Brock Bowers is our TE1 for Week 5 in Standard, ahead of George Kittle and Trey McBride. This is the first published version of this board.
Results table
| Rank | Player | Team | Opp | Proj | Range | Actual | Finish | Δ | Hit | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | ||||||||||
| 1 | Brock Bowers LV @ NE | LV | @ NE | 7.5 | 15.0 | TE3 | +7.5 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NE · 20–80 range 2.6–14.0. | |
| 2 | George Kittle SF @ SEA | SF | @ SEA | 7.1 | 2.4 | TE19 | -4.7 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ SEA · 20–80 range 2.4–13.7. | |
| 3 | Trey McBride ARI vs DET | ARI | vs DET | 6.6 | 12.6 | TE6 | +6.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DET · 20–80 range 2.6–12.9. | |
| 4 | Sam LaPorta DET @ ARI | DET | @ ARI | 6.2 | 14.8 | TE4 | +8.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ARI · 20–80 range 2.4–12.8. | |
| 5 | Juwan Johnson NO vs MIN | NO | vs MIN | 5.4 | 1.6 | TE23 | -3.8 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs MIN · 20–80 range 2.0–11.3. | |
| 6 | Harold Fannin Jr. CLE @ NYJ | CLE | @ NYJ | 5.0 | 0.4 | TE27 | -4.5 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NYJ · 20–80 range 1.2–10.8. | |
| 7 | Mike Gesicki CIN @ MIA | CIN | @ MIA | 4.7 | 6.4 | TE12 | +1.7 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ MIA · 20–80 range 1.7–10.2. | |
| 8 | Tyler Warren IND @ PIT | IND | @ PIT | 4.4 | 14.4 | TE5 | +10.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ PIT · 20–80 range 1.6–10.1. | |
| 9 | T.J. Hockenson MIN @ NO | MIN | @ NO | 4.4 | 0.7 | TE26 | -3.7 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NO · 20–80 range 1.9–9.9. | |
| 10 | Tucker Kraft GB vs CHI | GB | vs CHI | 4.4 | 6.6 | TE11 | +2.2 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CHI · 20–80 range 1.6–9.9. | |
| 11 | Tyler Higbee LA vs BUF | LA | vs BUF (Mon) | 4.2 | 8.3 | TE9 | +4.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs BUF · 20–80 range 1.6–9.6. | |
| 12 | Isaiah Likely NYG @ WAS | NYG | @ WAS | 4.1 | 21.4 | TE1 | +17.3 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ WAS · 20–80 range 1.7–9.6. | |
| 13 | Brenton Strange JAX vs PHI | JAX | vs PHI | 3.9 | 6.8 | TE10 | +2.9 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs PHI · 20–80 range 1.7–9.2. | |
| 14 | Dalton Kincaid BUF @ LA | BUF | @ LA (Mon) | 3.8 | 2.7 | TE17 | -1.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ LA · 20–80 range 1.6–9.0. | |
| 15 | Michael Mayer LV @ NE | LV | @ NE | 3.6 | 0.2 | TE28 | -3.4 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ NE · 20–80 range 1.5–8.7. | |
| 16 | Cade Otton TB @ DAL | TB | @ DAL (Thu) | 3.6 | 2.5 | TE18 | -1.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ DAL · 20–80 range 1.6–8.2. | |
| 17 | Kenyon Sadiq NYJ vs CLE | NYJ | vs CLE | 3.4 | -1.7 | TE32 | -5.1 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CLE · 20–80 range 1.1–8.9. | |
| 18 | Dalton Schultz HOU @ TEN | HOU | @ TEN | 3.4 | 3.0 | TE16 | -0.4 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ TEN · 20–80 range 1.5–7.8. | |
| 19 | Pat Freiermuth PIT vs IND | PIT | vs IND | 3.2 | 16.5 | TE2 | +13.3 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs IND · 20–80 range 1.0–8.6. | |
| 20 | Greg Dulcich MIA vs CIN | MIA | vs CIN | 3.1 | 5.7 | TE14 | +2.6 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs CIN · 20–80 range 1.2–7.7. | |
| 21 | Colston Loveland CHI @ GB | CHI | @ GB | 3.0 | 1.9 | TE21 | -1.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ GB · 20–80 range 1.0–8.5. | |
| 22 | Jake Ferguson DAL vs TB | DAL | vs TB (Thu) | 2.9 | 1.9 | TE22 | -1.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs TB · 20–80 range 0.6–8.5. | |
| 23 | Mark Andrews BAL @ ATL | BAL | @ ATL | 2.8 | 0.8 | TE25 | -2.0 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ATL · 20–80 range 0.9–8.2. | |
| 24 | Hunter Henry NE vs LV | NE | vs LV | 2.6 | 10.4 | TE7 | +7.8 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs LV · 20–80 range 0.9–7.6. | |
| 25 | Darnell Washington PIT vs IND | PIT | vs IND | 2.5 | 1.2 | TE24 | -1.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs IND · 20–80 range 0.8–7.8. | |
| 26 | Oronde Gadsden II LAC vs DEN | LAC | vs DEN | 2.4 | 0.0 | TE29 | -2.4 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DEN · 20–80 range 0.7–7.5. | |
| 27 | Zach Ertz PHI @ JAX | PHI | @ JAX | 2.4 | 0.0 | TE30 | -2.4 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ JAX · 20–80 range 0.8–7.0. | |
| 28 | AJ Barner SEA vs SF | SEA | vs SF | 2.3 | 2.0 | TE20 | -0.3 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs SF · 20–80 range 0.8–7.2. | |
| 29 | Matthew Hibner BAL @ ATL | BAL | @ ATL | 2.1 | 0.0 | TE31 | -2.1 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; @ ATL · 20–80 range 0.7–7.3. | |
| 30 | Chig Okonkwo WAS vs NYG | WAS | vs NYG | 2.1 | 6.0 | TE13 | +3.9 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs NYG · 20–80 range 0.7–7.1. | |
| 31 | Kyle Pitts ATL vs BAL | ATL | vs BAL | 2.0 | 10.2 | TE8 | +8.2 | Miss | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs BAL · 20–80 range 0.7–6.4. | |
| 32 | Elijah Higgins ARI vs DET | ARI | vs DET | 1.9 | 5.7 | TE15 | +3.8 | Hit | Ensemble: recency, season rate, opportunity × efficiency and opponent blended by fitted weights; vs DET · 20–80 range 0.4–7.0. | |
Showing 24 of 32 · tiers 1+ below
What the numbers say
4.8mean abs. error · Standard points, top 24 · Week 4: 3.9
0.22rank correlation · Spearman, top 24
8 / 12ranked top 12 who finished top 12
50%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 3.9, 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 Standard?
Brock Bowers, our TE1 with a 7.5-point median; George Kittle 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 3.9 · 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