All positions ranked with analyst notes and live injury status.
This fantasy football draft cheat sheet ranks every position by tier for PPR scoring, with projections, live injury status, and analyst notes. Players are grouped QB, RB, WR, TE, K, and DST, so you can always take the best available player and see where each tier drops off.
| RK | Player | Team | Proj | Tier | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | |||||
| 1 | BUF | 23.1 | T1 | Elite QB ceiling with top-tier dual-threat scoring, making him worth early QB investment if chasing upside. | |
| 2 | BAL | 21.9 | T1 | Elite dual-threat QB with strong projection, warranting consideration as premium QB option if seeking guaranteed scoring. | |
| 3 | KC | 21.2 | T1 | Elite QB ceiling with strong projection, making him a worthy early-round QB selection if prioritizing positional upside. | |
| Tier 2 | |||||
| 4 | JAX | 20.3 | T2 | ||
| 5 | SF | 20.1 | T2 | ||
| 6 | CIN | 19.3 | T2 | ||
| 7 | CAR | 18.8 | T2 | ||
| 8 | NO | 18.7 | T2 | ||
| Tier 3 | |||||
| 9 | DEN | 18.4 | T3 | ||
| 10 | HOU | 18.4 | T3 | ||
| 11 | NE | 18.3 | T3 | ||
| 12 | DAL | 18.2 | T3 | ||
| 13 | MIN | 17.9 | T3 | ||
| 14 | DET | 17.4 | T3 | ||
| Tier 4 | |||||
| 15 | GB | 17.0 | T4 | ||
| 16 | PHI | 16.8 | T4 | ||
| 17 | SEA | 16.7 | T4 | ||
| 18 | IND | 16.7 | T4 | ||
| 19 | WAS | 16.7 | T4 | ||
| 20 | LAR | 16.5 | T4 | ||
| 21 | CLE | 15.9 | T4 | ||
| 22 | ARI | 15.8 | T4 | ||
| Tier 5 | |||||
| 23 | NYG | 15.3 | T5 | ||
| 24 | LV | 15.1 | T5 | ||
| RK | Player | Team | Proj | Tier | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | |||||
| 1 | DET | 24.8 | T1 | Elite projection and RB1 ADP make him a tier-1 target at a position that demands early capital. | |
| 2 | ATL | 22.0 | T1 | Premium talent in a run-heavy scheme, but his ADP suggests market consensus expects significant volume for Atlanta's backfield. | |
| 3 | IND | 21.6 | T1 | Consistency concerns and shifting workload make his mid-round ADP questionable compared to safer RB alternatives. | |
| Tier 2 | |||||
| 4 | BAL | 20.3 | T2 | Proven back in run-first system with strong projection, making him a reliable RB option in middle rounds despite age. | |
| 5 | KC | 19.8 | T2 | Solid projection as Kansas City's lead back, but ADP suggests limited ceiling relative to higher-upside RB options available. | |
| 6 | SF | 18.8 | T2 | Generational talent returning from injury, but his moderate ADP suggests the market is appropriately cautious on health status. | |
| 7 | PIT | 18.7 | T2 | Mid-round RB with solid projection, but unclear how much volume he commands in Pittsburgh's backfield relative to competition. | |
| 8 | CIN | 17.3 | T2 | Emerging talent with solid projection, but his ADP positioning reflects uncertain role clarity in Cincinnati's backfield. | |
| Tier 3 | |||||
| 9 | BUF | 17.1 | T3 | Talented back in Buffalo's run scheme with decent projection, but modest ADP suggests limited expectation for bellcow volume. | |
| 10 | CHI | 16.6 | T3 | Solid mid-round RB option with reasonable projection, but unclear volume share in Chicago makes him a depth selection. | |
| 11 | CAR | 16.2 | T3 | ||
| 12 | ARI | 15.9 | T3 | ||
