Key finding
Yahoo Sports Consensus leads the displayed 2026 Week 2 half-PPR wide receiver accuracy field at 75.8/100 on the Order Index, ahead of FantasyPros Consensus at 75.5/100. Yahoo’s result is provisional. The comparison covers 16 eligible tracked ranking products, with a highest-to-lowest spread of 3.1 points. That makes this a closely packed weekly field: the leading result is identifiable, but the displayed gaps do not establish a decisive or lasting advantage for any ranking product. [1][2]
The weekly lead differs from the through-week picture
Yahoo’s lead over FantasyPros is 0.3 Order Index points, while their through-week averages run in the opposite order. Yahoo averages 74.6/100 through Week 2; FantasyPros averages 74.9/100. Both averages cover 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. The distinction matters: Yahoo has the higher displayed Week 2 result, but FantasyPros has the higher average across that short observed record. Neither comparison should substitute for the other when describing which product led this particular week. [1]
Both leaders performed above their own through-week averages. Yahoo’s Week 2 Order Index was 1.2 points above its average, compared with FantasyPros’ 0.6-point margin. Yahoo therefore combined the higher weekly result with the larger above-average difference in this pairing. These are comparisons against each product’s own observed record through Week 2, including the reported week—not against an independent earlier baseline. They describe the shape of the results without establishing momentum or forecasting another lead. [1]
Footballguys and the tied group keep the front crowded
Footballguys (PPR board) follows the leading pair at 75.0/100, ahead of Eric Moody, FFToday and Tristan H. Cockcroft, who each display 74.9/100. This grouping is important to the weekly story: the field does not split neatly into the leaders and a distant chasing pack. Footballguys’ result was also above its own 74.3/100 through-week average, by a reported 0.7 points. Its product name remains Footballguys (PPR board), while the measured comparison here is specifically half-PPR WR. [1]
The tie immediately behind Footballguys conceals different short records. FFToday’s through-week average is 74.1/100, Moody’s is 73.9/100 and Cockcroft’s is 73.8/100, each across 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. Their Week 2 results sit above those averages by 0.8, 1.0 and 1.1 points, respectively. Equal displayed weekly values therefore do not imply identical performance across the available weeks. Cockcroft’s larger above-average difference describes his own record, not an advantage over the products tied with him. [1]
The middle separates weekly position from personal baseline
Draft Sharks occupies the next position at 74.5/100, above its 73.9/100 through-week average by 0.6 points. Mike Clay follows at 73.9/100, Field Yates at 73.8/100 and Liz Loza at 73.7/100. Their respective averages are 73.2/100, 73.5/100 and 73.1/100. All of these weekly readings are above their own displayed averages, but they remain below the leading group. Being above a product’s own short record and leading the measured field are distinct outcomes. [1]
Mick Ciallela’s 73.5/100 and Eric Karabell’s 73.4/100 continue the closely spaced ordering, but their through-week reference points differ. Ciallela averages 73.4/100, whereas Karabell averages 72.8/100. Karabell’s reported Week 2 margin above his own average is 0.7 points, despite his lower weekly position in this pairing. Ciallela’s result also carries a provisional label. That status is separate from the score: it qualifies the publication state rather than explaining the product’s placement. [1]
The lower end shows why improvement is not rank
FF Toolbox (PPR board) provides the clearest contrast between weekly standing and performance relative to its own average. Its Week 2 result is 72.9/100, against a through-week average of 71.3/100—a reported difference of 1.6 points. That above-average margin exceeds those reported for Yahoo and FantasyPros, yet FF Toolbox remains below both in the weekly ordering. A larger departure above a product’s own baseline does not necessarily produce a higher result than another product’s. [1]
ESPN app projections, Matt Bowen and Daniel Dopp share the lowest displayed weekly value, 72.8/100. Their relationships to their own averages nevertheless differ: ESPN app projections is 0.4 points above, Bowen matches his average to the displayed precision, and Dopp is 0.1 points above. The shared weekly value should therefore be reported as a tie at that precision, not as a uniquely last-placed product. Together with Yahoo’s leading figure, it defines the supplied 3.1-point spread across the cohort. [1]
What the Order Index and provisional labels mean
The Order Index measures relative player ordering, not a prediction success rate or betting profitability. Accordingly, Yahoo’s 75.8/100 is an ordering measure for its named WR ranking product in this comparison, not a claim that its predictions succeeded at that rate. Nor is it an overall rating of Yahoo’s service. The same distinction applies throughout the field: the figures compare these ranking products within the stated season, week, position and scoring format, rather than evaluating everything their providers offer. [2][1]
Yahoo and Ciallela account for the 2 provisional results among the 16 displayed products. Those entries remain subject to the publication and correction process, so the qualification belongs alongside the reported leader as well as Ciallela’s result. More broadly, results use the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations; corrections and permission changes can alter the available evidence. The current ordering is therefore a report of the supplied results, with publication status preserved, rather than an immutable verdict. [1][2]
What a fantasy manager can take from this week
The useful takeaway is specific: Yahoo holds a provisional weekly lead, FantasyPros has the higher through-week average in that pairing, and the displayed field spans 3.1 Order Index points. Those gaps are descriptive, not evidence of statistically significant or predictive separation. A fantasy manager can use this report to compare the measured products’ weekly ordering and short observed records. It cannot establish season-long or future superiority, identify the best service overall, or determine which ranking source will perform best next. The seasonal participation gate remains separate from this weekly comparison. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked October 29, 2026