Players 2023 final

1

George Kittle

SF· 16 G

1020 Rec yards

2

Travis Kelce

KC· 15 G

984 Rec yards

3

Evan Engram

JAX· 17 G

963 Rec yards

4

T.J. Hockenson

MIN· 15 G

960 Rec yards

5

Sam LaPorta

DET· 17 G

889 Rec yards

Tight ends — 2023 · ranked by Rec yards

#	Player	Tm	G	Grade	Yds/gm	Rec/gm	Tgt/gm	Rec yds	Rec	TD	Y/R	Catch%	Tgt share	WOPR
1	George Kittle	SF	16	72	63.8	4.1	5.6	1020	65	6	15.7	72.2%	19.6%	0.45
2	Travis Kelce	KC	15	77	65.6	6.2	8.1	984	93	5	10.6	76.9%	22.4%	0.49
3	Evan Engram	JAX	17	79	56.6	6.7	8.4	963	114	4	8.4	79.7%	23.5%	0.45
4	T.J. Hockenson	MIN	15	82	64.0	6.3	8.5	960	95	5	10.1	74.8%	24.0%	0.53
5	Sam LaPorta	DET	17	88	52.3	5.1	7.1	889	86	10	10.3	71.7%	21.4%	0.47
6	David Njoku	CLE	16	75	55.1	5.1	7.7	882	81	6	10.9	65.9%	21.3%	0.41
7	Trey McBride	ARI	17	70	48.5	4.8	6.2	825	81	3	10.2	76.4%	19.8%	0.42
8	Jake Ferguson	DAL	17	69	44.8	4.2	6.0	761	71	5	10.7	69.6%	16.8%	0.32
9	Cole Kmet	CHI	16	71	44.9	4.6	5.6	719	73	6	9.8	81.1%	19.9%	0.41
10	Dalton Kincaid	BUF	16	67	42.1	4.6	5.7	673	73	2	9.2	80.2%	17.9%	0.35
11	Kyle Pitts	ATL	17	65	39.2	3.1	5.3	667	53	3	12.6	58.9%	18.0%	0.46
12	Dalton Schultz	HOU	15	68	42.3	3.9	5.9	635	59	5	10.8	67.0%	17.6%	0.36
13	Tyler Conklin	NYJ	17	63	36.5	3.6	5.1	621	61	0	10.2	70.1%	15.5%	0.33
14	Dallas Goedert	PHI	14	68	42.3	4.2	5.9	592	59	3	10.0	71.1%	19.4%	0.37
15	Jonnu Smith	ATL	17	62	34.2	2.9	4.1	582	50	3	11.6	71.4%	13.0%	0.27
16	Darren Waller	NYG	12	65	46.0	4.3	6.2	552	52	1	10.6	70.3%	20.6%	0.48
17	Mark Andrews	BAL	10	74	54.4	4.5	6.1	544	45	6	12.1	73.8%	21.4%	0.45
18	Chig Okonkwo	TEN	17	59	31.1	3.2	4.5	528	54	1	9.8	70.1%	16.2%	0.33
19	Logan Thomas	WAS	16	64	31.0	3.4	4.9	496	55	4	9.0	70.5%	13.1%	0.27
20	Tyler Higbee	LAR	15	61	33.0	3.1	4.7	495	47	2	10.5	67.1%	13.9%	0.28
21	Cade Otton	TB	17	61	26.8	2.8	3.9	455	47	4	9.7	70.1%	12.1%	0.25
22	Hunter Henry	NE	13	66	32.2	3.2	4.7	419	42	6	10.0	68.9%	14.7%	0.35
23	Noah Fant	SEA	15	54	27.6	2.1	2.9	414	32	0	12.9	74.4%	8.6%	0.19
24	Gerald Everett	LAC	15	63	27.4	3.4	4.7	411	51	3	8.1	72.9%	13.2%	0.25
25	Isaiah Likely	BAL	14	60	29.4	2.1	2.9	411	30	5	13.7	75.0%	10.0%	0.21
26	Juwan Johnson	NO	13	62	28.3	2.8	4.5	368	37	4	9.9	62.7%	13.9%	0.30
27	Kylen Granson	IND	15	53	24.5	2.0	3.3	368	30	1	12.3	60.0%	10.6%	0.23
28	Durham Smythe	MIA	13	57	28.2	2.7	3.3	366	35	0	10.5	81.4%	10.0%	0.21
29	Tucker Kraft	GB	14	56	25.4	2.2	2.9	355	31	2	11.5	77.5%	8.6%	0.16
30	Tanner Hudson	CIN	12	60	29.3	3.2	4.2	352	39	1	9.0	78.0%	12.4%	0.25
31	Luke Musgrave	GB	11	58	32.0	3.1	4.2	352	34	1	10.4	73.9%	12.8%	0.27
32	Pat Freiermuth	PIT	11	59	28.0	2.9	4.3	308	32	2	9.6	68.1%	14.8%	0.31
33	Noah Gray	KC	16	52	19.1	1.8	2.6	305	28	2	10.9	68.3%	7.6%	0.17
34	Michael Mayer	LV	13	55	23.4	2.1	3.1	304	27	2	11.3	67.5%	10.0%	0.20
35	Taysom Hill	NO	16	57	18.2	2.1	2.5	291	33	2	8.8	82.5%	7.0%	0.14
36	Donald Parham	LAC	14	57	20.4	1.9	2.9	285	27	4	10.6	65.9%	8.0%	0.17
37	Daniel Bellinger	NYG	14	48	18.2	1.8	2.0	255	25	0	10.2	89.3%	7.4%	0.14
38	Colby Parkinson	SEA	15	51	16.5	1.7	2.3	247	25	2	9.9	73.5%	7.3%	0.15
39	Mike Gesicki	NE	15	53	16.3	1.9	3.0	244	29	2	8.4	64.4%	9.6%	0.22
40	Austin Hooper	LV	16	42	14.6	1.6	1.9	234	25	0	9.4	80.6%	6.8%	0.13
41	Brevin Jordan	HOU	10	54	21.9	1.7	2.1	219	17	2	12.9	81.0%	6.7%	0.12
42	Josh Oliver	MIN	13	50	16.4	1.7	2.2	213	22	2	9.7	78.6%	5.8%	0.10
43	Pharaoh Brown	NE	11	52	18.9	1.2	1.4	208	13	1	16.0	86.7%	4.8%	0.11
44	Will Mallory	IND	11	47	18.8	1.6	2.4	207	18	0	11.5	69.2%	7.0%	0.16
45	Adam Trautman	DEN	16	50	12.8	1.4	2.2	204	22	3	9.3	62.9%	7.7%	0.17
46	Tommy Tremble	CAR	15	50	12.9	1.5	2.1	194	23	3	8.4	71.9%	7.2%	0.14
47	Foster Moreau	NO	13	48	14.8	1.6	1.9	193	21	1	9.2	84.0%	5.8%	0.11
48	Zach Ertz	ARI	7	58	26.7	3.9	6.1	187	27	1	6.9	62.8%	19.1%	0.40
49	Dawson Knox	BUF	10	55	18.6	2.2	3.6	186	22	2	8.5	61.1%	10.9%	0.22
50	Hayden Hurst	CAR	9	54	20.4	2.0	3.6	184	18	1	10.2	56.2%	10.4%	0.23
51	Will Dissly	SEA	13	44	13.2	1.3	1.7	172	17	1	10.1	77.3%	5.3%	0.10
52	Johnny Mundt	MIN	10	52	17.2	1.7	2.3	172	17	1	10.1	73.9%	6.5%	0.12
53	Drew Sample	CIN	14	49	11.6	1.6	1.9	163	22	2	7.4	81.5%	5.7%	0.09
54	Elijah Higgins	ARI	11	45	14.8	1.3	1.7	163	14	1	11.6	73.7%	5.3%	0.12
55	Mo Alie-Cox	IND	14	45	11.5	0.9	1.6	161	13	3	12.4	59.1%	5.8%	0.13
56	Luke Farrell	JAX	10	44	15.5	1.3	1.5	155	13	0	11.9	86.7%	4.4%	0.08
57	Stone Smartt	LAC	12	41	12.9	0.9	1.8	155	11	1	14.1	52.4%	5.0%	0.11
58	John Bates	WAS	15	34	10.1	1.3	1.9	151	19	0	7.9	67.9%	5.3%	0.11
59	Jeremy Ruckert	NYJ	10	46	15.1	1.6	2.2	151	16	0	9.4	72.7%	6.5%	0.14
60	Andrew Ogletree	IND	11	46	13.4	0.8	1.9	147	9	2	16.3	42.9%	6.2%	0.14

