
Why: limited usage
vs NYJ: allows 14.3 PPR/g to TE, rank 11/32 (Average). Trailing TE PPR allowed per game, weeks before 2026 W2. Descriptive context, never a model input.
Primary passer Jordan Love. 2025 share of pass targets to TE (96/452). Descriptive context, never a model input.
2026 Week 1 consensus PPR projection (TE55), from tank01 getNFLProjections (consensus, PPR). Descriptive draft-prep context, not a start/sit call.
Small sample (4 games). Defense roster/scheme turnover means the unit from prior seasons may differ significantly. Descriptive context only, never a model input or driver of the start/sit call.
Snap %, target share and opportunities are descriptive usage: how the offense has deployed this player, not a forecast. Weeks shown: most recent 16.
TEschedule vs the rest of the league: 100 = league-average, >100 softer, <100 tougher; rank 1 = easiest of 32. Projected on 2025 defense. low-confidence early-season estimate. Descriptive context, not a start/sit call.
Ramsey was traded to Pittsburgh ahead of the 2025 season in a deal that included TE Jonnu Smith and S Minkah Fitzpatrick.
source ↗Ramsey was traded to Pittsburgh ahead of the 2025 season in a deal that included TE Jonnu Smith and S Minkah Fitzpatrick.
source ↗| Week | Opp | Tgt | Rec | ReYd | ReTD | Car | RuYd | Snap% | Tgt% | PPR | Half | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 W1 | @ | 3 | 2 | 50 | 0 | – | – | 0% | 8% | – | – | – |
| 2025 W18 | vs | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 44% | 5% | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| 2025 W17 | @ | 5 | 5 | 18 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 41% | 14% | 7.7 | 5.2 | 2.7 |
| 2025 W16 | @ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 28 | 38% | 3% | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| 2025 W15 | vs | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 29% | 7% | 10.6 | 9.6 | 8.6 |
| 2025 W14 | @ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | 52% | 3% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W13 | vs | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0 | – | – | 53% | 9% | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.6 |
| 2025 W12 | @ | 3 | 3 | 21 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 49% | 10% | 5.8 | 4.3 | 2.8 |
| 2025 W11 | vs | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | 54% | 7% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W10 | @ | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | – | – | 67% | 7% | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| 2025 W9 | vs | 5 | 3 | 25 | 0 | – | – | 40% | 14% | 5.5 | 4.0 | 2.5 |
| 2025 W8 | vs | 3 | 2 | 17 | 0 | – | – | 60% | 10% | 3.7 | 2.7 | 1.7 |
| 2025 W7 | @ | 6 | 3 | 28 | 1 | – | – | 70% | 19% | 11.8 | 10.3 | 8.8 |
| 2025 W6 | vs | 4 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 69% | 14% | 5.8 | 4.3 | 2.8 |
| 2025 W4 | vs | 3 | 2 | 6 | 0 | – | – | 25% | 14% | 2.6 | 1.6 | 0.6 |
| 2025 W3 | @ | 3 | 3 | 23 | 0 | – | – | 83% | 14% | 5.3 | 3.8 | 2.3 |
| 2025 W2 | vs | 4 | 4 | 27 | 0 | – | – | 56% | 13% | 6.7 | 4.7 | 2.7 |
| 2025 W1 | @ | 6 | 5 | 15 | 1 | – | – | 66% | 21% | 12.5 | 10.0 | 7.5 |
Descriptive per-week usage and PPR output. Situational PBP cuts (red-zone, 3rd-down) and EPA/touch are planned for v2.
Based on 34 graded calls.
| Week | Opp | Call | Proj | Finish | Hit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 W18 | SIT | 4.3 | TE57 (1.4) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W17 | SIT | 3.5 | TE22 (7.7) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W16 | SIT | 4.3 | TE44 (2.8) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W15 | SIT | 4.1 | TE12 (10.6) | ✗ | |
| 2025 W14 | SIT | 4.3 | TE62 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W13 | SIT | 4.9 | TE52 (1.6) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W12 | SIT | 4.8 | TE26 (5.8) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W11 | SIT | 6.8 | TE58 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W10 | SIT | 7.1 | TE49 (1.4) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W9 | SIT | 6.9 | TE34 (5.5) | ✓ |
✓ and ✗ grade where a player finished, not his points: a call hits when he finished startable (top-24 RB/WR, top-12 QB/TE), even if he came in under his projection. How we grade