2026 values and busts in the top 150

Lawrence is our favorite quarterback to own relative to cost again this year, projected as the QB5 while going off the board around pick 97. This is not a bet on a leap - he posted a strong WORP last year (60) and the 338-point projection is actually conservative against it. We think the offense finishes top-half of the league based on how they closed the year, the receiving weapons around him, and a running game that stayed consistent. His three-year availability holds up (16, 10, and 17 games) and the risk grade is only moderate, so the durability tax the market is applying is smaller than the price implies, and the schedule is the only real wrinkle. A near-QB1 projection at a tenth-round price is the single widest QB gap inside the top 100 ADP.

Williams is the cleanest late-round-QB target on the board: a low risk grade, a strong three-year availability profile (a full 17 games in each of his two NFL seasons), and a year-three step forward in an offense the model is very high on. We are projecting Chicago as the second-highest-scoring offense in the NFL this year, behind only Cincinnati - that is the engine behind his 322 points, a jump on last year's 311. The floor is what makes it work: he has never missed a game, so the volume the strategy depends on is already banked, with no injury flag and no committee at the position to discount. A stable QB1 floor priced at an eighth-round pick is exactly what late-round QB is built on, and the model likes him 26 spots ahead of the market.

Drafted at pick 53 but projected as the QB13 with negative WORP and our highest risk flag. The flag is injuries: he played only 7 games last year, and our availability grade weighs the last three seasons, landing him around 41 percent available - the lowest mark of any quarterback in this range. His points-per-game rate is a top-eight QB when he's on the field, and the rushing upside is genuinely elite. But when you multiply that rate against a projection that assumes significant missed time, the full-year total collapses and a fifth-round price gets very hard to justify. This is dangerous - projecting injury always is - and if he plays 17 he smashes it. We just think the missed-time math is the tax at this cost.

Read this one carefully: Hurts still grades as a positive-WORP quarterback - the model likes him. This is purely a value-versus-ADP call. A pick-54 ADP against a model rank of 74 means you are paying an early-fifth-round price for QB9 production. He is durable across the last three years (16, 15, and 17 games) and the rushing floor is real, but the passing volume in Philadelphia's run-leaning, defense-and-clock offense caps the ceiling the ADP is paying for. There are three or four quarterbacks going 20-plus picks later that the model projects within a handful of points of him. Good player, wrong price - spend the pick on a position where the gap runs your way.

The model has Warren as a top-21 back going around pick 90, and the WORP (+40) says this is real value, not just a rank gap. The case is about the backfield shape: we see Pittsburgh running a true two-man committee with Warren as the strong 1a and Rico Dowdle the 1b, and with Rodgers offering virtually no rushing, essentially every carry and goal-line look funnels to those two backs. Warren was efficient again last year and finally projects into that lead role rather than the change-of-pace tag the market still prices him with. His availability is strong over the last three years (17, 15, and 16 games), so you are not paying for health you might not get. A 229-point projection with positive WORP at an eighth-round cost is the kind of stable value that quietly wins the middle rounds of a draft.

Be clear-eyed about what this is: a short rental, not a player we buy long term. The projection sits just below replacement (-6 WORP), but the value is in the role and the price - we expect Harvey to carry a real passing-game role early, which in full PPR is where the cheap points come from, and he goes at an ADP of 127 with a clean recent availability profile (a full 17 games as a rookie). We are not projecting a season-long workhorse; we are projecting a useful, catch-heavy contributor you draft late, start while the role is live, and move off of without regret. Eleventh-round cost, defined near-term usage, essentially no downside to the pick. Rent the targets, don't marry the profile.

A clean production bust with no off-field or injury story attached - just role and efficiency. Drafted around pick 81 as a startable back, projected as the RB38 with negative WORP (-26). The model sees a New England backfield that no longer routes enough volume his way to support RB2 value, and his 2025 efficiency didn't hold up the way the ADP assumes. The high risk grade reflects the workload uncertainty on top of a spotty three-year availability record (14, 15, and 12 games), not a single lost season. This is the model reading a shrinking role in a committee, and pricing him a full tier below where the room is drafting him. Let someone else pay for the 2023 workhorse version.

A value-versus-ADP bust, and worth reading carefully: Etienne still grades positive (+16 WORP) and the model does not dislike him. The issue is entirely the price. A pick-42 ADP against a model rank of 67 is a steep tax - you are paying a fourth-round cost for RB25 production. His durability is a plus over three years (17, 14, and 17 games), but his 2025 line (254 points, +91 WORP) sets an anchor the model expects to regress hard as the projected touch share and efficiency both come down. Good, healthy player - just drafted two-plus rounds ahead of where the projection says the value actually sits.

