Five deep names sit well above their own season averages on our Week 8 board. Here is what that does and doesn’t tell you.
Five deep-league names project 3.61 to 4.81 full-PPR points above their own season averages on our Week 8 board. Tyson Bagent leads at 4.81. Jackson Hawes, averaging 0.0, projects 4.01 above that. These are live desk numbers, not sealed, as of Sat Oct 24.

Your deep-league bench has one open spot, and the waiver wire is a list of names with zeros next to them. Jackson Hawes is the cleanest example on this week’s board: his season average is 0.0 points per game, and our number for him in Week 8 is 4.01 in full-PPR. That puts him second on our list of players whose projection sits furthest above their own average, behind a Chicago quarterback you’ll meet below. Before you spend that spot, know what 4.01 is not: it is not points you can bank. Our number is higher than his average, and nothing in our data says why. It could be more work coming his way, or it could be a season so thin that a zero tells us almost nothing. Most of this list projects in the low single digits, so this is mainly a deep-league question. Read on for who else is on it, which names showed up last week too, and how to check usage without fooling yourself.
To see why a zero is slippery, you need all five side by side. Each comparison is a player against his own season, not against ESPN, a market or ownership. These are the Week 8 entries, written down Fri Oct 23 before kickoff:
| Player | Team | Pos | Season avg | Our Week 8 number | Up by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyson Bagent | CHI | QB | 4.05 | 8.86 | +4.81 |
| Jackson Hawes | BUF | TE | 0.0 | 4.01 | +4.01 |
| Andrew Ogletree | IND | TE | 0.35 | 4.12 | +3.77 |
| Jordan Whittington | LA | WR | 1.07 | 4.73 | +3.66 |
| Sam Roush | CHI | TE | 1.26 | 4.87 | +3.61 |
Bagent, the Chicago quarterback, tops the list. Every number on it is under 9, and four of the five are under 5. Which means the useful question isn’t “how many points is this?” It’s “why does our number sit so far from his average?” These are single-week central estimates, so a real score can land well above or below any of them.
Here’s the catch: we can’t answer that question from this card. Our weekly number is our read of the week, not his season to date, so a player with a 0.0 average can still carry a few projected points.
But the card can’t tell you why our number sits there. Nothing here shows snap counts, targets, ownership, Week 8 injury statuses or opponents. A bigger role is one possible reason. Another is a near-empty season sample, since the card doesn’t show how many games sit behind each average. A 0.0 may mean he barely played. A gap measured against an average built on very few games could be partly an artifact of that thin sample. We haven’t measured how often that happens.
Because of that, the board sets a psychology trap called anchoring. One fan anchors on the 0.0 and dismisses the name. Another anchors on +4.01 and reads it as four startable points. Both treat the distance as a points number when it’s a question.
So here is how we’d use it in a deep league. Which of these names you carry is your call.
Send this to whoever in your league chat keeps a stash spot open and a spreadsheet closed.
Source: ProDraftStats desk.
Our weekly number is a read of the week, not a copy of his season to date. The card doesn't say why it sits above his average. A bigger role or a thin sample are both possible.
No. It is a live Week 8 single-week central estimate, so a real score can land well above or below it. Treat it as a projection, not a promise of points.
Treat it as a lead to check usage in your own sources, not a verdict. The board has no snap-count, target, ownership, injury or opponent data behind it.
No. They are live desk numbers written Fri Oct 23 before kickoff and not yet sealed as of Sat Oct 24. No Week 8 results exist, so nothing has been scored.
ProDraftStats launches in 2027. Join the free waitlist.