Key finding
Mick Ciallela’s ranking product led the displayed 2026 Week 2 half-PPR tight end accuracy field with an Order Index of 72.3/100, ahead of FantasyPros Consensus at 71.2. The comparison covers 16 eligible tracked ranking products, with a 9.6-point spread from Ciallela to Matt Bowen at 62.7. The leader’s advantage was 1.1 points, while the products immediately behind FantasyPros Consensus were closely grouped. All 16 results are provisional, making this a report on the current weekly ordering rather than a finalized result. [1]
Ciallela’s weekly lead differs from the through-week picture
Ciallela’s lead also came with a result above his product’s own observed average. Its Week 2 Order Index was 3.6 points above its 68.7 through-week average, measured over 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. FantasyPros Consensus, by contrast, finished just 0.1 points above its 71.1 average over the same participation window. The weekly leader therefore had the stronger result this week, but FantasyPros Consensus retained the higher through-week average. [1]
Footballguys (PPR board) at 70.7 and FFToday at 70.3 followed FantasyPros Consensus. Both also exceeded their own through-week averages: Footballguys was 0.5 points above 70.2, while FFToday was 1.7 above 68.6. These results put Ciallela’s lead in context. The products immediately behind him also recorded above-average weeks against their own records, but their positive margins were smaller. That describes the relationship between the weekly results and their baselines; it does not explain what produced the scores. [1]
The next group shows why weekly place needs context
Draft Sharks at 69.9 and Yahoo Sports Consensus at 69.4 followed FFToday, but their relationship to their own records ran in the opposite direction. Their through-week averages were 70.7 and 70.5, respectively, placing both weekly results below those benchmarks. Each average nevertheless stood above Ciallela’s 68.7. Reading the weekly table alongside those averages changes the interpretation: Ciallela led this particular comparison without also holding the highest observed average among these products. [1]
FF Toolbox (PPR board) continued the ordering at 68.8, ahead of Eric Moody at 67.2. Their own-average comparisons again differed: FF Toolbox finished 0.9 points above its 67.9 average, whereas Moody finished 2.8 below 70.0. Moody’s higher through-week average did not translate into the higher Week 2 result. Alongside Draft Sharks and Yahoo, this is a useful distinction between a product’s position in the weekly field and its record through that week. [1]
Close weekly results can conceal different baselines
Tristan H. Cockcroft’s 65.8 and ESPN app projections’ 65.6 were close in the weekly ordering, but the corresponding through-week averages were 67.1 and 65.9. ESPN app projections therefore finished nearer its own observed average despite placing below Cockcroft. Mike Clay followed at 65.2, with a 67.2 average and a supplied weekly-to-average margin of 2.0 points below. These are separate named ranking products; their proximity here is not an overall assessment of ESPN’s services. [1]
Farther down, Field Yates recorded 64.5, followed by Daniel Dopp and Liz Loza tied at 64.3, Eric Karabell at 63.9 and Matt Bowen at 62.7. The tie illustrates the limits of distinguishing products by weekly place alone: Dopp and Loza shared a weekly value while their through-week averages were 66.9 and 67.0. Bowen’s result marked the lower endpoint of the displayed field, not a separate finding about his work beyond this half-PPR TE ranking comparison. [1]
What the Order Index measures
The Order Index measures relative player ordering, not prediction success rate or betting profitability. Ciallela’s 72.3/100 should therefore not be read as the percentage of predictions he got right. In this comparison, the index supplies the measure used to order the eligible ranking products. The 1.1-point leader gap and 9.6-point full-field spread describe distances on that measure; neither is presented as a statistically significant difference or evidence of future superiority. [2][1]
The through-week averages answer a different question: whether a weekly result stood above or below the same product’s observed average through Week 2. They include Week 2 rather than serving as a separate pre-week benchmark. For example, FantasyPros Consensus’s 71.1 average covers 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks, including its 71.2 weekly result. Its supplied 0.1-point margin is a descriptive comparison with that record, not a forecast or an explanation of accuracy. [1]
Every displayed result remains provisional
Provisional status applies to the entire displayed cohort: 16 of 16 products remain subject to the publication and correction process. Results use the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations, and corrections or permission changes can alter the available evidence. The current lead, neighboring positions and tied values should consequently be read as the published provisional comparison. Provisional does not mean a correction is expected; it means the reported results remain subject to that process. [1][2]
What a fantasy manager can take from this week
For a fantasy manager comparing ranking sources, this sample identifies the leading displayed half-PPR TE product for Week 2 and shows how selected weekly results differed from their own through-week records. Ciallela led the week, while FantasyPros Consensus had the higher average between those products. Those are useful but distinct observations. A single week cannot establish season-long or future superiority, and the seasonal participation gate is separate. This report supports a bounded comparison of named ranking products, not a promise about which source will perform best next. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked October 29, 2026