Fantasy Football Projections: Exploring Positional Bias in Projections

Fantasy football success often hinges on accurately projecting player performance, yet every manager knows the sting of an elite pick that falls drastically short of expectations. In this article, we analyze projection bias by position and source over the past six seasons (2019 – 2024) to uncover which positions are consistently over or under projected. Understanding these biases can give fantasy managers a strategic edge heading into drafts and throughout the season.

Projection Bias by Position

Before diving into the positional breakdown, it’s important to recognize a few overarching patterns in the data:

First, projections across all positions and sources tend to be too optimistic. Every position shows a negative Mean Error (ME) on average, meaning most players underperform their preseason expectations. This isn’t surprising given our dataset focuses on the top projected players. In this analysis we limited to the top 20 QBs and TEs, and top 50 RBs and WRs. We focused on this subset of players because they’re the ones fantasy managers are actively choosing between during drafts. These players are most likely to influence roster decisions, making them the most relevant group for evaluating projection accuracy. Since these players are already expected to be elite, and it’s statistically more likely that they suffer an injury, lose volume, or otherwise fall short than it is for them to significantly exceed expectations. A projection for a player already expected to finish among the best has more downside risk than upside opportunity.

Second, while most players miss their projections, that doesn’t mean every player does. There’s still a meaningful number of players who exceed expectations in the distribution. Breakouts happen every year. The point is not that projections can’t be beat, but that they are more often missed on the high side than the low side, especially for higher projected players. For fantasy managers, this means leaning on projections as a baseline but being aware of the directional risk they carry.

Third, it’s important to understand that a ME near zero does not imply greater accuracy (see our article on source accuracy). A source that misses wildly in both directions can appear “unbiased” because its errors cancel out. For example, if one source over-projects one player by 100 points and under-projects another by 100 points, their ME is zero, but the individual projections are still highly inaccurate. Meanwhile, another source who misses by 100 on one player but is spot-on with the rest of their projections would show a larger bias despite being more accurate overall. That’s why ME should be interpreted alongside other metrics like Mean Absolute Error (MAE) to get the full picture.

While most of this analysis focuses on projection bias by tier and source, it’s also important to understand how bias shifts relative to a player’s projected point total. Across all positions, except quarterback, bias tends to decrease with lower projected players, with Mean Error approaching or even crossing above zero. In other words, as projected points get lower, the more likely it is that players outperform expectations. For running backs and wide receivers, this shift toward under-projection begins around the 100-point threshold. For tight ends, the inflection point appears closer to 50 projected points. This trend suggests there are potential diamonds in the rough, or players who may be overlooked in drafts or sitting on the waiver wire yet end up providing valuable production. Of course, identifying these breakout performers in advance remains difficult, which is why most late-round picks still miss. But when they hit, they can become league winning assets. A quick way to visualize this pattern is through calibration plots, which chart projected versus actual points (see positional plots below). In a perfectly calibrated system, players would fall along a 45-degree line. Deviations above or below that line reveal systematic bias, helping us see where projections consistently over or underperform across the scoring spectrum.

With that in mind, let’s break down the data by position to see which positional tiers and which projection sources are the most consistently over-projected.

Quarterbacks: Proceed with Caution After the Elite Tier

Quarterbacks, especially those outside the elite tier, are consistently over projected year after year. Over the past six seasons, QBs ranked 6–10 have missed their preseason projections by an average of 42 points. That gap has only grown in recent years, ballooning to nearly 80 points over the last three seasons. This tier of quarterbacks has become a danger zone and one that fantasy managers would be wise to approach with caution. While elite quarterbacks (QB1-5) have also underperformed expectations, their average miss of around 25 points is considerably more modest. 

Over the last three seasons, RTSports and NumberFire have showed the most severe biases, with ME values of -67.7 and -61.3, respectively. These numbers suggest both sources significantly over project quarterbacks. In contrast, FFToday stands out with a comparatively conservative ME of -31.6, indicating they may better temper expectations through more cautious forecasting methods.

When isolating the top five projected quarterbacks, both the FFA Average and CBS show the lowest bias, each with a ME of -19.7. However, when we shift the lens to overall accuracy, the FFA Average stands out, delivering the lowest MAE of any source, outperforming the next closest by more than four points. Meanwhile, FFToday’s more conservative approach proves valuable in the QB6–10 range, where their projections show greater restraint and smaller misses compared to more aggressive sources.

Key draft day takeaway: If you aren’t getting an elite QB, it is probably a safer bet to wait until the later rounds and draft multiple lower projected QBs. These may not be a sure thing, but they are considerably cheaper in terms of draft capital, allowing you to prioritize other positions.

Running Backs: High Risk at the Top

Running backs remain one of the most volatile and high-risk positions in fantasy football, particularly at the top of drafts. Over the past six seasons, the RB1-5 tier has underperformed projections by an average of nearly 55 points, a significant shortfall that regularly derails fantasy seasons. Injuries, evolving backfield committees, and shifting usage patterns are often to blame, reinforcing the inherent risk in banking on elite running backs.

