Fantasy tools
Player Comparison
Two to four players, side by side, across the inputs that actually decide a lineup: projection, opportunity, tier, recent form, matchup and schedule. Drawn as a radar and printed as numbers, because a shape alone is not evidence.
- Players at once
- Two to four
- Axes
- 6, position-normalised
- Pool
- 186 ranked · preseason
In the preseason this compares draft-season projection, positional rank and tier. The recent-form, matchup and strength-of-schedule axes have no games to read yet and are held neutral until the season starts.
3 of 4 selected
WRWR1at PIT
- Projected
- 16.9
- Overall
- 87 /100
- Matchup
- A matchup gradedef #26
- Schedule
- 4/10Favourable rest-of-season schedule
- Last 3
- 23.7 ppg
- Board move
- No change since last week
13.0 tgt/g · 33% share
WRWR5vs GB
- Projected
- 13.6
- Overall
- 83 /100
- Matchup
- B+ matchup gradedef #25
- Schedule
- 5/10Neutral rest-of-season schedule
- Last 3
- 22.5 ppg
- Board move
- 2Up 2 spots since last week
13.0 tgt/g · 35% share
WRWR7at WAS
- Projected
- 13.2
- Overall
- 80 /100
- Matchup
- B matchup gradedef #21
- Schedule
- 5/10Neutral rest-of-season schedule
- Last 3
- 20.3 ppg
- Board move
- 3Down 3 spots since last week
11.4 tgt/g · 30% share
Shape of each profile
Six axes, each normalised inside the player's own position group.
- Ja'Marr Chase87
- Justin Jefferson83
- CeeDee Lamb80
Metric by metric
Bars are scaled against this group, not the league, so the comparison stays readable however close the players are. Every number is printed.
Projected pointspts
Higher is betterWeek 1 projection in PPR scoring.
- Ja'Marr Chase16.9
- Justin Jefferson13.6
- CeeDee Lamb13.2
Last three gamesppg
Higher is betterPoints per game over the three most recent completed weeks.
- Ja'Marr Chase23.7
- Justin Jefferson22.5
- CeeDee Lamb20.3
Season averageppg
Higher is betterPoints per game across every game played this sample season.
- Ja'Marr Chase22.1
- Justin Jefferson21.8
- CeeDee Lamb20.3
Opportunity
Higher is betterVolume percentile inside the player's own position group, so a back and a receiver stay comparable.
- Ja'Marr Chase96th
- Justin Jefferson97th
- CeeDee Lamb90th
Snap share%
Higher is betterShare of the offense's snaps.
- Ja'Marr Chase93%
- Justin Jefferson95%
- CeeDee Lamb92%
Positional rank
Lower is betterRank inside the position group on this week's board. Lower is better.
- Ja'Marr Chase1
- Justin Jefferson5
- CeeDee Lamb7
Schedule difficulty/10
Lower is betterRest-of-season schedule strength, 1 easiest to 10 hardest. Lower is better.
- Ja'Marr Chase4/10
- Justin Jefferson5/10
- CeeDee Lamb5/10
What the comparison says
- Ja'Marr Chase carries the highest projection by 3.3 points.
- Tiers split this group: Ja'Marr Chase sits a tier above the rest, and a tier break is a real gap rather than one rank slot.
- Justin Jefferson commands more volume than Ja'Marr Chase but projects lower, which usually means the projection is leaning on matchup or efficiency rather than opportunity.
- Across all six axes the group is tightly bunched, so the overall readings should not be used to break the tie.
Board notes
- Ja'Marr Chase: Consensus WR1 for 2026 — target share and route volume make him a set-and-forget starter.
- Justin Jefferson: Projected primary target in MIN; a weekly WR2 with real ceiling.
- CeeDee Lamb: Projected primary target in DAL; a weekly WR2 with real ceiling.
About this result: every number here is derived from the same illustrative local board the rankings page reads. The comparison is honest about its own inputs, but those inputs are demonstration values rather than a live projection service, and no weighting can make a start/sit call for a league whose settings this build cannot see.
Method
What The Comparison Normalises
Comparing across positions is the part most tools get quietly wrong. Here is exactly what is adjusted and what is left alone.
How it reached that answer
- Every player is read from the same weekly board as the rankings page, converted into the scoring format you selected.
- Raw metrics keep their units and their direction: projected points and usage are better high, positional rank and schedule difficulty are better low, and each row says which.
- Bars are scaled against the group you selected rather than the whole league, so two closely matched players still produce a readable comparison.
- The radar normalises six axes to 0–100 with higher always better, using percentiles inside each player's own position group so a tight end is not punished for catching fewer balls than a receiver.
- Tier membership comes from the 40 tiers cut from this week's projections, so a tier break in the comparison is the same break the rankings board draws.
What it does not do
- Weight the axes for you. The overall reading is a flat average of six equally-weighted axes, which is a starting point rather than a ranking.
- Know your roster. Two players can compare identically and still be very different additions depending on what you already start.
- Model dynasty value, age curves or contract situations — this is a weekly redraft comparison.
- Reflect news later than the sample data in this build. A comparison is only as fresh as its inputs.
This initial build ships with demonstration data. Projections, rostered percentages and movement are illustrative and will be replaced when a live data provider and editorial backend are connected.
Just two players?
The start/sit assistant gives a binary comparison a verdict, a confidence score and a weighted reason for each factor.
Check the schedule
The positional strength-of-schedule grid shows every club week by week for the position you care about.
Draft by tier
Tiers show where the real drop-offs sit, which is the difference between reaching and waiting.