Trey McBride is our TE1 for Week 5 in PPR, ahead of Brock Bowers and Sam LaPorta. 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 | 13.8 | 21.6 | TE3 | +7.8 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DET · 20–80 range 7.5–22.9. | |
| Tier 2 · Start | ||||||||||
| 2 | Brock Bowers LV @ NE | LV | @ NE | 12.4 | 23.0 | TE2 | +10.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NE · 20–80 range 6.2–21.2. | |
| Tier 3 · Start | ||||||||||
| 3 | Sam LaPorta DET @ ARI | DET | @ ARI | 11.3 | 19.8 | TE6 | +8.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ARI · 20–80 range 5.7–19.9. | |
| 4 | George Kittle SF @ SEA | SF | @ SEA | 11.0 | 7.4 | TE15 | -3.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ SEA · 20–80 range 5.2–19.3. | |
| Tier 4 · Sit | ||||||||||
| 5 | Juwan Johnson NO vs MIN | NO | vs MIN | 9.9 | 5.6 | TE18 | -4.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs MIN · 20–80 range 4.6–17.2. | |
| 6 | Tyler Warren IND @ PIT | IND | @ PIT | 9.8 | 21.4 | TE5 | +11.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ PIT · 20–80 range 4.8–16.9. | |
| 7 | T.J. Hockenson MIN @ NO | MIN | @ NO | 9.7 | 1.7 | TE26 | -8.0 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NO · 20–80 range 4.9–17.1. | |
| 8 | Isaiah Likely NYG @ WAS | NYG | @ WAS | 8.8 | 32.4 | TE1 | +23.6 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ WAS · 20–80 range 4.3–15.7. | |
| 9 | Harold Fannin Jr. CLE @ NYJ | CLE | @ NYJ | 8.7 | 1.4 | TE27 | -7.3 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NYJ · 20–80 range 3.6–16.1. | |
| 10 | Tucker Kraft GB vs CHI | GB | vs CHI | 8.3 | 11.6 | TE11 | +3.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CHI · 20–80 range 3.7–15.0. | |
| 11 | Tyler Higbee LA vs BUF | LA | vs BUF (Mon) | 8.3 | 13.3 | TE10 | +5.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs BUF · 20–80 range 3.7–14.9. | |
| 12 | Michael Mayer LV @ NE | LV | @ NE | 8.1 | 1.2 | TE28 | -6.9 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NE · 20–80 range 4.0–14.6. | |
| 13 | Mike Gesicki CIN @ MIA | CIN | @ MIA | 8.0 | 7.4 | TE16 | -0.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ MIA · 20–80 range 3.4–14.5. | |
| 14 | Brenton Strange JAX vs PHI | JAX | vs PHI | 7.8 | 13.8 | TE8 | +6.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs PHI · 20–80 range 3.7–14.2. | |
| 15 | Dalton Schultz HOU @ TEN | HOU | @ TEN | 7.5 | 6.0 | TE17 | -1.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ TEN · 20–80 range 3.7–13.4. | |
| 16 | Cade Otton TB @ DAL | TB | @ DAL (Thu) | 7.5 | 5.5 | TE19 | -2.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ DAL · 20–80 range 3.6–13.3. | |
| 17 | Mark Andrews BAL @ ATL | BAL | @ ATL | 7.1 | 4.8 | TE22 | -2.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ATL · 20–80 range 3.0–13.7. | |
| 18 | Colston Loveland CHI @ GB | CHI | @ GB | 7.0 | 3.9 | TE23 | -3.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ GB · 20–80 range 2.9–13.5. | |
| 19 | Dalton Kincaid BUF @ LA | BUF | @ LA (Mon) | 6.8 | 3.7 | TE24 | -3.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ LA · 20–80 range 3.0–12.9. | |
| 20 | Kenyon Sadiq NYJ vs CLE | NYJ | vs CLE | 6.8 | 0.3 | TE29 | -6.5 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CLE · 20–80 range 2.6–13.0. | |
| 21 | Pat Freiermuth PIT vs IND | PIT | vs IND | 6.8 | 21.5 | TE4 | +14.8 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs IND · 20–80 range 2.7–13.0. | |
| 22 | Greg Dulcich MIA vs CIN | MIA | vs CIN | 6.6 | 9.7 | TE13 | +3.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CIN · 20–80 range 2.6–12.4. | |
| 23 | Jake Ferguson DAL vs TB | DAL | vs TB (Thu) | 6.4 | 4.9 | TE21 | -1.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs TB · 20–80 range 2.1–12.8. | |
| 24 | Hunter Henry NE vs LV | NE | vs LV | 5.9 | 13.4 | TE9 | +7.5 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs LV · 20–80 range 2.4–11.9. | |
| 25 | Zach Ertz PHI @ JAX | PHI | @ JAX | 5.5 | 0.0 | TE30 | -5.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ JAX · 20–80 range 2.2–10.9. | |
| 26 | Oronde Gadsden II LAC vs DEN | LAC | vs DEN | 5.3 | 0.0 | TE31 | -5.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DEN · 20–80 range 2.0–11.0. | |
| 27 | Chig Okonkwo WAS vs NYG | WAS | vs NYG | 5.3 | 10.0 | TE12 | +4.7 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs NYG · 20–80 range 2.1–10.9. | |
| 28 | Darnell Washington PIT vs IND | PIT | vs IND | 5.2 | 3.2 | TE25 | -2.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs IND · 20–80 range 1.9–11.2. | |
| 29 | AJ Barner SEA vs SF | SEA | vs SF | 5.0 | 5.0 | TE20 | 0.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs SF · 20–80 range 1.9–10.5. | |
| 30 | Kyle Pitts ATL vs BAL | ATL | vs BAL | 4.5 | 15.2 | TE7 | +10.7 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs BAL · 20–80 range 1.7–9.5. | |
| 31 | Elijah Higgins ARI vs DET | ARI | vs DET | 4.4 | 8.7 | TE14 | +4.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DET · 20–80 range 1.4–9.9. | |
| 32 | Matthew Hibner BAL @ ATL | BAL | @ ATL | 4.3 | 0.0 | TE32 | -4.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ATL · 20–80 range 1.5–9.7. | |
Showing 24 of 32 · tiers 4+ below
What the numbers say
6.3mean abs. error · PPR points, top 24 · Week 4: 5.5
0.35rank correlation · Spearman, top 24
7 / 12ranked top 12 who finished top 12
63%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 5.5, top-12 hit 5/12
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 PPR?
Trey McBride, our TE1 with a 13.8-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 5.5 · top-12 hit 5/12
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