TE · KC · Bye 5
Elite Profile
Calibrated public rating
Projection
8.7
Half-PPR / game
Market ADP
101.3
Consensus overall
FFT fair value
96.2
Calibrated pick
Draft delta
+5.1
Market minus FFT
Draft recommendation
Target ahead of market
Risk / reliability
Low Risk
Reliability
89 / 99
Coverage
80%
Live board
His route-concept mix is worth 0.36 EPA per target against a 0.05 league baseline. His most common concept is quick out at 28% of targets. He is used in higher-value ways than his target count alone suggests.
Model rank
Market
—
Confidence
low
2026 week 2
Our projection
8.5
Weighted weekly consensus
BDL projection
8.4
BALLDONTLIE weekly
Sleeper projection
8.4
Sleeper weekly
Game status
Not reported
No injury description reported
Latest practice
Not reported
Game-day active
Not known
Started
Pending
Participation
Pending
Game market
Total 46.0 · Spread -6.0
Implied team total 26.0 · cross-book median
Live draft market
ADP 102.3 · Rostered 91.1%
BDL change +0.0%
BALLDONTLIE data checked 9/20/2026, 5:44:25 PM ET. Sportsbook values are consensus context, not betting advice.
Measured 2026 · Regular season
Loading 2026 results…
Actual BALLDONTLIE box scores · FFT-computed fantasy points · Preseason excluded. Missing stats are not zeroes.
2026 / Player Game Center
Travis Kelce · Recorded performance, game context, fantasy takeaways.
Loading game data…
Measured game log
Actual BALLDONTLIE box scores · FFT-computed fantasy points. Missing weeks are never filled with zeroes.
No 2026 regular-season stat line recorded for Travis Kelce yet.
This view will populate automatically when measured games enter the data spine.
FFT Newsroom
Position-relative
Target Command & Offensive Role
88
Elite
Top 3% at TE
Replacement + Draft Economics
97
Elite
Top 2% at TE
TD / High-Value Opportunity
66
Average
Top 23% at TE
Receiving Talent
72
Strong
Top 17% at TE
Offensive Ecosystem
73
Strong
Top 7% at TE
Fantasy Playoff Schedule
47
Watch
Top 59% at TE
Games
17
Half-PPR
117.2
Total TD
5
The measured inputs doing the most work inside this grade.
Value Over Replacement
+9.7
proj. half-PPR pts
Rank Delta
+1
position spots vs ADP
Value Grade
B
Fair Value
Market
101.3
FFT value
96.2
Board Δ
+5.1
Week 15
vs NE
Rank 13th
GreatWeek 16
vs SF
Rank 9th
GreatWeek 17
@ LAC
Rank 28th
ToughEvery dot is a real position peer with a market price.
Deep research dossier
The decision dashboard ends above. Open only the research sections you need below—the full evidence remains available without overwhelming the player overview.
Claims written down before the season, sealed at registration, and graded in public — misses kept.
His route-concept mix is worth 0.36 EPA per target against a 0.05 league baseline. His most common concept is quick out at 28% of targets. He is used in higher-value ways than his target count alone suggests.
Model rank
82
Market ADP
101.3
Divergence
19.5
Edge score
1.00
Every measured input behind this call
His route-concept mix is worth 0.36 EPA per target against a 0.05 league baseline. His most common concept is quick out at 28% of targets. He is used in higher-value ways than his target count alone suggests.
source: FFT route concepts derived from nflverse play-by-play
Registered 2026-08-08T06:38:11.545Z against a board computed 2026-08-08T06:33:00.114Z, under fft-projection-1.0.0-beta / fft-edges-1.0.0. Scored pool 615, of which 160 carried a market price and formed the comparable pool this call is relative to. Market source: Consensus of the Yahoo, Sleeper and RTSports ADP columns in the static dataset snapshot bundled with the app at registration time — a snapshot, not a live feed. The ADP recorded on each call is the price the market was charging when the call was made.. Selection: EVERY directional verdict the board produced at boardComputedAt — all 15 BUY and 14 FADE from a scored pool of 615 players, 160 of whom carried a market price. No filtering by conviction, position or confidence, so the record cannot be flattered by selection. Witness: git commit only — see docs/methodology.md
Grading happens after the season against the pool frozen at registration. See the full record, including the misses →
What he actually did last season. Measured, not projected.
Games
17
PPR pts
193.2
Half-PPR pts
117.2
PPR / game
11.4
Receiving
Targets
108
Receptions
76
Rec yards
851
Rec TDs
5
Target share
19.7%
Air yards share
16.2%
WOPR
0.41
Rushing
Carries
1
Rush yards
1
Rush TDs
0
Yards / carry
1.00
Passing
Pass yards
0
Pass TDs
0
Interceptions
0
nflverse season totals for 2025, joined on normalised name and position (gsis 00-0030506). These are actuals — nothing here is modelled.
