Key finding
Mick Ciallela led the displayed 2026 Week 5 half-PPR tight end field with a provisional Order Index of 72.8/100, ahead of Footballguys (PPR board) at 72.6/100. The comparison covers 16 eligible tracked ranking products, with a 7.2-point spread from highest to lowest. The leading margin was just 0.2 points, but the broader story was the contrast between products finishing above their own through-week averages and those whose weekly results fell below that benchmark. [1]
A narrow lead, with Footballguys close behind
Ciallela’s lead describes the highest score in this measured field, not a decisive separation from the nearest competitor. Footballguys was close behind and carried a published result, while Ciallela’s remained provisional. That distinction belongs alongside the scores: the displayed leader was still subject to the publication and correction process. The gap is descriptive, not evidence of statistical significance, and the comparison concerns these named ranking products rather than an overall assessment of either service. [1][2]
Both leaders exceeded their own observed averages, but Footballguys had the larger above-average result. Ciallela’s 72.8 compared with a through-Week 5 average of 70.6, a supplied difference of 2.2 points. Footballguys’ 72.6 compared with 69.1, putting it 3.5 points above its average. Each average covered 5 eligible weeks out of 5 published weeks. Thus, Ciallela held the higher weekly score and through-week average, while Footballguys stood further above its own benchmark in this particular week. [1]
Loza leads the next group as weekly ties hide different baselines
Liz Loza followed the leading pair at 70.8/100, ahead of Eric Karabell and Mike Clay, who matched at 70.3/100. Loza was 2.5 points above her 68.3 through-week average. Karabell’s result was 2.4 points above his 67.9 average, while Clay’s was 2.1 above his 68.2 average. Their shared weekly score therefore did not represent an identical relationship to their records: Clay entered this comparison with the higher through-week benchmark, despite finishing level with Karabell. [1]
Daniel Dopp and Matt Bowen also matched, at 70.1/100, with both above their own through-week averages. Dopp’s supplied difference was 2.2 points and Bowen’s was 2.1. Tristan H. Cockcroft followed at 69.9, against an average of 68.7. Cockcroft’s higher average than either Dopp’s 67.9 or Bowen’s 68.0 illustrates why the weekly order needs context: finishing behind a nearby product this week does not necessarily mean having the lower average across the observed weeks. [1]
The middle marks a change in the weekly pattern
FF Toolbox (PPR board) and Field Yates extended the run of above-average results, posting 69.4/100 and 69.2/100 respectively. FF Toolbox stood 2.7 points above its 66.7 average, while Yates was 1.4 above his 67.8 average. Their weekly placement and through-week averages point in different directions: FF Toolbox finished ahead here, but Yates had the higher observed average. The PPR-board label remains part of FF Toolbox’s product name; this measured comparison is specifically the half-PPR TE field. [1]
Eric Moody and FantasyPros Consensus show where the relationship to each product’s average reverses. Moody posted 68.8/100, below his 70.1 average by 1.3 points. FantasyPros Consensus recorded 68.7/100, falling 1.1 points below its 69.8 average. Both had higher through-week averages than Yates or FF Toolbox, yet finished behind them in Week 5. This is a useful distinction for interpreting the report: weekly placement and the accumulated through-week record answer different questions, even when they concern the same position and format. [1]
The lower scores were not uniformly far below average
Draft Sharks and Yahoo Sports Consensus tied at 67.6/100, but their baselines and publication status differed. Draft Sharks was 1.4 points below its 69.0 average and had a published result. Yahoo was 1.6 points below its 69.2 average, with a provisional result. The tie therefore establishes equal displayed weekly scores, not identical records or equally settled results. Yahoo and Ciallela were the provisional entries in this field, placing that status at different ends of the weekly ordering. [1]
ESPN app projections posted 66.1/100, while FFToday finished at 65.6/100, the low end of the displayed field. Yet ESPN app projections was only 0.4 points below its own 66.5 average; FFToday’s supplied comparison placed it 2.4 points below its 67.9 average. A low weekly position therefore did not automatically mean a similarly large departure from a product’s record. FFToday also supplies the lower endpoint of the cohort’s 7.2-point spread, a separate comparison from either product’s distance below its average. [1]
What the Order Index and provisional labels mean
The Order Index measures relative player ordering. Its scores are not prediction success rates, and they do not measure betting profitability. Consequently, Ciallela’s 72.8/100 should be read as an ordering result, not a percentage of successful recommendations. The same boundary applies to every comparison here: the scores describe named TE ranking products within this weekly half-PPR scope, rather than the overall quality of a provider or the usefulness of its other services. [2][1]
The evidence also has publication boundaries. Results use the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations, and corrections or permission changes can alter the available evidence. In this display, 2 of the 16 products were provisional, meaning they remained subject to the publication and correction process. That does not establish that either score will change; it identifies their current status. In particular, the leading result should retain its provisional label whenever the narrow lead is reported. [2][1]
What a fantasy manager can take from this week
For a fantasy manager, this report offers a bounded comparison of observed ordering results: Ciallela provisionally led, Footballguys followed closely, and the same-product averages reveal that weekly position alone can obscure the broader record. Those averages include Week 5; they are not forecasts or independent pre-week expectations. Nor does this sample establish season-long or future superiority—the seasonal participation gate is separate. It can document how these products compared in this week’s half-PPR TE field, but cannot establish which will perform best next week or turn an ordering score into a lineup outcome. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked October 29, 2026