Trey McBride is our TE1 for Week 5 in Half-PPR, ahead of Brock Bowers and George Kittle. This is the first published version of this board.
Results table
| Rank | Player | Team | Opp | Proj | Range | Actual | Finish | Δ | Hit | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 · Must start | ||||||||||
| 1 | Trey McBride ARI vs DET | ARI | vs DET | 10.2 | 17.1 | TE6 | +6.9 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DET · 20–80 range 5.1–17.8. | |
| 2 | Brock Bowers LV @ NE | LV | @ NE | 9.8 | 19.0 | TE2 | +9.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NE · 20–80 range 4.5–17.5. | |
| 3 | George Kittle SF @ SEA | SF | @ SEA | 9.0 | 4.9 | TE16 | -4.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ SEA · 20–80 range 3.8–16.4. | |
| 4 | Sam LaPorta DET @ ARI | DET | @ ARI | 8.8 | 17.3 | TE5 | +8.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ARI · 20–80 range 4.1–16.3. | |
| Tier 2 · Sit | ||||||||||
| 5 | Juwan Johnson NO vs MIN | NO | vs MIN | 7.8 | 3.6 | TE19 | -4.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs MIN · 20–80 range 3.3–14.1. | |
| 6 | Tyler Warren IND @ PIT | IND | @ PIT | 7.3 | 17.9 | TE4 | +10.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ PIT · 20–80 range 3.2–13.5. | |
| 7 | T.J. Hockenson MIN @ NO | MIN | @ NO | 7.1 | 1.2 | TE26 | -5.9 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NO · 20–80 range 3.4–13.5. | |
| 8 | Harold Fannin Jr. CLE @ NYJ | CLE | @ NYJ | 7.0 | 0.9 | TE27 | -6.1 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NYJ · 20–80 range 2.4–13.5. | |
| 9 | Mike Gesicki CIN @ MIA | CIN | @ MIA | 6.5 | 6.9 | TE15 | +0.4 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ MIA · 20–80 range 2.5–12.4. | |
| 10 | Isaiah Likely NYG @ WAS | NYG | @ WAS | 6.5 | 26.9 | TE1 | +20.4 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ WAS · 20–80 range 3.0–12.7. | |
| 11 | Tucker Kraft GB vs CHI | GB | vs CHI | 6.5 | 9.1 | TE11 | +2.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CHI · 20–80 range 2.7–12.4. | |
| 12 | Tyler Higbee LA vs BUF | LA | vs BUF (Mon) | 6.3 | 10.8 | TE9 | +4.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs BUF · 20–80 range 2.7–12.1. | |
| 13 | Brenton Strange JAX vs PHI | JAX | vs PHI | 5.9 | 10.3 | TE10 | +4.4 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs PHI · 20–80 range 2.7–11.6. | |
| 14 | Michael Mayer LV @ NE | LV | @ NE | 5.9 | 0.7 | TE28 | -5.2 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NE · 20–80 range 2.8–11.5. | |
| 15 | Cade Otton TB @ DAL | TB | @ DAL (Thu) | 5.5 | 4.0 | TE18 | -1.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ DAL · 20–80 range 2.6–10.6. | |
| 16 | Dalton Schultz HOU @ TEN | HOU | @ TEN | 5.5 | 4.5 | TE17 | -1.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ TEN · 20–80 range 2.6–10.6. | |
| 17 | Dalton Kincaid BUF @ LA | BUF | @ LA (Mon) | 5.4 | 3.2 | TE22 | -2.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ LA · 20–80 range 2.3–10.9. | |
| 18 | Kenyon Sadiq NYJ vs CLE | NYJ | vs CLE | 5.1 | -0.7 | TE32 | -5.8 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CLE · 20–80 range 1.9–10.8. | |
| 19 | Colston Loveland CHI @ GB | CHI | @ GB | 5.0 | 2.9 | TE23 | -2.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ GB · 20–80 range 2.0–10.9. | |
| 20 | Pat Freiermuth PIT vs IND | PIT | vs IND | 5.0 | 19.0 | TE3 | +14.0 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs IND · 20–80 range 1.8–10.7. | |
