theCFFsite • WEEK 11

Weekly Lineup AI-ntelligence Report

A weekly lineup decision guide combining Joe’s independent rankings, theCFFsite weekly projections, and other selective data points. The goal is to uncover players whose weekly outlook deserves a closer look when comparing rankings and projections.

SLEEPER
DEEP SLEEPER
CAUTION
RANK vs. PROJ.

QUARTERBACK AI-NTEL

SLEEPER

Tait Reynolds

Clemson • Georgia Tech

SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

QB46

PROJ. RANK

QB25

PROJ. FP

24.12

MATCHUP

Neutral

Reynolds is projected for 183 passing yards and one passing touchdown, but the real fantasy appeal is 68 projected rushing yards and another rushing score. He ran 15 times for 61 yards last week at Syracuse and is expected to be ready for Georgia Tech despite a banged-up non-throwing shoulder.

Joe’s Take: I have Reynolds at QB46, but his rushing usage gives him a much higher ceiling than that ranking suggests. The projection has him at QB25 because it expects him to do damage on the ground again. I want to monitor the shoulder, but if he is moving normally, his legs give him a real path to a Top-30 finish.

McCae Hillstead

Utah State • @ San Diego State

SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

QB55

PROJ. RANK

QB46

PROJ. FP

21.14

MATCHUP

Positive

Hillstead is projected for only 161 passing yards and one passing touchdown, but the model adds 65 rushing yards and 0.7 rushing touchdowns. He ran for 56 yards and a score last week while Utah State leaned on a more efficient, lower-risk offensive approach.

Joe’s Take: Hillstead is not a Sleeper because I expect a huge passing day. I like him because his rushing ability can rescue an otherwise ordinary stat line. If he gets into the end zone on the ground, he can outperform my QB55 ranking without needing 250 passing yards.

DEEP SLEEPER

Alonza Barnett

UCF • Arizona State

DEEP SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

QB72

PROJ. RANK

QB52

PROJ. FP

20.22

MATCHUP

Neutral

Barnett returned to the starting lineup and delivered 251 passing yards and two touchdowns in UCF’s 33-32 win at Kansas. The Week 11 model projects 223 passing yards and two touchdowns against Arizona State.

Joe’s Take: I am still keeping Barnett deep in my rankings because the sample since his return is small, but last week was encouraging. He looked much more comfortable running the offense, and the projection is 20 spots higher than my ranking. In deeper leagues, I think he is worth considering if you need quarterback help.

Deuce Bailey

Coastal Carolina • Arkansas State

DEEP SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

QB61

PROJ. RANK

QB56

PROJ. FP

19.92

MATCHUP

Neutral

Bailey has produced more than 2,400 passing yards and 20 passing touchdowns this season. The Week 11 projection calls for 243 passing yards and two touchdowns with a small amount of rushing production.

Joe’s Take: Bailey is more of a deep-volume play for me than a player I am aggressively targeting. The projection is only five spots above my ranking, but two projected passing touchdowns and a decent yardage floor keep him usable in deeper formats.

CAUTION

Evan Medders

Air Force • San Jose State

CAUTION

JOE’S RANK

QB38

PROJ. RANK

QB89

PROJ. FP

16.86

MATCHUP

Difficult

Medders has produced most of his fantasy value with his legs, totaling roughly 668 rushing yards and eight rushing touchdowns this season. The model projects just 69 passing yards, 61 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown against San Jose State.

Joe’s Take: Kemper Hodges’ usage limits Medders’ ceiling because Air Force has another quarterback who can take meaningful rushing opportunities and red-zone work. That said, if Medders’ rushing volume returns to the level we saw before the injury, I think he has Top-10 potential this week. The ceiling is still there; I just need the workload to shift back in his direction.

Braden Atkinson

Oregon State • @ Boise State

CAUTION

JOE’S RANK

QB25

PROJ. RANK

QB44

PROJ. FP

21.28

MATCHUP

Positive

Atkinson has thrown for nearly 3,500 yards and 27 touchdowns this season, but the model projects 302 passing yards and only two touchdowns this week while giving him almost no rushing production.

Joe’s Take: I still have Atkinson inside my Top 25 because Boise State can be vulnerable through the air, and having a playmaker like Jesse Legree gives him a receiver who can turn ordinary throws into explosive gains and touchdowns. Atkinson does not offer much rushing production, so he needs the passing touchdowns, but this is a matchup where I think that ceiling is attainable.

RANK vs. PROJ.

Marcus Stokes

Memphis • @ South Florida

RANK vs. PROJ.

