We Analyzed 11 Seasons of DFS Projections. Here’s What We Found.

Every week, DFS players make lineup decisions based on projections from sources like CBS, ESPN, NumberFire, FantasyPros, and others. But which projections should you actually trust? Are some sources consistently better than others, or does accuracy fluctuate so much that last season’s winner becomes this season’s loser? To find out, we analyzed weekly projection accuracy across nine sources from 2015 to 2025, covering over 6,000 source and week combinations across all four offensive positions.

We measured three things: accuracy using Mean Absolute Error (MAE), week-to-week consistency using the Coefficient of Variation (CV), and directional bias using Mean Error (ME). The full analysis, which includes detailed source-by-source rankings, R² tables, and bias charts, is available in our complete DFS accuracy analysis. What follows are the key findings that every DFS player should know.

Accuracy by Position

Quarterback Projections

FantasyPros led QB accuracy over the full 11 seasons (6.20 MAE), with FFA Weighted (6.22 MAE) and CBS (6.23 MAE) close behind. In the last three seasons, CBS moved to first (6.13 MAE), while FFA Weighted and FFA Average remained competitive in third and fourth. ESPN consistently ranked near the bottom at the position (6.44 MAE recent).

Running Back Projections

FFA Average led RB accuracy across all seasons (5.20 MAE), with FantasyPros second (5.22 MAE). In recent seasons, FFA Weighted, FFA Average, and FantasyPros finished in a virtual three-way tie for first (5.06 MAE each). Both versions of FFA delivered the most accurate RB projections in 2023 and 2024 before NumberFire edged ahead in 2025.

Wide Receiver Projections

FFA Weighted led WR accuracy over 11 seasons (4.94 MAE), narrowly ahead of NumberFire and FantasyPros (4.95 MAE each). In recent seasons, FantasyPros took the top spot (4.84 MAE), with FFA Average and FFA Weighted tying for second (4.86 MAE each). ESPN (5.18 MAE) and FantasySharks (5.01 MAE) struggled.

Tight End Projections

ESPN posted the best TE accuracy overall (3.85 MAE), edging out NumberFire (3.86 MAE). In recent seasons, ESPN maintained strong accuracy (3.71 MAE), with FFA Average (3.74 MAE) and FFA Weighted (3.76 MAE) close behind. FFToday consistently struggled at the position (4.47 MAE overall).

Week to Week Consistency

Accuracy alone doesn’t tell the full story for DFS. A source that posts the lowest MAE on average but swings drastically from week to week can still lead to bad lineup decisions. FFA Weighted led QB consistency across all seasons (16.64% CV), while FFA Average ranked among the top three for consistency at QB, RB, and WR in recent seasons. Some sources showed dramatic inconsistency at specific positions. ESPN posted the best overall TE accuracy but finished dead last in recent TE consistency with 35.50% CV, driven by week-to-week swings where ESPN’s TE MAE would dip below 2.0 one week and blow up above 7.0 the next. FFA projections avoid these extremes entirely.

When we combined accuracy rankings with consistency rankings across all four positions over the last three seasons, FFA Average ranked first overall with a combined score of 2.9, and FFA Weighted finished second at 3.4. No other source came close to matching this balance.

Aggregating Sources Works

The FFA Average, a simple average of all available projection sources, outperformed individual sources in 63% of head-to-head comparisons and posted the most top-three finishes of any source (23 out of 43 position-season combinations). The wisdom of the crowd remains one of the most reliable strategies for improving weekly projection accuracy, even though the edge is somewhat narrower on a weekly basis than what we observe in seasonal projections.

The weighted average and simple average are functionally interchangeable. FFA Weighted posted a marginally lower overall MAE (5.05) compared to FFA Average (5.07), but FFA Average won 54% of head-to-head comparisons. Source accuracy simply does not persist reliably enough from season to season for historical weighting to provide a consistent edge. Equal weighting is simpler and just as effective.

Bias and Calibration

Weekly projections are well-calibrated directionally. The average ME across all sources and positions was just −0.10 points per week, meaning projections are nearly perfectly balanced between over and under projection. This stands in contrast to seasonal projections, where systematic over projection of top players is seen. In the weekly context, projections reset each week for healthy starters in favorable matchups, leaving less room for the injury and role changes that inflates seasonal bias. Quarterbacks show the most consistent negative bias (−0.76 ME), while wide receivers are the only position with a slight positive historical bias (+0.29 ME).

Variance Explained (R²)

Even the best weekly projections explain only about 3% to 23% of the variance in actual player performance, depending on position. Running backs show the most predictability, while QBs, WRs, and TEs often fall into single digits. FFA projections rank among the top sources for R² at most positions. Over the full 11 seasons, FantasyPros posted the highest R² at QB (8.9%), while NumberFire led at WR (8.9%) and TE (9.0%). FFA Average led at RB (19.1%) and performed consistently well across all positions. Over the last three seasons, FFA Average and FFA Weighted posted the highest R² for RBs (23.3% each), and both ranked among the top sources at every position. The relatively low R² values across all sources reinforce why consistency and smaller error matters because even the best projections explain only about 20% of weekly variance.

The Bottom Line

In any given week, you can expect FFA projections to perform at or near the top for all positions. No other source matches this level of consistent, cross-positional accuracy combined with week-to-week stability. For the full positional breakdowns, season-by-season rankings, R² tables, and bias charts, check out the complete analysis. And if you want to evaluate accuracy for yourself, you can do so in the web app.

Stay Connected with Fantasy Football Analytics
For more data-driven fantasy football analysis and projections, follow us on social media:

• X (Twitter): @FFAnalyticsNet
• Facebook: FFAnalytics
• Instagram: @fantasyfootballanalytics

Visit FantasyFootballAnalytics.net for our latest tools and articles.