2026 season · Week 5 · TE
Toss-up between Loveland and Andrews in PPR. Too close to call: 9.2 vs 9.4 projected PPR points; Loveland's target share has risen 3 straight weeks (8% → 29%); a 24.3 implied team total vs 20.3. In standard scoring the call flips to Loveland.
Colston LovelandCHITE@ GB9.4 PPR pts
Floor 2 · median 8.1 · ceiling 18
Too close to call: 9.2 vs 9.4 projected PPR points; Loveland's target share has risen 3 straight weeks (8% → 29%); a 24.3 implied team total vs 20.3.
Medium
Mark AndrewsBALTE@ ATL9.6 PPR pts
Floor 2 · median 8.6 · ceiling 18
Too close to call: 9.4 vs 9.2 projected PPR points; Loveland's target share has risen 3 straight weeks (8% → 29%); a 20.3 implied team total vs 24.3.
MediumAdd more players in Who Should I StartColston Loveland stats and usageMark Andrews stats and usageAll Week 5 projections
Both players come from the same weekly projection: a mean and an 80% range from 2,000 simulated games, scored in your format, and the chance he plays. Start goes to the higher expected points (chance to play × projection); within 10% is a Flex-level close call. The tier ranks each player against everyone at his position this week. Reasons are templates filled with the model's numbers.
Updated Tue, Oct 6, 2:39 PM ETFull methodology
Toss-up between Loveland and Andrews in PPR. Too close to call: 9.2 vs 9.4 projected PPR points; Loveland's target share has risen 3 straight weeks (8% → 29%); a 24.3 implied team total vs 20.3. In standard scoring the call flips to Loveland.
Mark Andrews: his 90th-percentile outcome is 18 PPR points against 18 for Colston Loveland, from 2,000 simulated games each.
Mark Andrews: a floor (10th percentile) of 2 PPR points vs 2, and a 98% chance to play vs 98%.
PPR: Loveland 9.4, Andrews 9.6; half-PPR: Loveland 7.7, Andrews 7.5; standard: Loveland 6.0, Andrews 5.5 (points if he plays).