Interestingly, the RB6-10 tier has seen significantly better projection performance in recent years, where the average miss has only been by 14 points. This trend continues outside of the top 10, where the ME continues to decrease. This is likely due to this being the range of players who are more likely to exceed their projection, bringing the ME closer to zero.

When looking at the last three seasons of projections, bias also varies widely by source. CBS and FFToday were among the most conservative, with ME values of -19.6 and -12.5, respectively. On the other end, RTSports (-33.9) and FantasySharks (-34.4) routinely overestimated RB production.

When we focus on the RB11–20 tier, NFL.com and FFToday post the lowest MEs, but when evaluated using MAE, NFL.com emerges as the most accurate source, followed closely by the FFA Averages. Shifting the lens to the RB21–30 range, FFToday is the only source with a positive ME, while all other sources remain negative. Notably, FFToday is also the most accurate in this range, suggesting that their conservative approach helps avoid overestimating lower tier running backs.

Key draft day takeaway: Elite RBs carry the most risk. Consider targeting RBs in the RB6–10 range, where expectations are more realistic and historical accuracy is higher.

Wide Receivers: More Stability and Predictability

Among all positions, wide receivers have demonstrated some of the most consistent and predictable projection patterns over time. Over the last six seasons, WR1–5 players have averaged a 31-point miss relative to preseason projections. However, that figure has steadily improved, dropping to around 21 points over the past three seasons. The WR6–10 group has proven to be even more reliable, missing projections by just 14 points on average in recent years. In fact, the wide receiver position has posted the best ME of any position group, outperforming others by roughly six points.

This consistency is likely due to the relative stability of wide receiver roles and usage patterns. Top receivers often have well established target shares, defined roles within their offenses, and fewer direct threats to their volume compared to other positions. Unlike running backs, who face greater injury risk and workload volatility, or tight ends, whose production is often touchdown-dependent, elite wide receivers benefit from more predictable opportunity metrics like targets, routes run, and snap counts. This clarity makes them easier to project and less prone to the kinds of drastic underperformance seen elsewhere.

It is important to note that outside of the top 30 projected players, sources tend to over project, reinforcing the value of investing in top-tier receivers during drafts.

When it comes to source bias, FFToday once again leads the way with the least directional error at -12.2, suggesting a careful approach to WR projections. RTSports and FantasySharks show much larger negative ME values at -41.6 and -29.7, respectively, signaling consistent over-projection. The FFA Average (-21.4) and FFA Weighted Average (-21.9) fall in the middle of all sources. In those important top 10 projections, FFToday posted the most accurate projections, using MAE, followed closely by the FFA Averages and NumberFire.

Key draft day takeaway: Top end WRs are more stable and less likely to suffer the extreme misses due to injury and opportunity loss.

Tight Ends: Volatility Wrapped in Opportunity

Tight end projections remain among the most difficult to get right, with persistent volatility and limited upside concentrated in just a few players. Over the last six seasons, top-tier tight ends (TE1-5) have missed their projections by an average of 23 points. While this figure has remained fairly stable over time, it underscores the challenges that come with forecasting production at such a touchdown-dependent position.

Interestingly, there’s slightly less bias in the TE6–10 and TE11–15 tiers, where the average misses shrink to 21 and 18 points, respectively. However, since these players typically carry lower baseline projections, even small deviations can dramatically change their fantasy value. 

Projection bias also varies considerably by source. RTSports and FantasySharks continue their trend of aggressive overestimation, posting ME values of -31.3 and -27.9 at the position. By contrast, NFL (-17.9), NumberFire (-16.8), and FFToday (-13.8) adopt more conservative outlooks that may better reflect the volatility inherent to tight end scoring. Like WRs, the FFA projections track closely with this more balanced group.

Key draft day takeaway: Avoid overpaying for mid-tier TEs. Either secure an elite option early or wait for late-round value.

Final Thoughts

Recognizing projection bias is a powerful tool for gaining an edge in fantasy football. Quarterbacks, particularly those ranked between QB6 and QB10, represent one of the most consistently overestimated groups in all of fantasy. Elite running backs, while often viewed as foundational picks, are highly prone to injury, leading to massive underperformance. Wide receivers, especially within the top 10, offer the best blend of reliability and predictability. Tight ends remain volatile but manageable if approached with tempered expectations and awareness of source bias.

As always, understanding how different sources project and which positions they tend to miss can be the difference between drafting a bust and landing a breakout. That’s where FFA’s projections stand out. By leveraging a wisdom of the crowd approach, FFA consistently delivers top-tier accuracy across all positions and over multiple seasons. While some sources may excel in a specific year or at a particular position, FFA’s blended methodology provides the most balanced and reliable projections year after year, giving fantasy managers a trusted edge on draft day and beyond. If you’re looking for consistently accurate fantasy football projections, check out the FFA Analytics web-app to dominate your leagues this upcoming season!