JOE’S RANK

QB31

PROJ. RANK

QB13

PROJ. FP

26.24

MATCHUP

Difficult

The model projects 281 passing yards, 2.4 passing touchdowns, 30 rushing yards and 0.4 rushing touchdowns. That combination pushes Stokes all the way to QB13, 18 spots above my ranking.

Joe’s Take: The projection is much more aggressive than I am, especially in a matchup I do not view as easy. But I understand the model’s argument: if Stokes gets close to three total touchdowns, the yardage is enough to carry him into the Top 15. I see the upside; I am just not ranking him there yet.

Isaiah Marshall

Kansas • @ West Virginia

RANK vs. PROJ.

JOE’S RANK

QB16

PROJ. RANK

QB7

PROJ. FP

27.22

MATCHUP

Positive

Marshall is projected for 228 passing yards, 65 rushing yards and 2.5 total touchdowns. West Virginia has been one of the most favorable quarterback matchups in the projection pool, and Marshall already brings a strong rushing component.

Joe’s Take: I already have Marshall inside my Top 20, but the projection sees an even bigger ceiling. The matchup plus his rushing ability is the combination that can turn a modest passing day into a Top-10 fantasy result. I would be very comfortable starting him this week.

RUNNING BACK AI-NTEL

SLEEPER

Micah Ford

Stanford • @ Virginia Tech

SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

RB42

PROJ. RANK

RB23

PROJ. FP

17.05

MATCHUP

Difficult

Ford has topped 19 carries in three straight games and has also caught at least three passes in each of those contests. The model projects 74 rushing yards, 3.5 receptions, 31 receiving yards and 0.8 total touchdowns.

Joe’s Take: The matchup is not why I like Ford—the workload is. He has developed into a true volume back, and the receiving usage gives him another way to score fantasy points. I have him at RB42, but the RB23 projection makes sense if that 20-touch profile continues.

Ajay Allen

Western Kentucky • Jacksonville State

SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

RB43

PROJ. RANK

RB27

PROJ. FP

16.55

MATCHUP

Neutral

Allen rushed for 116 yards and a touchdown last week at Middle Tennessee and remains Western Kentucky’s lead back. The Week 11 model projects 70 rushing yards, 3.5 receptions and 0.9 total touchdowns.

Joe’s Take: Allen’s recent workload and receiving involvement make him more appealing to me than the RB43 ranking suggests. As long as Brock Glenn does not vulture the rushing touchdowns around the goal line, Allen has the matchup and role that should give him a high floor. I see legitimate RB3/flex value with upside if the scoring opportunities go his way.

DEEP SLEEPER

Damari Alston

Tulsa • FAU

DEEP SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

RB60

PROJ. RANK

RB30

PROJ. FP

16.50

MATCHUP

Neutral

Alston leads Tulsa’s backfield and has surpassed 50 rushing yards in three straight games. He scored again last week at Tulane and now has seven rushing touchdowns on the season. The model projects 83 rushing yards and another touchdown.

Joe’s Take: The 30-spot gap is what puts Alston on my radar. He has not been a huge yardage producer, but the role is steady and he keeps finding the end zone. If the touchdown equity holds, he can finish much closer to RB30 than my RB60 ranking.

Samuel Harris

Wyoming • @ UTEP

DEEP SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

RB62

PROJ. RANK

RB34

PROJ. FP

16.10

MATCHUP

Positive

Harris has produced more than 500 rushing yards this season and also contributes as a receiver. The projection calls for 79 rushing yards, two receptions and one total touchdown against a favorable UTEP matchup.

Joe’s Take: This one is mostly matchup and projection driven for me. I am not ready to move Harris anywhere near my Top 35, but the model sees a touchdown and enough total yardage to push him into the RB3 range. That makes him useful in deeper leagues.

CAUTION

Isaac Brown

Louisville • @ North Carolina

CAUTION

JOE’S RANK

RB20

PROJ. RANK

RB49

PROJ. FP

14.20

MATCHUP

Positive

Brown has been extremely efficient this season and has topped 100 rushing yards in three of his last four games. Even so, the Week 11 projection calls for only 62 rushing yards, two receptions and 0.8 rushing touchdowns.

Joe’s Take: This is not a matchup fade. I still like Brown and have him at RB20, but the model is warning that his efficiency may need to stay elite if the touch count is not huge. Louisville has multiple ways to score near the goal line, so I would view Brown as a strong start with more volatility than my ranking alone suggests.

L.J. Phillips Jr.

Iowa • Purdue

CAUTION

JOE’S RANK

RB27

PROJ. RANK

RB75

PROJ. FP

12.00

MATCHUP

Positive

Phillips is listed as Iowa’s starting running back and draws a favorable Purdue matchup, but his season production has been modest at roughly 40 rushing yards per game. The model projects 65 rushing yards, two receptions and 0.6 rushing touchdowns.

