Usage Score
14.8
Player Dossier
2011-2015Clemson
Charone Peake
WR • 6'3" • Moore, SC, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Charone Peake reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
82.8
Consistency
62.5
Season Value
65
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Clemson
1112121314141515
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Clemson
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Syracuse
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.
Charone Peake, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Clemson. Charone Peake reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Clemson paired 716 primary output with 82.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 82.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2015 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Syracuse
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.
2015 Postseason · Clemson
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
51.1
Efficiency
82.8
Usage
14.8
Consistency
62.5
Best Game by takeover score
Alabama
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. Alabama: 99. Oklahoma: 54. Unknown: 12. App State: 86. Louisville: 12. Georgia Tech: 22. Boston College: 33. Miami: 44. NC State: 64. Florida State: 50. Syracuse: 120. Wake Forest: 60. South Carolina: 20. North Carolina: 40
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. Alabama: 6 by 100. Oklahoma: 4 by 90. Unknown: 2 by 40. App State: 4 by 100. Louisville: 1 by 80. Georgia Tech: 2 by 73.3. Boston College: 2 by 100. Miami: 5 by 58.7. NC State: 3 by 100. Florida State: 4 by 83.3. Syracuse: 7 by 100. Wake Forest: 4 by 100. South Carolina: 2 by 66.7. North Carolina: 4 by 66.7
Split Comparison
Wins50.4 · n=12
First Half45.4 · n=7 · -11.4 vs Second Half
Second Half56.9 · n=7 · +11.4 vs First Half
All Games51.1 · n=14
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Syracuse
Best efficiency game
100 vs Alabama
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 1/12 | vs Alabama | L 40-45 | — | 6 | 99 | 16.5 | 16.50 | 0 | 28 |
| Thu 12/31 | vs Oklahoma | W 37-17 | — | 4 | 54 | 13.5 | 13.50 | 0 | 26 |
| Sun 12/6 | vs North Carolina | W 45-37 | — | 4 | 40 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 11/28 | @ South Carolina | W 37-32 | — | 2 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 11/21 | vs Wake Forest | W 33-13 | — | 4 | 60 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 44 |
| Sat 11/14 | @ Syracuse100 receiving yards | W 37-27 | — | 7 | 120 | 17.1 | 17.10 | 1 | 64 |
| Sat 11/7 | vs Florida State | W 23-13 | — | 4 | 50 | 12.5 | 12.50 | 0 | 21 |
| Sat 10/31 | @ NC State | W 56-41 | — | 3 | 64 | 21.3 | 21.30 | 1 | 42 |
| Sat 10/24 | @ Miami | W 58-0 | — | 5 | 44 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 10/17 | vs Boston College | W 34-17 | — | 2 | 33 | 16.5 | 16.50 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 10/10 | vs Georgia Tech | W 43-24 | — | 2 | 22 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 21 |
| Thu 9/17 | @ Louisville | W 20-17 | — | 1 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 9/12 | vs App State2+ TD | W 41-10 | — | 4 | 86 | 21.5 | 21.50 | 2 | 59 |
| Sat 9/5 | vs Unknown | — | — | 2 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Clemson
2011-2015
Opening stop
Season Progression
20112012201220132014201420152015
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Regular Season | Clemson | 71 | 95.6 | 5.2 | — |
| 2012 Postseason | Clemson | 172 | 37.4 | 9.3 | 101 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Clemson | 172 | 37.4 | 9.3 | 0 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Clemson | 84 | 67.6 | 18.1 | -88 |
| 2014 Postseason | Clemson | 129 | 62 | 8.9 | 45 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Clemson | 129 | 62 | 8.9 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Clemson | 716 | 82.8 | 14.8 | 587 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Clemson | 716 | 82.8 | 14.8 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Syracuse
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
120
Primary metric
120 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Oklahoma
40
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
40 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Auburn
41
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
41 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Georgia Tech
43
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
43 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Georgia
58
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
58 receiving yards with a 77.3 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Clemson
716 primary output · 82.8 efficiency · 14.8 usage
65
#2
2015 Regular Season · Clemson
65
716 primary · 82.8 efficiency · 14.8 usage
#3
2013 Regular Season · Clemson
42.7
84 primary · 67.6 efficiency · 18.1 usage
Milestones
1
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2011 · Rating 0.9785
Dorman · Roebuck, SC
- Committed To
- Clemson
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2011
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
1,172
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 38 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.