
Why: projected outside startable range
vs CIN: allows 25.6 PPR/g to WR, rank 30/32 (Tough). Trailing WR PPR allowed per game, weeks before 2026 W2. Descriptive context, never a model input.
Primary passer C.J. Stroud. 2025 share of pass targets to WR (345/551). Descriptive context, never a model input.
2026 Week 1 consensus PPR projection (WR90), from tank01 getNFLProjections (consensus, PPR). Descriptive draft-prep context, not a start/sit call.
| Game | As | Site | Tgt | Rec | ReYd | ReTD | Car | RuYd | PPR | Half | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 W10 | @ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
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.
Last season, Houston had Nico Collins as its X receiver, Higgins and Xavier Hutchinson in a rotation as the Z receiver and Christian Kirk in a rotation with Jaylin Noel in the slot.
source ↗Last season, Houston had Nico Collins as its X receiver, Higgins and Xavier Hutchinson in a rotation as the Z receiver and Christian Kirk in a rotation with Jaylin Noel in the slot.
source ↗| Week | Opp | Tgt | Rec | ReYd | ReTD | Car | RuYd | Snap% | Tgt% | PPR | Half | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 W1 | vs | 6 | 3 | 32 | 0 | – | – | 0% | 16% | – | – | – |
| 2025 W18 | vs | 9 | 5 | 84 | 0 | – | – | 79% | 32% | 13.4 | 10.9 | 8.4 |
| 2025 W17 | @ | 3 | 2 | 21 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 48% | 12% | 4.9 | 3.9 | 2.9 |
| 2025 W16 | vs | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | – | – | 49% | 6% | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| 2025 W15 | vs | 2 | 1 | 16 | 0 | – | – | 30% | 8% | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| 2025 W14 | @ | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | 40% | 7% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W13 | @ | 5 | 2 | 39 | 0 | – | – | 55% | 16% | 5.9 | 4.9 | 3.9 |
| 2025 W12 | vs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 36% | 0% | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 2025 W11 | @ | 5 | 3 | 42 | 0 | – | – | 53% | 13% | 7.2 | 5.7 | 4.2 |
| 2025 W10 | vs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | 53% | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2025 W9 | vs | 5 | 3 | 30 | 0 | – | – | 63% | 13% | 6.0 | 4.5 | 3.0 |
| 2025 W8 | vs | 6 | 5 | 69 | 1 | – | – | 71% | 16% | 17.9 | 15.4 | 12.9 |
| 2025 W7 | @ | 4 | 1 | 13 | 0 | – | – | 78% | 9% | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.3 |
| 2025 W5 | @ | 3 | 3 | 18 | 2 | – | – | 67% | 10% | 16.8 | 15.3 | 13.8 |
| 2025 W4 | vs | 3 | 2 | 17 | 0 | – | – | 68% | 11% | 3.7 | 2.7 | 1.7 |
| 2025 W3 | @ | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | – | – | 62% | 8% | 4.6 | 3.1 | 1.6 |
| 2025 W2 | vs | 3 | 2 | 29 | 0 | – | – | 57% | 13% | 4.9 | 3.9 | 2.9 |
| 2025 W1 | @ | 2 | 2 | 30 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 68% | 7% | 5.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 |
Descriptive per-week usage and PPR output. Situational PBP cuts (red-zone, 3rd-down) and EPA/touch are planned for v2.
Based on 33 graded calls.
| Week | Opp | Call | Proj | Finish | Hit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 W18 | SIT | 4.3 | WR17 (13.4) | ✗ | |
| 2025 W17 | SIT | 4.2 | WR68 (4.9) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W16 | SIT | 4.6 | WR111 (1.4) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W15 | SIT | 5.4 | WR88 (2.6) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W14 | SIT | 4.2 | WR139 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W13 | SIT | 4.5 | WR57 (5.9) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W12 | SIT | 6.7 | WR92 (0.9) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W11 | SIT | 6.6 | WR45 (7.2) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W10 | SIT | 8.2 | WR134 (0.0) | ✓ | |
| 2025 W9 | SIT | 8.0 | WR57 (6.0) | ✓ |
✓ 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