Every ADP source we hold, side by side, and where our model sits against them.
Consensus ADP
101.3
Median
100.0
Sources ranking him
3/4
Agreement
Medium
| Source | Rank / ADP |
|---|---|
| Yahoo ADP | 92.0 |
| Sleeper ADP | 112.0 |
| RTSports ADP | 100.0 |
| Fantasy Football Calculator ADP (live) | unranked |
The sources that ranked him disagree by 20.0 picks between highest and lowest (standard deviation 8.2).
Mean and median are computed across the sources that actually ranked him — an unranked source never enters the average, because a sentinel treated as a pick number would drag a real player hundreds of slots. Spread, deviation and agreement are null under two ranked sources rather than 0, since one source cannot agree with itself. The FFT model rank is our own output and is never folded in as if it were an outside source.
Consistency and range — the part a season total hides.
Weeks with a line
17
PPR / game
11.4
Std dev
6.2
Coeff. of variation
0.55
Boom rate
24% (4/17)
Bust rate
18% (3/17)
Best week
24.1 wk 11
Worst week
1.6 wk 16
Recent form — last 4 games with a line
7.1 PPR per game over weeks 15, 16, 17, 18 — -4.3 against his season average.
| Wk | Opp | PPR | Tgt | Rec | Yds | Car | RuYd | TD | RZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LAC | 12.7 | 4 | 2 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | PHI | 10.1 | 6 | 4 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 3 | NYG | 6.6 | 7 | 4 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 4 | BAL | 9.8 | 5 | 5 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 5 | JAX | 19.1 | 8 | 7 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 6 | DET | 13.8 | 7 | 6 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 7 | LV | 8.4 | 3 | 3 | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | WAS | 21.9 | 8 | 6 | 99 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 9 | BUF | 12.6 | 5 | 4 | 66 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 11 | DEN | 24.1 | 13 | 9 | 91 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 12 | IND | 8.4 | 6 | 4 | 43 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 13 | DAL | 15.5 | 6 | 5 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | HOU | 1.8 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | LAC | 14.0 | 9 | 7 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | TEN | 1.6 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | DEN | 8.6 | 6 | 5 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | LV | 4.2 | 6 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The weekly LINES are measured: 2025 game logs, joined on gsis id 00-0030506. Everything derived from them above — per-game, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, boom and bust rates, recent form — is computed by us and carries the FFT model (beta) label. It is not an observed stat.
This whole block is on the PPR scale, including the thresholds — the artifact publishes boom and bust in PPR (TE: boom ≥ 15, bust ≤ 5) and converting only the points would leave the rates measured against a different ruler than the one they were defined on. The hero above is half-PPR because that is what the model ranks on. Two rulers, each labelled, rather than one silently mixed. Rates need at least 4 games to carry weight; recent form is the last 4.
Route concepts, red-zone opportunity, and separation-adjusted catch rate.
RZ targets
13
RZ carries
1
RZ TDs
3
aDOT
6.3
Concept EPA / target
0.364
Classified targets
108
Catch residual
-0.531
YAC over expected
0.44
Most-run concept: QUICK_OUT on 27.8% of his classified targets.
Every field is derived by FFT from openly-licensed nflverse play-by-play, or taken from the free public NFL Next Gen Stats endpoint. No licensed trial data (Sportradar, BALLDONTLIE) is included, which is why this file can be committed and shipped with the build. Red zone: Plays snapped inside the opponent 20-yard line. Red-zone usage measures opportunity; this repo’s own backtest shows it adds little on top of plain volume, so it is retained as context and is deliberately not described as an edge.
The component projection behind the headline number, and what it was built from.
Projected games
13.1
Half-PPR (season)
114.0
PPR (season)
143.1
Confidence
high
Proj targets
81.1
Proj receptions
58.2
Proj rec yards
592
Proj rec TDs
4.2
Proj carries
1.0
Proj rush yards
2
Proj rush TDs
0.1
Proj pass yards
0
Proj pass TDs
0.0
Proj INTs
0.0
Touchdown regression
He actually scored 5 touchdowns last season. Against his measured opportunity the model expects a change of -0.7. The gap between what a player scored and what his opportunity implies is one of the four signals the edge engine reads.
What this projection was built from
17 g in 2025, 6.4 tgt/g, 82% snaps (regressed to the role, not the position), TE1 on depth chart, age 37
fft-projection-2.3.0-beta. The model reads measured production, opportunity and age, and reads no ADP field at any stage — so it can disagree with the market, which is the only reason a disagreement is worth anything. Draft capital was not resolved for this player, which the model treats as unknown rather than as undrafted.
Which sources answered for this player, and which did not.
Model run caveats
How the model works
Inputs, method, and the forbidden-inputs list. It reads no ADP at any stage.
Where it loses
Pre-registered calls, graded in public, misses kept on the page.
Model Rankings
Every player, with the model's BUY / FADE call against consensus ADP built into the board.