Joe’s Take: I am more bullish on Phillips because of what we saw last week: 21 rushing attempts for 128 yards in his first start. That kind of volume is exactly what I want to see before buying into a player, and now he gets a more favorable matchup with Purdue. My RB27 ranking is aggressive compared with the projection, but the workload from last week is why I am willing to be ahead of the model.

RANK vs. PROJ.

Ashton Gray

East Carolina • @ Charlotte

RANK vs. PROJ.

JOE’S RANK

RB30

PROJ. RANK

RB12

PROJ. FP

19.25

MATCHUP

Positive

The model projects 81 rushing yards, 2.5 receptions, 27 receiving yards and 1.2 total touchdowns against Charlotte. That profile elevates Gray 18 spots above my RB30 ranking.

Joe’s Take: My ranking on Gray is based almost entirely on the expectation that TJ Engleman will not play. If Engleman is out, I like Gray’s opportunity and touchdown potential enough to rank him aggressively. If Engleman plays, Gray immediately becomes a much less attractive fantasy option and I would move him down considerably.

Antwan Raymond

Rutgers • Nebraska

RANK vs. PROJ.

JOE’S RANK

RB36

PROJ. RANK

RB28

PROJ. FP

16.50

MATCHUP

Difficult

Raymond remains Rutgers’ lead back and is averaging nearly 88 rushing yards per game this season. Nebraska has been one of the tougher rushing matchups in the country, yet the model still projects 82 rushing yards and 0.9 total touchdowns.

Joe’s Take: Nebraska’s lack of offensive production over the last few weeks makes me think this game stays close, which is important for Raymond’s workload. If Rutgers can remain committed to the run for four quarters, I expect Raymond to see a sizeable number of touches. That volume is why I am comfortable keeping him in the RB3 conversation even against a difficult run defense.

WIDE RECEIVER AI-NTEL

SLEEPER

Mazeo Bennett Jr.

South Carolina • @ Arkansas

SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

WR47

PROJ. RANK

WR23

PROJ. FP

16.05

MATCHUP

Difficult

Bennett has scored a touchdown in four consecutive games and has produced 261 receiving yards over his last three. The Week 11 model projects 5.5 receptions, 85 yards and 0.8 touchdowns.

Joe’s Take: Bennett is one of my favorite Sleeper profiles this week because the recent production is not a one-game spike. He keeps finding the end zone and is creating explosive plays with LaNorris Sellers. I have him at WR47, but the WR23 projection is very believable if the hot streak continues.

Mario Sanders

Southern Miss • @ Louisiana Tech

SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

WR45

PROJ. RANK

WR33

PROJ. FP

15.10

MATCHUP

Neutral

Sanders has produced roughly 56 receptions, 782 receiving yards and seven touchdowns this season. The model projects six catches for 85 yards and 0.6 touchdowns at Louisiana Tech.

Joe’s Take: Sanders has enough established volume that I do not need to manufacture a breakout case. The question is whether this is one of the weeks where the touchdown comes with the catches and yardage. I have him at WR45, but the WR33 projection is very reasonable in PPR formats.

DEEP SLEEPER

Jemyri Davis

Memphis • @ South Florida

DEEP SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

WR74

PROJ. RANK

WR52

PROJ. FP

13.60

MATCHUP

Difficult

Davis has turned limited volume into six receiving touchdowns this season. The Week 11 projection calls for four receptions, 68 yards and 0.8 touchdowns.

Joe’s Take: Davis is touchdown dependent, which is why I have him this low. But the projection is also why he belongs in the Deep Sleeper conversation: another score immediately pushes him into useful territory. I would only use him if I am chasing ceiling rather than floor.

Giovanni Richardson

Arizona • Utah

DEEP SLEEPER

JOE’S RANK

WR64

PROJ. RANK

WR44

PROJ. FP

14.15

MATCHUP

Neutral

Richardson is coming off a career performance in Arizona’s win over TCU and now has roughly 38 receptions for 510 yards on the season. The model projects 6.5 catches for 91 yards against Utah.

Joe’s Take: The projection is telling me to take the recent breakout seriously. Utah is not an easy opponent, so I am keeping Richardson deep in my rankings, but a 6.5-catch projection gives him a much better PPR floor than WR64 would suggest.

CAUTION

Que’Sean Brown

Virginia Tech • Stanford

CAUTION

JOE’S RANK

WR31

PROJ. RANK

WR72

PROJ. FP

12.65

MATCHUP

Positive

Brown has been a high-volume receiver this season with roughly 66 receptions for 796 yards. The Week 11 model still projects 6.5 catches, but only 70 yards and 0.4 touchdowns, dropping him more than 40 spots below my ranking.