What this is. Finished box-score production from 2023, ranked by Rec yards. Per-game columns divide by games played, not games on the schedule, so a player who missed time is measured on the games he was in — and his season totals still show the games he missed. Minimum 4 games to be ranked, otherwise one big afternoon tops every list.

What it isn’t. None of this is a projection, a pick, or a prop recommendation — it is what already happened. Last season’s rate is a starting point for what a player does in a game, not a forecast of the next one: offense, role, and health all move underneath it. Target share and WOPR describe a player’s share of his own team’s passing game, so they compare roles, not players across teams.

About the grade. 0–100, where 50 is average for the position and 85+ is elite. It is box production, scaled by the defense it came against, pulled toward the positional average when a player has few games, then ranked within position — so a 90 quarterback and a 90 kicker are each elite for their own spot and are not comparable to each other in any other way. It needs 6 games, so players below that show — rather than a number built on a hot month.

What the grade can’t see. There is no charting behind it, so it rewards production over technique: the receiver who ran the route that freed someone else, and the back who picked up the blitz, get nothing for it. It is role-dependent by construction — a back on a run-heavy team gets more chances than an equally good back who touches it half as often. Kickers are not opponent-adjusted, because field goals are contested by distance and weather, not by the defense across the ball. And it grades a season already played; it is not a projection of the next one.

Regular season and postseason are kept separate on purpose. Playoff samples are small and the opponents are better; blending them into a season rate quietly flatters the players who got there. The grade is regular-season only, so it is not offered on the postseason split.