CeeDee Lamb

9.3 targets a game across 14.5 of them. WR5 for me against WR6 for the room, which is no disagreement at all.

Raised 190.1 -> 195.5, WR10 to WR6, at Matt's call to move part of the way toward the market without conceding it. A RATE CLAIM -- fantasy_points only; his 14.5 games carry no designation and are not in dispute. THIS IS A JUDGEMENT, NOT A MODEL FIX, and the distinction is the point. I first read his WR10 as a defect on two findings and BOTH WERE MY OWN ERRORS. A snap-share collapse to 0.503 came from matching KeAndre Lambert-Smith into his snap counts on a substring; measured cleanly he ran 0.842 / 0.802 / 0.729 and the model's 0.776 sits between his last two seasons. And a claim that he projected below every season he has played compared full-PPR history against a half-PPR board; on the right basis his seasons are 11.61 / 14.32 / 18.49 / 13.73 / 12.55 and the model's 13.11 sits between 2024 and 2025. There is no defect here to repair. What is left is a market disagreement, and an unusually clean one: ADP, ECR, consensus, Underdog and Yahoo ALL say WR5, with no dispersion at all, and Sleeper projects 222.5 against our 190.1. Five independent pools agreeing exactly is worth something even when the model cannot say what it knows. WHY WR6 AND NOT WR7 OR WR8. The band is dense to the point of meaninglessness there -- WR7 costs 1.6 points, WR8 0.7, and he is already tied with A.J. Brown on points at the tiebreak. A move that small would not survive the next rebuild. WR6 is the first step that is a real number. GAMES PINNED AT 14.5, THE MODEL'S OWN, AND THAT IS THE SECOND TRY. Written as a bare total the raise went entirely to GAMES -- 14.5 to 14.9 with the rate unmoved at 13.12/g -- because his availability carries damping and split_override gives games first claim on undoing it. That is the wrong factor for this argument: five markets putting him at WR5 is a claim about how good he is, not about how often he plays, and his games record of 16/17/17/15/13 does not need buying back. Pinning games sends the whole raise to the rate, which is where the disagreement lives. It lands 13.48/g, still 5.6% BELOW his own career 14.27 half-PPR/g across 78 games, and still short of where every market has him.

This is a view, not a correction — the model said something different and was overruled. See how it works.

Pace extrapolates the selected weeks over 17 games. It is what that stretch was worth, not a projection — no availability, matchup or regression adjustment is applied.