How to read this series
Thirty-two offenses, one framework, and a rule that stops the framework from saying the same thing thirty-two times. Every number below is computed from the same dataset at build time.
The three rules this series runs on
One. βThe market hasn't priced this inβ is only written when the team's roster, priced at market ranks and at model ranks, differs by at least 8 league places in the same direction as the roster's own value against the league. That bar is set from the observed spread, not picked round: the median team disagrees by 5 places, so a five-place bar would hand the claim to half the league. That leaves 6 underpriced (Buffalo, Kansas City, New Orleans, New York Jets, San Francisco and Washington) and 6 expensive (Baltimore, Detroit, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Philadelphia and Tampa Bay). The other 20 teams do not get the sentence.
Two. Fantasy starter capacity is measured, not asserted. Each team's forecast is matched to its nearest historical offenses across 320 team-seasons (2016β2025), and the capacity is what those offenses actually produced. League average is 2.6; the observed range is 0 to 6.
Three. A player call has to clear a threshold set from the spread of the model's own disagreements at his position, after the drift affecting everyone at his price is removed. On 20 of the 32 rosters, nothing clears it β and those pages say so instead of manufacturing a target.
Every offense, ranked by capacity
| Team | Starters | Proj PPG | Rank | Relative strength | Price | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City | 3.7 | 26.3 | 6th | WR 2nd | Underpriced | +8 |
| Buffalo | 3.6 | 28.3 | 1st | RB 2nd | Underpriced | +14 |
| Tampa Bay | 3.6 | 26.4 | 5th | QB 1st | Expensive | -18 |
| Dallas | 3.5 | 27.3 | 3rd | QB 4th | Fair | +2 |
| Detroit | 3.5 | 27.7 | 2nd | QB 2nd | Expensive | -14 |
| Baltimore | 3.2 | 27.2 | 4th | RB 1st | Expensive | -17 |
| Los Angeles Rams | 3.1 | 24.7 | 11th | RB 7th | Fair | +2 |
| Green Bay | 3.0 | 25.1 | 9th | TE 6th | Expensive | -21 |
| Philadelphia | 3.0 | 25.8 | 8th | RB 3rd | Expensive | -10 |
| Cincinnati | 2.9 | 23.5 | 13th | QB 7th | Fair | +3 |
| Minnesota | 2.9 | 23.1 | 15th | TE 14th | Fair | -4 |
| New Orleans | 2.9 | 24.5 | 12th | RB 9th | Underpriced | +21 |
| Seattle | 2.9 | 25.0 | 10th | RB 13th | Fair | -6 |
| San Francisco | 2.9 | 25.9 | 7th | RB 4th | Underpriced | +11 |
| Arizona | 2.7 | 22.8 | 18th | RB 11th | Fair | +3 |
| Atlanta | 2.7 | 23.3 | 14th | WR 7th | Fair | 0 |
| Indianapolis | 2.7 | 22.0 | 23rd | RB 10th | Fair | +4 |
| Los Angeles Chargers | 2.7 | 22.2 | 21st | QB 6th | Fair | -6 |
| Miami | 2.7 | 23.0 | 16th | QB 18th | Fair | +2 |
| New England | 2.7 | 22.8 | 17th | RB 12th | Fair | -5 |
| Houston | 2.6 | 22.4 | 19th | WR 15th | Fair | -3 |
| Washington | 2.6 | 22.2 | 20th | RB 16th | Underpriced | +12 |
| Chicago | 2.4 | 21.4 | 24th | RB 17th | Fair | 0 |
| Pittsburgh | 2.4 | 22.0 | 22nd | WR 14th | Fair | +5 |
| Las Vegas | 2.3 | 21.3 | 25th | WR 17th | Fair | -1 |
| Carolina | 2.2 | 20.3 | 29th | RB 19th | Fair | -1 |
| Cleveland | 2.2 | 20.5 | 28th | RB 18th | Fair | +3 |
| Denver | 2.1 | 20.9 | 27th | QB 22nd | Fair | +6 |
| Jacksonville | 2.1 | 21.0 | 26th | WR 20th | Expensive | -12 |
| Tennessee | 1.7 | 20.1 | 30th | RB 22nd | Fair | +5 |
| New York Giants | 1.5 | 18.7 | 31st | QB 29th | Fair | +5 |
| New York Jets | 1.3 | 17.8 | 32nd | QB 31st | Underpriced | +12 |
Starters is the expected number of QB1/RB2/WR3/TE1 finishes from comparable historical offenses. Gap is the team's market rank minus its model rank, in league places; positive means the model likes it more than the price does.
All 32, by division
Sources: Auto Draft Years FF Model workbook; Auto Draft Years 2026 consensus board; Player outcomes 2016β2025. Generated from the dataset at build time.