Loading…
WR Efficiency Leaderboard
The most efficient WRs by PPR per snap — points produced per opportunity.
ProxyPPR per snap, not FP per route run.tank01 doesn’t chart routes run, so we never fabricate a route denominator — offensive snaps stand in (points produced per opportunity, independent of playing time). Values run lower than per-route benchmarks; the bands are our own field.
As-of weekAs of Week 14, 2023Point-in-time: aggregates Weeks 1–14 only.
Efficiency bandsElite≥ 0.40Strong≥ 0.35Solid≥ 0.30Rotational< 0.30PPR per snap · from our 2023–25 qualified-WR field
Most efficient WRs · PPR per snap
Per-route proxy — points produced per opportunity
24 WRs
| # | Player | PPR/snap | PPR/g | Tgt% | Snaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Tyreek HillWR MIA | 0.587Elite | 24.8 | 34% | 550 |
| 2 |  KaVontae TurpinWR DAL | 0.482Elite | 4.8 | — | 119 |
| 3 |  CeeDee LambWRDAL | 0.377Strong | 21.8 | 28% | 753 |
| 4 |  Deebo Samuel Sr.WR SF | 0.368Strong | 17.2 | — | 514 |
| 5 |  Justin JeffersonWR MIN | 0.367Strong | 19.0 | 27% | 310 |
| 6 |  Keenan AllenWR LAC | 0.358Strong | 21.5 | 31% | 779 |
| 7 |  Nico CollinsWR HOU | 0.358Strong | 16.4 | — | 549 |
| 8 |  Mike EvansWR TB | 0.344Solid | 17.2 | 26% | 651 |
| 9 |  Rashee RiceWR KC | 0.343Solid | 12.2 | — | 463 |
| 10 |  Tank DellWRHOU | 0.334Solid | 15.0 | — | 494 |
| 11 |  DeAndre HopkinsWR TEN | 0.325Solid | 14.1 | 28% | 565 |
| 12 |  Brandon AiyukWRSF | 0.322Solid | 16.3 | 27% | 607 |
| 13 |  Jayden ReedWR GB | 0.320Solid | 12.1 | — | 494 |
| 14 |  Ja'Marr ChaseWR CIN | 0.317Solid | 18.4 | 28% | 755 |
| 15 |  Jamison CrowderWR WSH | 0.314Solid | 2.8 | — | 115 |
| 16 |  A.J. BrownWR PHI | 0.311Solid | 19.7 | 34% | 822 |
| 17 |  Stefon DiggsWR BUF | 0.304Solid | 18.0 | 31% | 771 |
| 18 |  Jaylen WaddleWRMIA | 0.303Solid | 13.7 | 26% | 542 |
| 19 |  Mike WilliamsWRLAC | 0.301Solid | 16.7 | — | 167 |
| 20 |  Amon-Ra St. BrownWR DET | 0.300Solid | 19.1 | 30% | 761 |
| 21 |  Kalif RaymondWRDET | 0.297Rotational | 6.2 | — | 271 |
| 22 |  Puka NacuaWR LAR | 0.290Rotational | 17.1 | 31% | 766 |
| 23 |  DK MetcalfWR SEA | 0.286Rotational | 15.0 | — | 627 |
| 24 |  DJ MooreWR CHI | 0.285Rotational | 17.8 | 30% | 810 |
Most efficient WRs · PPR per snap
Per-route proxy — points produced per opportunity
24 WRs
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.587Elite
- PPR per game
- 24.8
- Target share
- 34%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 550
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.482Elite
- PPR per game
- 4.8
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 119
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.377Strong
- PPR per game
- 21.8
- Target share
- 28%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 753
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.368Strong
- PPR per game
- 17.2
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 514
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.367Strong
- PPR per game
- 19.0
- Target share
- 27%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 310
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.358Strong
- PPR per game
- 21.5
- Target share
- 31%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 779
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.358Strong
- PPR per game
- 16.4
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 549
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.344Solid
- PPR per game
- 17.2
- Target share
- 26%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 651
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.343Solid
- PPR per game
- 12.2
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 463
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.334Solid
- PPR per game
- 15.0
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 494
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.325Solid
- PPR per game
- 14.1
- Target share
- 28%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 565
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.322Solid
- PPR per game
- 16.3
- Target share
- 27%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 607
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.320Solid
- PPR per game
- 12.1
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 494
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.317Solid
- PPR per game
- 18.4
- Target share
- 28%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 755
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.314Solid
- PPR per game
- 2.8
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 115
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.311Solid
- PPR per game
- 19.7
- Target share
- 34%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 822
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.304Solid
- PPR per game
- 18.0
- Target share
- 31%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 771
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.303Solid
- PPR per game
- 13.7
- Target share
- 26%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 542
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.301Solid
- PPR per game
- 16.7
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 167
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.300Solid
- PPR per game
- 19.1
- Target share
- 30%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 761
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.297Rotational
- PPR per game
- 6.2
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 271
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.290Rotational
- PPR per game
- 17.1
- Target share
- 31%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 766
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.286Rotational
- PPR per game
- 15.0
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 627
PPR per snap is our sanctioned proxy for FP per route run. tank01 doesn’t chart routes run, so we never fabricate it — offensive snaps are the in-house denominator (per opportunity, independent of playing time). Because snaps include non-route plays, these values run lower than the per-route benchmarks @FantasyPtsData posts (Tyreek 0.85, Puka 0.75 FP/route) — different denominator, not comparable. Bands are our own 2023–25 WR distribution. Historical, descriptive — not a projection. How it works →