
Why: heavy usage, soft matchup
vs BAL: allows 35.8 PPR/g to WR, rank 4/32 (Soft). Trailing WR PPR allowed per game, weeks before 2026 W2. Descriptive context, never a model input.
Primary passer Tyler Shough. 2025 share of pass targets to WR (339/557). Descriptive context, never a model input.
2026 Week 1 consensus PPR projection (WR51), from tank01 getNFLProjections (consensus, PPR). Descriptive draft-prep context, not a start/sit call.
| Game | As | Site | Tgt | Rec | ReYd | ReTD | PPR | Half | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 W9 | @ | 3 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 1.1 |
Small sample (1 game). 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.
WRschedule 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.
He reports that Polk had been getting a significant snap share, and NFL insider Josina Anderson divulged from a source that Polk was “projected to be WR4 at best.” With Chris Olave signed long-term, first-round rookie Jordyn Tyson joining t
source ↗He reports that Polk had been getting a significant snap share, and NFL insider Josina Anderson divulged from a source that Polk was “projected to be WR4 at best.” With Chris Olave signed long-term, first-round rookie Jordyn Tyson joining t
source ↗| Week | Opp | Tgt | Rec | ReYd | ReTD | Snap% | Tgt% | PPR | Half | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 W1 | @ | 9 | 7 | 69 | 1 | 0% | 17% | – | – | – |
| 2025 W15 | vs | 6 | 5 | 69 | 0 | 55% | 19% | 11.9 | 9.4 | 6.9 |
| 2025 W14 | @ | 5 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 93% | 25% | 7.0 | 5.5 | 4.0 |
| 2025 W13 | @ | 8 | 8 | 93 | 1 | 88% | 24% | 23.3 | 19.3 | 15.3 |
| 2025 W12 | vs | 7 | 3 | 37 | 0 | 89% | 16% | 6.7 | 5.2 | 3.7 |
| 2025 W10 | @ | 3 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 87% | 12% | 2.5 | 2.0 | 1.5 |
| 2025 W9 | @ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W8 | vs | 5 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 51% | 10% | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 |
| 2025 W7 | @ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W6 | vs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W5 | vs | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 38% | 7% | 3.3 | 2.3 | 1.3 |
| 2025 W4 | @ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W2 | vs | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 34% | 3% | 7.3 | 6.8 | 6.3 |
| 2025 W1 | vs | 2 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 23% | 5% | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.3 |
| 2024 W18 | vs | 4 | 4 | 50 | 1 | 51% | 14% | 15.0 | 13.0 | 11.0 |
| 2024 W17 | @ | 2 | 2 | 27 | 0 | 50% | 7% | 4.7 | 3.7 | 2.7 |
| 2024 W16 | @ | 3 | 2 | 21 | 1 | 56% | 8% | 10.1 | 9.1 | 8.1 |
| 2024 W15 | vs | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 60% | 3% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Descriptive per-week usage and PPR output. Situational PBP cuts (red-zone, 3rd-down) and EPA/touch are planned for v2.
Based on 24 graded calls.
| Week | Opp | Call | Proj | Finish | Hit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 W15 | SIT | 10.1 | WR32 (11.9) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W14 | SIT | 7.6 | WR45 (7.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W13 | SIT | 5.2 | WR7 (23.3) | ✗ | |
| 2025 W12 | SIT | 3.4 | WR44 (6.7) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W10 | SIT | 1.5 | WR77 (2.5) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W9 | SIT | 2.2 | WR133 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W8 | SIT | 1.5 | WR80 (2.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W7 | SIT | 2.1 | WR139 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W6 | SIT | 2.7 | WR137 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W5 | SIT | 4.1 | WR82 (3.3) | ✓ |
✓ 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