Every game, every stat category, and what the board says. 10.32 points per game in 2025, an ADP of 43.1, usage worth 10.8.
22 years old · 1 season of experience · 2025 draft class
| SLEEPER | 41 |
| ESPN | 45.3 |
| YAHOO | 39.4 |
| UNDERDOG | 43.9 |
| CBS | 46.7 |
| FFA | 41 |
| Goes around | Round 4, pick 7 in a 12-team draft |
| Positional rank | TE3 |
| Bye week | 10 |
| ADP standard deviation | 3.5 picks |
Our board has him at 210.8 points, 13.9 per game — 78.4 catches, 928 yards, 6.6 TDs. That is TE1, 41 overall.
The range runs from a floor of 11.6 points per game to a ceiling of 19.7, with the median at 13.9. Boom rate 42%, bust rate 16%. The spread is the actual bet, not the middle number.
He goes at 43.1 on consensus and our board has him 41. Those agree, so there is no market disagreement to exploit. The question is whether you want the profile, not whether it is mispriced.
Preferred over McBride at a two-round discount (mid-4th). Legit league-winning TE upside in a Ben Johnson offense; lets you win the position without paying the round-2 tax.
buy · high conviction · 2026-06-05Chicago Bears returns 5 of 6 continuity slots, replacing oc. Caleb Williams at quarterback, Ben Johnson as head coach, Press Taylor calling it. The offense projects to 33.6 pass attempts a game at medium confidence and 28.4 rushes.
In: Kalif Raymond (wr3), Zavion Thomas (wr5), JP Richardson (wr6), Alexander Maurice (wr7), Sam Roush (te2). Out: DJ Moore (wr2), Luther Burden (wr3), Olamide Zaccheaus (wr4), Travis Homer (rb3), Cole Kmet (te2).
His own projected target share for 2026 is 16.8%, with a bear case of 15.3% and a bull case of 18% and a full range of 13.1% to 20.9%. That comes from 25 historical comparables, not from a depth chart.
The projected target split across the offense:
| Rome Odunze | 18.5% |
| Colston Loveland ← | 16.8% |
| Luther Burden III | 10.8% |
| D'Andre Swift | 9.4% |
| Zavion Thomas | 8.9% |
| Sam Roush | 7.9% |
What the offense looks like: Whoever emerges as Caleb Williams primary target will be an ELITE fantasy asset to own. We still do not know with 100% certainy who that will be. You may think it would be Rome Odunze, but Luther Burden III has shown a TON of promise. There is room for both of these young WR to eat, but Colston Loveland may be the real beneficiary of the additional targets. he looks like a true star. RB room is likely a 1A/1B for the foreseable future. Both Swift and Monangai see their value skyrocket if the other gets hurt.
Key additions: Bears added WR Kalif Raymond from Lions (expected to operate as WR3 because Ben Johnson loves him). Drafted Rookie WR Zavion Thomas 3rd round. Drafted TE Sam Roush RD 3.
Key departures: Biggest 2 losses C Drew Dalman retired unexpectedly & LT Ozzy Trapilo suffered serious knee injury sidelining him the entire 2026 season. WR DJ Moore traded to Bills for a 2nd round pick. WR Olamide Zaccheaus also left Chicago this offseason. Opening up a massive target opportunity for Bears pass catchers.
Notes: Strong disagreement who the WR1 will be in 2026. Odunze looked fantastic early in 2025, but Burden stole the show in the back half of the season. Loveland has emerged as Williams favorite target. Caleb Williams is set to have an excellent season again. RB room looks to remain the same with Swift 1A & Monangai 1B. Bears drafted TE Sam Roush in the 3rd round. Cole Kmet may be traded. Highly relevant fantasty offense.
How the volume number was reached: Same QB Caleb Williams returning — anchor to 2025 actuals (33.7 att/g); Regressed 42% toward league mean 33.5, floored at 30 → 33.6 att/g; New OC Press Taylor — pass rate and tempo may shift.
25 historical comps for TEs age ~22, prior share 17.9%, same team, OC change. Distribution: median 17.6%, p25-p75 [15.4%, 19.4%], tails [12.1%, 23.8%]. Closest comps: Sam LaPorta 2024→2025 (DET: 19.1%→18.5%); Trey McBride 2023→2024 (ARI: 19.8%→28.6%); Dalton Schultz 2021→2022 (DAL: 16.2%→18.9%).
self-anchored 30% to own 17.9% role (1yr), 70% to comp median 17.6%
The named comps are the closest historical matches and the arrow is what their share actually did the following season. That is the working, not a summary of it — if you disagree with the projection, this is the part to argue with.
Offensive environment: CHI rates 24.9 against a league average of 23, 1.9 points above it on opponent-adjusted least squares (multi-capture merge).