| 21 | Mark Andrews BAL @ ATL | BAL | @ ATL | 5.0 | 2.8 | TE24 | -2.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ATL · 20–80 range 2.0–10.9. | |
| 22 | Greg Dulcich MIA vs CIN | MIA | vs CIN | 4.9 | 7.7 | TE13 | +2.8 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CIN · 20–80 range 1.9–10.0. | |
| 23 | Jake Ferguson DAL vs TB | DAL | vs TB (Thu) | 4.8 | 3.4 | TE21 | -1.4 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs TB · 20–80 range 1.4–10.6. | |
| 24 | Hunter Henry NE vs LV | NE | vs LV | 4.2 | 11.9 | TE8 | +7.7 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs LV · 20–80 range 1.6–9.6. | |
| 25 | Zach Ertz PHI @ JAX | PHI | @ JAX | 3.9 | 0.0 | TE29 | -3.9 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ JAX · 20–80 range 1.5–8.8. | |
| 26 | Darnell Washington PIT vs IND | PIT | vs IND | 3.9 | 2.2 | TE25 | -1.7 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs IND · 20–80 range 1.4–9.4. | |
| 27 | Oronde Gadsden II LAC vs DEN | LAC | vs DEN | 3.8 | 0.0 | TE30 | -3.8 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DEN · 20–80 range 1.4–9.2. | |
| 28 | Chig Okonkwo WAS vs NYG | WAS | vs NYG | 3.7 | 8.0 | TE12 | +4.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs NYG · 20–80 range 1.4–8.9. | |
| 29 | AJ Barner SEA vs SF | SEA | vs SF | 3.7 | 3.5 | TE20 | -0.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs SF · 20–80 range 1.4–8.8. | |
| 30 | Kyle Pitts ATL vs BAL | ATL | vs BAL | 3.3 | 12.7 | TE7 | +9.4 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs BAL · 20–80 range 1.2–7.9. | |
| 31 | Matthew Hibner BAL @ ATL | BAL | @ ATL | 3.2 | 0.0 | TE31 | -3.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ATL · 20–80 range 1.0–8.4. | |
| 32 | Elijah Higgins ARI vs DET | ARI | vs DET | 3.1 | 7.2 | TE14 | +4.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DET · 20–80 range 0.9–8.4. | |
Showing 24 of 32 · tiers 2+ below
What the numbers say
5.6mean abs. error · Half-PPR points, top 24 · Week 4: 4.7
0.29rank correlation · Spearman, top 24
7 / 12ranked top 12 who finished top 12
58%actuals inside the 20–80 range · target 60%
The engine's read on Week 5
Engine byline · no human author · Week 4 TE accuracy: MAE 4.7, top-12 hit 4/12
Engine-generated board: four projection sources (recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency, opponent) blended by weights fitted on the forecast ledger, scored through 10,000 fitted-distribution outcomes under this format. No analyst has reviewed it yet.
Common questions about Week 5 TE rankings
Who is the best tight end to start in Week 5 Half-PPR?
Trey McBride, our TE1 with a 10.2-point median; Brock Bowers is TE2.
When do these rankings update?
Published Tuesday, refreshed Thursday and Saturday mornings, and again Sunday at 8 AM ET; inactives are polled from 90 minutes before each kickoff.
How this board is built
Projectionsens-fit-2026w04-mkt-2026-w5-2026-10-06+mkt-2026-w05-2026-10-06-09
Market2026-w05-2026-10-13-08
Simulation10,000 outcomes per player
Week 4 TE accuracyMAE 4.7 · top-12 hit 4/12
Rankings versionv1 · Tue, Oct 6, 5:31 AM ET
Ranks tagseed-2026-w5-20261006T0931
Projection sources are blended by weights fitted on the forecast ledger; ranges come from simulated outcomes with injury status priced in. Every number on this page is the engine's. Data credits
More rankings
VersionsRankings v4d5ad6bc· projections ens-fit-2026w04-mkt-2026-w5-2026-10-06+mkt-2026-w05-2026-10-06-09· lines 2026-w05-2026-10-13-08· injuries 2026-10-11T15:35:27Z· engine build aabb2e5· Report a problem with this version