachusetts
19
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
19 receiving yards with a 63.3 efficiency score.
#3
Navy
6
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
6 receiving yards with a 40 efficiency score.
#4
Michigan
0
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
0 receiving yards with a — efficiency score.
#1 Season by value score
2010 Regular Season · Indiana
0 primary output · — efficiency · — usage
100
#2
2012 Regular Season · Indiana
59.7
51 primary · 63.3 efficiency · 6.6 usage
#3
2009 Regular Season · Indiana
—
0 primary · — efficiency · — usage
0
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Recruit Profile
Class 2008 · Rating 0.7222
Trezevant · Memphis, TN
Career Facts
1
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
51
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 4 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.