2025 Fantasy Football Position PPR Rankings, Incorporating Lessons Learned from '24 Projection Errors
PreSeason Rankings
I built the 2025 fantasy football projections by studying where last year’s forecasts went wrong. Using 2024 projections and actual results, I ran a regression model to see which metrics consistently led to over- or underestimation. I then blended those corrections into this year’s numbers. The adjustments were not wholesale rewrites. Each player’s outlook was nudged in the direction the model suggested, but capped and scaled so no one moved unrealistically far. This approach kept the expert baseline intact while correcting for the most common biases, usually shifting players by about five to fifteen points across a season.
Quarterbacks were the one spot in 2024 where projections clearly outperformed ADP. The correlation between preseason rankings and actual finishes was 0.47 compared to 0.37 for ADP, with projections missing by an average of 5.5 spots versus 6.0 for the crowd. That margin is small but meaningful when breaking ties. The model also showed why some players crushed expectations: rushing involvement drove the upside. Projected rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns correlated strongly with overperformance, while passing efficiency metrics like completion rate or yards per attempt offered little predictive value. Even projected interceptions carried a mild positive signal, since aggressive, high-volume passers often piled up fantasy points despite mistakes. For 2025, I boosted dual-threat quarterbacks and aggressive passers where models historically under-account for rushing or volume, while trimming back efficiency-driven projections.
Running backs once again proved to be a volatile position. In 2024, ADP had a slight edge over projections, with a correlation of 0.68 compared to 0.65 and an average miss of about six ranking spots either way. The edge came from the public reacting to camp depth charts and late-breaking news that static models could not capture. The bigger story was what drove the surprises. Rushing efficiency and touchdown scoring were undervalued, while receiving-heavy backs regularly failed to live up to inflated projections. Veterans like Derrick Henry and Saquon Barkley reminded us that age bias often leaves value on the board. For 2025, I capped adjustments at twenty points and tilted the model toward efficient runners, goal-line roles, and undervalued veterans while trimming down backs propped up by shaky receiving volume.
Wide receivers were more predictable than tight ends but still noisy. In 2024, projections slightly outperformed ADP with a correlation of 0.63 versus 0.60 and a mean error of about eleven spots. The blind spots were clear: projections leaned too heavily on raw yardage totals, which often overshot reality, and overemphasized rushing usage or fumbles that had little impact. Efficiency told the better story. Yards per target and touchdown efficiency showed the strongest positive relationships with overperformance, and veteran age carried a mild positive signal. For 2025, I leaned toward rewarding efficient players who maximize each opportunity while trimming back inflated yardage-driven forecasts.
Tight ends were a highly chaotic position in 2024. The correlation between preseason expectations and actual results barely cleared 0.27 for both projections and ADP, and the average miss was about seven spots, nearly a third of the entire pool. That meant even when you were right on one player, the swings on others wiped out much of the gain. A breakout like Brock Bowers jumping from TE11 to TE1 reshaped the landscape while several top-five options cratered. The patterns that did appear were subtle. Receiving yards per catch leaned positive, while inflated targets and receptions often signaled trouble. For 2025, I capped changes at fifteen points and leaned slightly toward rewarding efficient yardage profiles while trimming those built on shaky target assumptions. The result is modest nudges rather than sweeping changes, because volatility defines this position.
Kickers offered almost no predictive value at all. In 2024, projections carried a rank correlation of just 0.17 and ADP fell to 0.04, both essentially noise. The average projection miss was about twelve ranking spots, and the top kicker often finished no better than someone taken ten rounds later. For 2025, I capped adjustments at ten points and trimmed back projections inflated by unrealistic field goal or efficiency assumptions. The truth is that no preseason metric reliably predicts kicker outcomes, so the best edge remains streaming by matchup once the season starts.
Defenses and special teams were only a little better. Projections had a correlation of 0.25 and ADP 0.12, still weak enough to be unreliable. Average errors landed in the mid-teens, and a few teams projected outside the top twenty finished in the top three while preseason favorites cratered. The problem came from overweighting sacks and quarterback hits, which looked predictive in August but rarely translated into steady fantasy scoring. For 2025, I made only small corrections, usually less than two points, since most of the error was random volatility. The best strategy remains drafting DSTs at the end and cycling them based on matchups rather than preseason hype.
When I step back, the process produced projections that keep the expert baseline while correcting for the blind spots that showed up last year. By blending in error modeling across positions, I boosted rushing quarterbacks, reined in touchdown-heavy backs and receivers, trimmed inflated tight end assumptions, smoothed out kicker volatility, and left defenses largely intact. The result is a set of 2025 forecasts that aim to be realistic, balanced, and grounded in what the numbers actually tell us about how these positions play out.
Please note that if you’re looking for articles on Talent Strategy, those are now going to be posted at talstrat.com
