Players 2025 final

1

Trey McBride

ARI· 17 G

1239 Rec yards

2

Kyle Pitts

ATL· 17 G

928 Rec yards

3

Juwan Johnson

NO· 17 G

889 Rec yards

4

Travis Kelce

KC· 17 G

851 Rec yards

5

Tyler Warren

IND· 17 G

817 Rec yards

Tight ends — 2025 · 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	Trey McBride	ARI	17	89	72.9	7.4	9.9	1239	126	11	9.8	74.6%	27.9%	0.59
2	Kyle Pitts	ATL	17	75	54.6	5.2	6.9	928	88	5	10.5	74.6%	22.7%	0.49
3	Juwan Johnson	NO	17	68	52.3	4.5	6.0	889	77	3	11.5	75.5%	17.7%	0.37
4	Travis Kelce	KC	17	73	50.1	4.5	6.4	851	76	5	11.2	70.4%	20.0%	0.43
5	Tyler Warren	IND	17	69	48.1	4.5	6.6	817	76	4	10.8	67.9%	21.5%	0.43
6	Dalton Schultz	HOU	17	65	45.7	4.8	6.2	777	82	3	9.5	77.4%	19.1%	0.39
7	Hunter Henry	NE	17	67	45.2	3.5	5.1	768	60	7	12.8	69.0%	17.4%	0.37
8	Harold Fannin Jr.	CLE	16	71	45.7	4.5	6.7	731	72	6	10.2	67.3%	21.8%	0.46
9	Colston Loveland	CHI	16	66	44.6	3.6	5.1	713	58	6	12.3	70.7%	16.6%	0.36
10	Brock Bowers	LV	12	82	56.7	5.3	7.2	680	64	7	10.6	74.4%	23.4%	0.53
11	Oronde Gadsden II	LAC	15	62	44.3	3.3	4.6	664	49	3	13.6	71.0%	14.4%	0.33
12	George Kittle	SF	11	79	57.1	5.2	6.3	628	57	7	11.0	82.6%	21.5%	0.45
13	Jake Ferguson	DAL	17	72	35.3	4.8	6.0	600	82	8	7.3	80.4%	16.5%	0.31
14	Dallas Goedert	PHI	15	77	39.4	4.0	5.5	591	60	11	9.8	73.2%	20.8%	0.42
15	Cade Otton	TB	15	61	38.1	3.9	5.4	572	59	1	9.7	72.8%	17.4%	0.34
16	Dalton Kincaid	BUF	12	66	47.6	3.2	4.1	571	39	5	14.6	79.6%	14.9%	0.37
17	Chig Okonkwo	TEN	17	59	32.9	3.3	4.6	560	56	2	10.0	70.9%	15.0%	0.29
18	Brenton Strange	JAX	12	64	45.0	3.8	5.0	540	46	3	11.7	76.7%	15.6%	0.32
19	Theo Johnson	NYG	15	62	35.2	3.0	4.9	528	45	5	11.7	60.8%	17.2%	0.37
20	AJ Barner	SEA	17	60	30.5	3.1	4.0	519	52	6	10.0	76.5%	13.8%	0.26
21	Zach Ertz	WAS	13	65	38.8	3.8	5.5	504	50	4	10.1	69.4%	19.3%	0.43
22	Tucker Kraft	GB	8	74	61.1	4.0	5.5	489	32	6	15.3	72.7%	19.0%	0.35
23	Sam LaPorta	DET	9	70	54.3	4.4	5.4	489	40	3	12.2	81.6%	18.5%	0.40
24	Pat Freiermuth	PIT	15	58	32.4	2.7	3.6	486	41	4	11.9	75.9%	11.3%	0.26
25	Evan Engram	DEN	16	56	28.8	3.1	4.8	461	50	1	9.2	65.8%	13.7%	0.31
26	T.J. Hockenson	MIN	15	58	29.2	3.4	4.4	438	51	3	8.6	77.3%	15.9%	0.31
27	Mark Andrews	BAL	17	59	24.8	2.8	4.1	422	48	5	8.8	68.6%	17.1%	0.37
28	Dawson Knox	BUF	16	57	26.1	2.2	3.1	417	36	4	11.6	73.5%	11.0%	0.25
29	Colby Parkinson	LAR	14	63	29.1	3.1	4.0	408	43	8	9.5	76.8%	11.7%	0.21