| 13 | LV | 15.5 | T3 | Solid RB projection as mid-round option, but ADP suggests limited confidence in ultimate bellcow volume for Las Vegas. | |
| 14 | NYG | 15.4 | T3 | Unproven role with modest projection, making him a depth selection suitable primarily for deeper league contexts. | |
| Tier 4 | |||||
| 15 | HOU | 15.0 | T4 | Reliable back with decent projection, but mid-round ADP reflects uncertainty about his volume ceiling in Houston. | |
| 16 | DAL | 14.9 | T4 | Mid-round RB with modest projection and unclear role in Dallas, making him a speculative depth selection only. | |
| 17 | PHI | 14.7 | T4 | Veteran talent with middling projection, suggesting either age-related decline or role uncertainty in Philadelphia's backfield. | |
| 18 | MIN | 14.6 | T4 | Reliable veteran back with modest projection, suitable as depth but unlikely to offer significant upside at his ADP. | |
| 19 | TB | 14.2 | T4 | ||
| 20 | LAR | 13.6 | T4 | ||
| 21 | NYJ | 13.3 | T4 | ||
| 22 | JAX | 12.7 | T4 | ||
| Tier 5 | |||||
| 23 | NE | 12.6 | T5 | ||
| 24 | WAS | 12.1 | T5 | ||
| 25 | DEN | 11.2 | T5 | ||
| 26 | NO | 10.0 | T5 | ||
| 27 | NE | 9.5 | T5 | ||
| 28 | TEN | 9.5 | T5 | ||
| 29 | LAC | 9.4 | T5 | ||
| 30 | CHI | 9.1 | T5 | ||
| Tier 6 | |||||
| 31 | HOU | 8.7 | T6 | ||
| 32 | WAS | 8.6 | T6 | ||
| 33 | CLE | 8.6 | T6 | ||
| 34 | SEA | 8.2 | T6 | ||
| 35 | MIA | 8.0 | T6 | ||
| 36 | GB | 8.0 | T6 | ||
| 37 | TEN | 8.0 | T6 | ||
| 38 | DEN | 7.9 | T6 | ||
| 39 | ARI | 7.8 | T6 | ||
| 40 | TB | 7.4 | T6 | ||
| 41 | NO | 7.2 | T6 | ||
| 42 | LAR | 7.1 | T6 | ||
| 43 | NYJ | 6.9 | T6 | ||
| 44 | CIN | 6.3 | T6 | ||
| 45 | BAL | 6.1 | T6 | ||
| 46 | SEA | 6.1 | T6 | ||
| 47 | GB | 5.8 | T6 | ||
| 48 | GB | 5.7 | T6 | ||
| 49 | JAX | 5.4 | T6 | ||
| 50 | SF | 5.4 | T6 | ||
| 51 | CLE | 5.3 | T6 | ||
| 52 | SEA | 5.2 | T6 | ||
| 53 | BUF | 5.0 | T6 | ||
| 54 | NYG | 5.0 | T6 | ||
| 55 | LAC | 4.7 | T6 | ||
| 56 | KC | 4.5 | T6 | ||
| 57 | LV | 4.5 | T6 | ||
| 58 | DET | 4.4 | T6 | ||
| 59 | CAR | 4.3 | T6 | ||
| 60 | ATL | 4.2 | T6 | ||
| RK | Player | Team | Proj | Tier | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | |||||
| 1 | SEA | 22.2 | T1 | High ceiling with WR1 opportunity in Seattle, but injury history and new QB situation create concerning downside risk. | |
| 2 | NYJ | 19.1 | T1 | Top-tier WR talent with elite projection, but Jets' offensive inconsistency and QB questions warrant some caution despite strong ADP. | |
| 3 | NO | 19.1 | T1 | High-volume target in New Orleans with reliable floor, though ceiling limitations reflect in mid-range WR1 positioning. | |
| Tier 2 | |||||
| 4 | CIN | 18.6 | T2 | Generational talent with proven pedigree, but recent injuries and lower projection than peers suggest waiting to see week-1 status before committing. | |
| 5 | HOU | 18.6 | T2 | Breakout potential in Houston's passing attack, but lacks the ADP pedigree and volume guarantees of established WR1s. | |
| 6 | DET | 18.4 | T2 | Consistent target machine in Detroit, but his WR2 positioning reflects ceiling limitations in a pass-heavy but crowded offense. | |
| 7 | BAL | 17.7 | T2 | Emerging talent in Baltimore's system with modest projection, making him a mid-round value pick with growth potential. | |