Joe’s Take: The catch volume is why I still have Brown at WR31, especially in PPR. But the projection is telling us that catches alone may not be enough if the explosive plays and touchdown do not come. I would still use him, but I am not assuming that a favorable matchup automatically creates a ceiling game.

Alex Taylor

Georgia Southern • @ Georgia State

CAUTION

JOE’S RANK

WR33

PROJ. RANK

WR60

PROJ. FP

13.15

MATCHUP

Positive

Taylor has produced roughly 43 receptions for 594 yards and four touchdowns this season. The model projects 5.5 catches for 80 yards but only 0.4 touchdowns, leaving him at WR60 despite the favorable opponent.

Joe’s Take: I like Taylor more than the projection does because I trust his role, but the 27-spot gap is worth acknowledging. If the touchdown does not come, the model sees more of a solid yardage day than a difference-making fantasy performance. He is still playable for me, just not without some risk.

RANK vs. PROJ.

Landon Sides

East Carolina • @ Charlotte

RANK vs. PROJ.

JOE’S RANK

WR19

PROJ. RANK

WR9

PROJ. FP

18.60

MATCHUP

Positive

Sides is projected for seven receptions, 91 yards and a touchdown against Charlotte, pushing him to WR9 for the week. That is ten spots above my WR19 ranking and one of the cleaner positive projection gaps among the higher-ranked receivers.

Joe’s Take: I already like Sides enough to have him inside my Top 20, but the projection is taking it another step and viewing him as a Top-10 receiver. The Charlotte matchup is favorable and the projected seven catches give him a strong PPR floor. I am not quite ready to rank him WR9, but I understand why the model is this aggressive.

Justin Bowick

Oklahoma State • Texas Tech

RANK vs. PROJ.

JOE’S RANK

WR6

PROJ. RANK

WR28

PROJ. FP

15.45

MATCHUP

Positive

Bowick has produced roughly 49 receptions, 869 yards and 11 receiving touchdowns this season. The model projects only 4.5 receptions and 72 yards, although it still gives him a full touchdown against Texas Tech.

Joe’s Take: I am far more aggressive on Bowick than the projection because I trust the touchdown production and big-play ability. The model is basically saying he needs the score to justify a strong fantasy day because the catch projection is modest. I am willing to bet on him more heavily than that and keep him inside my Top 10.

MORE SLEEPERS TO CONSIDER

Max Johnson
Georgia Southern • @ Georgia State

Joe QB62 • Projection QB58 • 19.82 FP

A favorable matchup and nearly 20 projected points make him a usable deep-league quarterback.

Blake Baker
Louisiana Tech • Southern Miss

Joe QB52 • Projection QB51 • 20.30 FP

The model and my ranking are nearly identical, but the matchup gives him enough passing upside to remain on the streaming radar.

Ayden Pereira
Georgia State • Georgia Southern

Joe QB77 • Projection QB67 • 18.98 FP

The projection is ten spots more aggressive than my ranking and gives him a path to usefulness in very deep formats.

Connor Lair
Missouri State • New Mexico State

Joe RB47 • Projection RB39 • 14.90 FP

The projection moves him inside the Top 40 against a manageable matchup, making him a viable deeper flex option.

Demon June
North Carolina • Louisville

Joe RB48 • Projection RB43 • 14.60 FP

The gap is modest, but the workload projection keeps him relevant as an RB3/flex consideration.

Davian Jackson
Texas State • Fresno State

Joe RB49 • Projection RB48 • 14.25 FP

The ranking and projection agree almost exactly, and the matchup provides enough scoring environment to keep him in play.

Cataurus Hicks
Pittsburgh • Florida State

Joe WR44 • Projection WR36 • 14.65 FP

A favorable receiver matchup and an eight-spot projection boost put Hicks just outside the featured Sleeper group.

Josh Derry
UCF • Arizona State

Joe WR38 • Projection WR31 • 15.15 FP

Barnett’s return helped Derry erupt for 143 yards last week, and the model now places him inside the Top 35.

Jordan Shipp
North Carolina • Louisville

Joe WR39 • Projection WR32 • 15.10 FP

The projection sees Top-35 value with enough volume to make him a strong WR3/flex consideration.

Makai Jackson
Liberty • Middle Tennessee

Joe WR40 • Projection WR37 • 14.65 FP

A positive matchup and a projection close to my ranking make Jackson another usable option beyond the Top 35.

Week 11 AI-ntelligence Report

QUARTERBACK AI-NTEL

RUNNING BACK AI-NTEL

WIDE RECEIVER AI-NTEL

MORE SLEEPERS TO CONSIDER

Share this: