Travis Kelce

Aged down again, 140.0 -> 122.0 (TE6 -> TE11), at Matt's direction. The 6 Aug override cut the model's 153.1 but still left 8.92/g against his 2025 actual of 9.01 -- a flat repeat at 37. His targets went 8.07 / 8.31 / 6.35 and the model projects 6.54, ABOVE his most recent year, because USAGE_DECAY weights 2023-24 into the baseline so age_mult 0.774 only pulls him back to just above 2025. Measured on nflverse, TEs aged 35+ return a median 0.885 of their points rate and 0.815 of their targets the following season (n=22; the 6+ tgt/g subgroup is 0.845 on n=7 with 4 survivors). 9.01 x 0.885 = 7.97/g, and every version of that decay lands TE11. This is BELOW ADP TE9 and ECR TE9, deliberately. Correct instrument unlike the Nix override: he is healthy so it buys RATE, and rate is what is in dispute. Not captured: 55% of 35+ TEs do not play at all the next season, and these ratios are conditional on survival, so they understate the downside. Re-read 3 Sep: no sign of falsification. 8.13/g against his own 12.72 half-PPR/g is the aged-down claim the row makes, and the board sits TE11 against ADP TE11 and ECR TE10 -- level with both. BASIS CORRECTED 3 SEP. The comparison above originally quoted `obs_ppr_pg`, which is FULL PPR, against a projection the board computes in HALF PPR. Every such figure in this file has been replaced with the player's own half-PPR rate, measured from nflverse weekly data over his whole career. Receptions are the whole difference, so the error scaled with target volume and was largest for receivers.

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.