| 8 | DAL | 17.4 | T2 | Elite talent with proven production, but injury recovery status and mid-round ADP suggest drafting only if full health is confirmed. | |
| Tier 3 | |||||
| 9 | LAR | 17.3 | T3 | High upside in Rams passing game, but durability questions and uncertain target share create too much risk at his ADP. | |
| 10 | JAX | 17.1 | T3 | Role unclear with limited ADP pedigree, making him a speculative dart throw rather than a confident draft selection. | |
| 11 | MIN | 16.5 | T3 | All-time talent with slight projection drop compared to elite peers, but proven consistency makes him a lockdown WR1 selection. | |
| 12 | CIN | 16.4 | T3 | Premium talent with questionable contract situation creating uncertainty, and lower projection suggests either injury or role concerns. | |
| 13 | ATL | 16.1 | T3 | Unproven role in Atlanta's offense with modest projection, making him a lower-priority selection in deeper leagues only. | |
| 14 | LAR | 15.9 | T3 | Aging veteran at new destination with declining projection, suggesting his ADP overvalues remaining elite production. | |
| Tier 4 | |||||
| 15 | GB | 15.0 | T4 | Talented receiver with modest projection and unclear role in Green Bay, making him a speculative mid-to-late round flier. | |
| 16 | CAR | 14.9 | T4 | Role uncertain with limited ADP backing, making him too speculative for confident draft selection. | |
| 17 | DAL | 14.6 | T4 | Talented receiver with modest projection, reflecting either role uncertainty or deeper concerns about his Dallas opportunity. | |
| 18 | ARI | 14.5 | T4 | Developmental receiver with low projection, suitable only for deep leagues seeking lottery-ticket upside. | |
| 19 | KC | 14.1 | T4 | Role uncertainty despite name recognition, and his lower projection suggests either injury concern or diminished Kansas City role. | |
| 20 | CAR | 14.0 | T4 | Unproven role with low projection, making him a speculative dart at best in shallow to moderate leagues. | |
| 21 | SF | 13.9 | T4 | Aging veteran with fading projection, suggesting his ADP overvalues remaining production in San Francisco's system. | |
| 22 | BUF | 13.9 | T4 | Low projection despite talented receiver label, reflecting either role questions or concerning outlook in Buffalo's scheme. | |
| Tier 5 | |||||
| 23 | NYG | 13.9 | T5 | Rookie receiver with modest projection, indicating questions about either New York's passing volume or his immediate impact. | |
| 24 | PHI | 13.3 | T5 | Talented receiver with declining projection relative to peers, suggesting injury recovery or role concerns in Philadelphia. | |
| 25 | CHI | 12.6 | T5 | Developmental receiver with low projection, making him strictly a late-round flier for deep leagues seeking future upside. | |
| 26 | IND | 12.6 | T5 | ||
| 27 | DEN | 12.5 | T5 | ||
| 28 | LAC | 12.1 | T5 | ||
| 29 | GB | 12.0 | T5 | ||
| 30 | WAS | 11.7 | T5 | ||
| Tier 6 | |||||
| 31 | DET | 11.2 | T6 | ||
| 32 | WAS | 11.1 | T6 | ||
| 33 | CLE | 11.0 | T6 | ||
| 34 | MIN | 10.9 | T6 | ||
| 35 | NO | 10.3 | T6 | ||
| 36 | TB | 10.2 | T6 | ||
| 37 | CHI | 10.1 | T6 | ||
| 38 | TEN | 10.0 | T6 | ||
| 39 | DEN | 10.0 | T6 | ||
| 40 | JAX | 9.9 | T6 | ||
| 41 | TEN | 9.9 | T6 | ||
