Key finding
FantasyPros Consensus posted the highest 2026 Week 7 half-PPR kicker skill score, 24.7, in a field of 14 eligible ranking products. Draft Sharks and Eric Moody tied next at 9.4, while FF Toolbox (PPR board) finished at -34.1; the gap from top to bottom was 58.8 skill points. The results are published, with no provisional scores in the cohort. The shape is a sharp lead followed by a spread of lower scores, and several products were above their own through-week averages. That makes Week 7 a revealing snapshot of variation, not a verdict on future rankings. [1]
What this field measures
The comparison covers 14 eligible tracked ranking products for kickers in the 2026 Week 7 half-PPR format. Its boundaries matter: these scores describe that position group and week, rather than every fantasy ranking product or a season-long record. The skill score measures how much better a ranking matched how players actually scored than a random order would. Zero is random and 100 is perfect; most rankers land between about 5 and 35 because weekly fantasy scoring is noisy. The score is not a prediction success rate. [1][2]
The cohort stretches from FantasyPros Consensus at 24.7 to FF Toolbox (PPR board) at -34.1, a 58.8-point gap. The broad range captures the contrast at the extremes, but it should not be mistaken for a stable separation between products. A weekly score can vary with how the actual scoring order compares with the submitted ranking, and the scale is designed to report that match for this week. Its noise is also why a score near or below zero should be read as a weekly result, not a general judgment. [1][2]
The leader and the gap behind it
FantasyPros Consensus was the clear numerical leader in this displayed field at 24.7, ahead of Draft Sharks, the next distinct product, by 15.3 skill points. Draft Sharks shared its 9.4 score with Eric Moody. After that tie, the listed results step down to Tristan H. Cockcroft at 2.4 and Matt Bowen at 1.2. This is a substantial change in score from the top to the next displayed product, but the gap remains descriptive: it says how these Week 7 orderings compared, not why they differed or what will happen in another week. [1]
The same-product comparison adds context to the lead. FantasyPros Consensus averaged 4.0 through Week 7 across 7 eligible weeks out of 7 published weeks, putting this week's 24.7 score 20.7 points above that average. Draft Sharks also finished above its own through-week average: its 9.4 was 13.6 points above an average of -4.2 across 7 eligible weeks out of 7 published weeks. These comparisons show how each product's Week 7 result sat against its own observed record; they do not project whether either score will persist. [1]
A middle tier with different week-to-week comparisons
The scores below the top pair move through values close to zero before turning negative. Cockcroft's 2.4 and Bowen's 1.2 were followed by Eric Karabell at -2.4; Field Yates and FFToday's staff product each recorded -4.7. Liz Loza followed at -5.9, then Mike Clay at -8.2. That sequence gives the middle of the field its shape: a group of nearby scores rather than another gap on the scale like the leader's 15.3-point margin over Draft Sharks. [1]
Against their own through-week averages, some of these middle results were higher and others were nearly unchanged or lower. Karabell's -2.4 was 2.4 points above his average of -4.7, while FFToday's -4.7 was 23.4 points above its average of -28.1. Yates was 0.5 points below his -4.2 average, and Loza was 0.2 below her -5.7 average. Clay's -8.2 matched his average to the displayed precision. The weekly position in the cohort and the comparison with a product's own record therefore tell different things. [1]
The lower scores and what their averages add
Below Clay, Footballguys (PPR board) scored -10.6 and Daniel Dopp scored -14.1. Their comparisons with their own averages run in opposite directions: Footballguys was 12.9 points above its -23.5 through-week average, while Dopp was 2.5 points below his -11.6 average. ESPN app projections recorded -29.4, 4.4 points above its -33.8 average. Those within-product changes do not alter the Week 7 order, but they show why an absolute score and a product's own recent record are separate lenses on the same result. [1]
FF Toolbox (PPR board) had the lowest Week 7 score at -34.1, but that result was 5.9 points above its through-week average of -40.0. Its average covers 6 eligible weeks out of 7 published weeks, unlike the 7 eligible weeks out of 7 published weeks reported for most of the field. That difference in coverage is important when comparing averages: the displayed benchmark for FF Toolbox is based on fewer eligible weeks. The low weekly position and the above-average comparison can both be true without either one predicting a later result. [1]
How to use this one-week snapshot
All 14 displayed products have published Week 7 results, and none is marked provisional. Provisional status means a result remains subject to the publication and correction process; it is not a separate accuracy grade. The results use the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations, and corrections or permission changes can change the available evidence. For this report, the absence of provisional entries means the displayed scores are published observations, while the broader publication process still matters when interpreting any snapshot. [1][2]
For a fantasy manager, this sample can establish what the measured products did in Week 7: FantasyPros Consensus led the cohort, the scores ranged across 58.8 skill points, and individual results sat at varying distances from their own through-week averages. It cannot establish season-long or future superiority. A single week's results do not answer which ranking product will be more accurate later, and the seasonal participation gate is separate. The useful takeaway is the contrast between this week's leader, the compressed middle, and the lower scores—not a forecast or a promise about the next set of rankings. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked November 4, 2026