
Why: projected outside startable range
vs GB: allows 12.1 PPR/g to TE, rank 22/32 (Average). Trailing TE PPR allowed per game, weeks before 2026 W2. Descriptive context, never a model input.
Primary passer Justin Fields. 2025 share of pass targets to TE (106/459). Descriptive context, never a model input.
2026 Week 1 consensus PPR projection (TE78), from tank01 getNFLProjections (consensus, PPR). Descriptive draft-prep context, not a start/sit call.
No prior games vs GB in the record.
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.
Translation: He probably will miss at least a chunk of the preseason, affording more opportunities for Mason Taylor, Jeremy Ruckert and Jelani Woods. Smith also got tight ends Jeremy Ruckert (two catches) and rookie Kenyon Sadiq (one) invol
source ↗Translation: He probably will miss at least a chunk of the preseason, affording more opportunities for Mason Taylor, Jeremy Ruckert and Jelani Woods. Smith also got tight ends Jeremy Ruckert (two catches) and rookie Kenyon Sadiq (one) invol
source ↗| Week | Opp | Tgt | Rec | ReYd | ReTD | Snap% | Tgt% | PPR | Half | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 W1 | @ | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0% | 4% | – | – | – |
| 2025 W18 | @ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 60% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W17 | vs | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 61% | 10% | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| 2025 W16 | @ | 3 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 67% | 9% | 3.4 | 2.4 | 1.4 |
| 2025 W15 | @ | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 74% | 7% | 3.3 | 2.3 | 1.3 |
| 2025 W14 | vs | 3 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 53% | 10% | 3.9 | 2.9 | 1.9 |
| 2025 W13 | vs | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 42% | 7% | 3.2 | 2.2 | 1.2 |
| 2025 W12 | @ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W11 | @ | 5 | 4 | 23 | 0 | 44% | 19% | 6.3 | 4.3 | 2.3 |
| 2025 W10 | vs | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 53% | 9% | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W8 | @ | 1 | 1 | 24 | 0 | 51% | 3% | 3.4 | 2.9 | 2.4 |
| 2025 W7 | vs | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28% | 3% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W6 | vs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W5 | vs | 4 | 4 | 28 | 0 | 34% | 10% | 6.8 | 4.8 | 2.8 |
| 2025 W4 | @ | 1 | 1 | 23 | 0 | 40% | 4% | 3.3 | 2.8 | 2.3 |
| 2025 W3 | @ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W2 | vs | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 36% | 5% | 7.5 | 7.0 | 6.5 |
| 2025 W1 | vs | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 45% | 10% | 3.6 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
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 | 4.5 | TE79 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W17 | SIT | 4.4 | TE56 (1.2) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W16 | SIT | 3.3 | TE42 (3.4) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W15 | SIT | 4.0 | TE41 (3.3) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W14 | SIT | 4.0 | TE28 (3.9) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W13 | SIT | 3.6 | TE40 (3.2) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W12 | SIT | 3.8 | TE73 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W11 | SIT | 2.2 | TE24 (6.3) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W10 | SIT | 2.6 | TE52 (1.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W8 | SIT | 2.8 | TE33 (3.4) | ✓ |
✓ 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