The single highest-WORP value in this entire list (+89), projected as a back-end WR1 while going around pick 91. The model sees a major role expansion in Jacksonville that the market has not priced in - a 279-point full PPR projection for a receiver being drafted as a WR4/5. The catch is the risk grade: availability sits around 68 percent, dragged down by a thin three-year games record (14, 11, and 6), so this is a bet on both the role and the games, not a safe floor. But the upside is enormous relative to cost. At an eighth-round ADP you are buying WR1 point-scoring at a bench-flex price - the definition of a swing worth taking.

A cleaner, more stable value than the swing above: positive WORP (+30), a moderate risk grade, and a 220-point projection at an ADP of 108. Pierce built a real target and big-play role in Indianapolis and the model projects it holds, landing him as a WR3 the room drafts as a WR5. His availability (84 percent over three years, at 14, 14, and 15 games) is a modest discount, not a red flag. A ninth- or tenth-round cost for a startable-flex projection with a defined role is exactly the reinvestment the busts below are meant to fund.

A genuine production bust: drafted around pick 111 as a bench receiver with upside, projected as the WR57 with deeply negative WORP (-61). The market is paying for the draft capital and the offense, but the model sees a crowded Green Bay target tree that never funnels enough volume his way to clear replacement level. His 2025 line was already thin (70 points, negative WORP), so this isn't a regression call off a big year - it's the model saying the projected role simply isn't there. The high risk grade and a 76 percent availability mark on a short (rookie-year) track record add a second layer, but the core problem is opportunity: too many mouths, not enough targets.

Another real fade, not a value quibble: an eighth-round ADP against a model rank of 118, with negative WORP (-27). The talent has never been the question - the projected role in Pittsburgh is. The model sees the target volume and downfield efficiency landing him as a WR4/5 in points, well short of the WR3/4 cost the market is charging. His availability is fine across three years (15, 15, and 16 games), so this isn't an injury bet either; it's a straight read that the surrounding offense and target competition cap the output. Let someone else pay the name-brand tax.

A top-five tight end by the model, sliding to an ADP of 131. Positive WORP (+20) at a position this thin is enormous value. He profiles as a clear secondary target in a high-value Buffalo passing game, the room wasn't meaningfully reinforced, and the model projects a real bounce-back from a disappointing, injury-shortened 2025. The risk grade is high - availability sits around 73 percent across the last three years (11, 13, and 15 games) after recurring soft-tissue and knee issues - which is exactly why the price is this low. For genuine TE1 upside at an eleventh-round cost, the model is happy to absorb that volatility.

The safer of our two TE values: positive WORP (+14), a moderate risk grade, and a solid three-year availability profile (17, 15, and 10 games) at an ADP of 126. The market buried him after a down 2025 (131 points, negative WORP), but two things drive the rebound the model projects. First, Isaiah Likely is gone - his departure to the Giants clears the one target competitor who could cap Andrews' role and vaults him back to the unquestioned No. 1 tight end in Baltimore. Second, we expect a re-emergent Lamar Jackson lifting the whole passing game after a quieter year. Put those together and the red-zone role that has always been Andrews' comes back to a TE1 line. A 216-point projection going in the eleventh round is real value - weekly-starter upside at a streamer's price, with the durability the Kincaid pick lacks.

A genuine production bust, repeating from last year's list for the same structural reason: drafted as a clear starter around pick 73, projected as the TE21 with deeply negative WORP (-50). This is an opportunity problem, not an ability one - Detroit's crowded, run-leaning, multi-weapon offense simply doesn't funnel enough targets his way to support TE1 value. The injury-shortened 2025 (9 games) drags a previously clean three-year record (9, 16, and 17 games) into a high risk grade, but that only sharpens what is already a role problem. The model sees replacement-level production at a seventh-round price that still assumes a return to his rookie ceiling. Let the room pay for the memory.

A nuance worth flagging, and this is a value bust, not a production warning: Warren grades as a positive-WORP tight end (+19) and the model likes him as a player - he is our TE6 with a perfect availability grade. The problem is purely the price. A pick-52 ADP against a model rank of 65 means you are paying an early-fifth-round, near-elite-TE cost for production the model sees a full tier lower. He is durable and startable; the value gap is negative because the room is drafting the ceiling while the projection sits comfortably below it. Good player, wrong round.