30	Mason Taylor	NYJ	13	56	28.4	3.4	5.0	369	44	1	8.4	67.7%	17.2%	0.35
31	Darnell Washington	PIT	13	55	28.0	2.4	3.3	364	31	1	11.7	72.1%	11.2%	0.25
32	Gunnar Helm	TEN	16	54	22.3	2.8	3.4	357	44	2	8.1	80.0%	10.7%	0.22
33	Cole Kmet	CHI	16	53	21.7	1.9	3.0	347	30	2	11.6	62.5%	9.6%	0.21
34	Greg Dulcich	MIA	9	58	37.2	2.9	3.7	335	26	1	12.9	78.8%	15.4%	0.30
35	Michael Mayer	LV	13	54	25.2	2.7	3.8	328	35	1	9.4	70.0%	13.7%	0.30
36	Isaiah Likely	BAL	12	53	25.6	2.2	3.0	307	27	1	11.4	75.0%	12.0%	0.26
37	Mike Gesicki	CIN	12	55	25.6	2.3	3.5	307	28	2	11.0	66.7%	10.3%	0.25
38	Elijah Higgins	ARI	17	45	17.7	1.8	2.2	301	30	0	10.0	81.1%	6.7%	0.12
39	Jake Tonges	SF	10	61	29.3	3.4	4.6	293	34	5	8.6	73.9%	12.2%	0.24
40	David Njoku	CLE	11	60	26.6	3.0	4.4	293	33	4	8.9	68.8%	12.5%	0.25
41	Noah Fant	CIN	13	55	22.2	2.6	3.2	288	34	3	8.5	82.9%	9.2%	0.16
42	Daniel Bellinger	NYG	13	52	22.0	1.5	2.0	286	19	2	15.1	73.1%	6.3%	0.14
43	Darren Waller	MIA	9	63	31.4	2.7	3.8	283	24	6	11.8	70.6%	14.6%	0.37
44	Tyler Higbee	LAR	10	57	28.1	2.5	3.6	281	25	3	11.2	69.4%	11.0%	0.17
45	Austin Hooper	NE	13	50	20.2	1.6	2.0	263	21	2	12.5	80.8%	7.1%	0.15
46	Luke Musgrave	GB	13	48	19.4	1.8	2.4	252	24	0	10.5	77.4%	8.5%	0.18
47	Tommy Tremble	CAR	15	49	16.6	1.8	2.5	249	27	2	9.2	73.0%	9.1%	0.18
48	Terrance Ferguson	LAR	11	53	21.0	1.0	2.3	231	11	3	21.0	44.0%	6.5%	0.18
49	Jonnu Smith	PIT	17	50	13.1	2.2	3.2	222	38	2	5.8	70.4%	10.6%	0.21
50	Davis Allen	LAR	15	48	13.9	1.6	2.2	208	24	3	8.7	72.7%	6.3%	0.11
51	Adam Trautman	DEN	13	46	15.0	1.5	1.8	195	20	1	9.8	87.0%	4.8%	0.10
52	Ja'Tavion Sanders	CAR	12	51	15.8	2.4	2.8	190	29	1	6.6	85.3%	9.2%	0.17
53	Jackson Hawes	BUF	13	49	14.4	1.2	1.5	187	16	3	11.7	84.2%	5.7%	0.12
54	Elijah Arroyo	SEA	13	41	13.8	1.2	2.0	179	15	1	11.9	57.7%	7.9%	0.18
55	Jeremy Ruckert	NYJ	14	46	12.8	1.6	2.1	179	23	1	7.8	79.3%	7.3%	0.13
56	Noah Gray	KC	14	39	12.7	1.5	2.6	178	21	0	8.5	56.8%	8.2%	0.16
57	Mitchell Evans	CAR	14	45	12.2	1.4	1.8	171	19	2	9.0	76.0%	6.4%	0.12
58	Tanner Hudson	CIN	10	52	16.8	1.9	2.4	168	19	2	8.8	79.2%	6.4%	0.12
59	Josh Oliver	MIN	12	50	13.3	1.2	1.6	160	15	4	10.7	78.9%	6.5%	0.12
60	Charlie Kolar	BAL	13	40	10.9	0.8	1.2	142	10	2	14.2	66.7%	4.6%	0.09

What this is. Finished box-score production from 2025, 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.