| 42 | KC | 9.7 | T6 | ||
| 43 | PIT | 9.7 | T6 | ||
| 44 | CLE | 9.4 | T6 | ||
| 45 | PIT | 9.4 | T6 | ||
| 46 | SF | 9.2 | T6 | ||
| 47 | MIN | 9.1 | T6 | ||
| 48 | NE | 9.0 | T6 | ||
| 49 | MIA | 8.9 | T6 | ||
| 50 | NE | 8.8 | T6 | ||
| 51 | TB | 8.7 | T6 | ||
| 52 | PHI | 8.7 | T6 | ||
| 53 | IND | 8.6 | T6 | ||
| 54 | LAC | 8.6 | T6 | ||
| 55 | CHI | 8.5 | T6 | ||
| 56 | LV | 8.5 | T6 | ||
| 57 | BUF | 8.3 | T6 | ||
| 58 | DAL | 8.1 | T6 | ||
| 59 | JAX | 7.7 | T6 | ||
| 60 | BAL | 7.7 | T6 | ||
| RK | Player | Team | Proj | Tier | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | |||||
| 1 | ARI | 17.5 | T1 | Clear TE1 option with legitimate scoring upside, making him worth reaching for in a thin position class. | |
| 2 | LV | 15.3 | T1 | Rookie TE with strong projection and premium ADP suggests genuine elite talent and opportunity with Las Vegas. | |
| 3 | BUF | 12.2 | T1 | ||
| Tier 2 | |||||
| 4 | CLE | 12.2 | T2 | ||
| 5 | IND | 12.0 | T2 | ||
| 6 | SF | 11.9 | T2 | ||
| 7 | KC | 11.8 | T2 | ||
| 8 | NO | 11.8 | T2 | ||
| Tier 3 | |||||
| 9 | NYG | 11.3 | T3 | ||
| 10 | DET | 10.9 | T3 | ||
| 11 | NYJ | 10.8 | T3 | ||
| 12 | HOU | 10.5 | T3 | ||
| 13 | GB | 10.4 | T3 | ||
| 14 | CHI | 10.3 | T3 | ||
| Tier 4 | |||||
| 15 | JAX | 9.8 | T4 | ||
| 16 | NE | 9.6 | T4 | ||
| 17 | CAR | 9.4 | T4 | ||
| 18 | SEA | 9.2 | T4 | ||
| 19 | DAL | 9.0 | T4 | ||
| 20 | ATL | 8.5 | T4 | ||
| 21 | BAL | 8.5 | T4 | ||
| 22 | MIN | 8.4 | T4 | ||
| Tier 5 | |||||
| 23 | CIN | 8.0 | T5 | ||
| 24 | WAS | 8.0 | T5 | ||
| RK | Player | Team | Proj | Tier | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | |||||
| 1 | IND | 9.4 | T1 | ||
| 2 | MIN | 9.2 | T1 | ||
| 3 | HOU | 9.0 | T1 | ||
| Tier 2 | |||||
| 4 | DAL | 8.8 | T2 | ||
| 5 | KC | 8.5 | T2 | ||
| 6 | SF | 8.4 | T2 | ||
| 7 | SEA | 8.4 | T2 | ||
| 8 | LV | 8.3 | T2 | ||
| Tier 3 | |||||
| 9 | CIN | 8.3 | T3 | ||
| 10 | WAS | 8.2 | T3 | ||
| 11 | GB | 8.2 | T3 | ||
| 12 | BAL | 8.2 | T3 | ||
| 13 | JAX | 8.1 | T3 | ||
| 14 | ATL | 8.1 | T3 | ||
| Tier 4 | |||||
| 15 | CHI | 8.0 | T4 | ||
| 16 | BUF | 8.0 | T4 | ||
| RK | Player | Team | Proj | Tier | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | |||||
| 1 | Baltimore Ravens |
BAL | 9.7 | T1 | Elite defense projection suggesting strong fantasy scoring, but confirm recent roster moves align with fantasy-friendly scheme. |
| 2 | Minnesota Vikings |
MIN | 9.7 | T1 | Elite defense projection matching Baltimore, but schedule-adjusted value and personnel changes should be verified before committing. |
| 3 | Seattle Seahawks |
SEA | 8.8 | T1 | |
| Tier 2 | |||||
| 4 | Pittsburgh Steelers |
PIT | 8.7 | T2 | |
| 5 | Chicago Bears |
CHI | 8.6 | T2 | |
| 6 | Green Bay Packers |
GB | 8.3 | T2 | |
| 7 | Cleveland Browns |
CLE | 7.9 | T2 | |
| 8 | Los Angeles Rams |
LAR | 7.6 | T2 | |
| Tier 3 | |||||
| 9 | Kansas City Chiefs |
KC | 7.5 | T3 | |
| 10 | Buffalo Bills |
BUF | 7.4 | T3 | |
| 11 | New Orleans Saints |
NO | 6.8 | T3 | |
| 12 | San Francisco 49ers |
SF | 6.8 | T3 | |
| 13 | New York Giants |
NYG | 6.8 | T3 | |
| 14 | Houston Texans |
HOU | 6.7 | T3 | |
| Tier 4 | |||||
| 15 | Indianapolis Colts |
IND | 6.7 | T4 | |
| 16 | Detroit Lions |
DET | 6.5 | T4 | |