Opponent-adjusted pass defense faced, against 2025 ratings. Positive is an easier slate.
| Full season | -3.3 · harder |
| Weeks 1–6 | -8 · harder |
| Weeks 12–17 | +1.4 · neutral |
| Fantasy playoffs (15–17) | -4.5 · harder |
Read this narrowly. Our own testing found that season-long strength of schedule does not survive as a draft input — defensive quality is among the least stable team properties year to year, and a preseason slate is built on last year's identities. The playoff-weeks column is the only one we would let break a tie, and even then it is a tiebreaker rather than a reason. The finding.
Read the full Colston Loveland study →Everything in this section is about his dynasty trade value — what he is worth as a long-term asset in the trade market. It is not a forecast of his 2026 fantasy scoring. A player can be a fine redraft pick while his dynasty value falls, and the reverse. The redraft read is above; this is a different question with a different answer.
His dynasty value has moved +33% over the last twelve months. The market cycle classifies him as post-spike. The base rate that applies: after a +30% spike, TEs crash the following year 47% of the time (hold 53%). That puts the measured risk of his dynasty value falling sharply over the next year at 47% — a probability drawn from comparable historical seasons, not a prediction, and not a statement about his 2026 scoring.
For context on how long this lasts at the position: the average career at his position produces 1.3 elite seasons and 2.3 startable seasons.
Matched on production profile — blended production + pedigree. The last column is how that player’s dynasty value moved the following year — a market outcome, not a scoring one.
| Player | Season | Their PPG | Similarity | Next year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Pitts | 2021 | 10.4 | 76% | -22.4% |
| T.J. Hockenson | 2020 | 11 | 75% | +11.6% |
| Noah Fant | 2020 | 10.7 | 74% | -4.5% |
| Noah Fant | 2021 | 9.9 | 65% | -35.3% |
| Pat Freiermuth | 2021 | 9.5 | 64% | -2.4% |
Of the 5 with a following season on record, 1 gained value, 4 lost it and 0 held roughly flat.
| Drafted | 2025, round 1, pick 10 by CHI |
| College | Michigan |
| Age at draft | 21 |
| Height | 6′6″ |
| Weight | 248 lb |
His best game was Week 9 against CIN — 29.8 PPR on 7 targets and a 20.6% target share, in a game that finished 47-42. His worst was Week 2 against DET at 0, on 1 targets, final score 21-52. Across 16 games he cleared 20 points 3 times and came in under 8 points 9 times. In the 10 games decided by 8 points or fewer he averaged 13.3; in the 6 decided by more, 5.4. He scored more when the game was live.
His usage that season was worth 10.8 points per game. He scored 10.32, 2.1% above it. The engine classified the season as neutral.
| Wk | Opp | Score | PPR | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt% | Snap% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MIN | 24-27 | 3.2 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 5.9% | 57% |
| 2 | DET | 21-52 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | 53% |
| 3 | DAL | 31-14 | 4.1 | 1 | 3 | 31 | 0 | 10.7% | 10% |
| 6 | WAS | 25-24 | 3.1 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 10.3% | 42% |
| 7 | NO | 26-14 | 5.4 | 3 | 4 | 24 | 0 | 16% | 67% |
| 8 | BAL | 16-30 | 6.8 | 3 | 5 | 38 | 0 | 14.3% | 81% |
| 9 | CIN | 47-42 | 29.8 | 6 | 7 | 118 | 2 | 20.6% | 81% |
| 10 | NYG | 24-20 | 9.5 | 4 | 4 | 55 | 0 | 11.1% | 62% |
| 11 | MIN | 19-17 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 40 | 0 | 14.3% | 75% |
| 12 | PIT | 31-28 | 14.9 | 4 | 5 | 49 | 1 | 16.7% | 65% |
| 13 | PHI | 24-15 | 5.8 | 3 | 6 | 28 | 0 | 18.8% | 59% |
| 14 | GB | 21-28 | 12.9 | 4 | 5 | 29 | 1 | 17.9% | 59% |
| 15 | CLE | 31-3 | 10.1 | 4 | 5 | 63 | 0 | 18.5% | 65% |
| 16 | GB | 22-16 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 30 | 0 | 17.2% | 83% |
| 17 | SF | 38-42 | 21.4 | 6 | 10 | 94 | 1 | 25.6% | 82% |
| 18 | DET | 16-19 | 25.1 | 10 | 13 | 91 | 1 | 44.8% | 91% |
| Receptions | 58 |
| Targets | 82 |
| Receiving yards | 713 |
| Carries | 1 |
| Rushing yards | -2 |
| Touchdowns | 6 |
| Points per game | 10.32 |
| Yards per target | 8.7 |
| Catch rate | 70.73% |
| Yards per carry | -2 |
| Snap share | 64.5% |
| Target share | 16.61% |
| Air-yards share | 16.34% |
| WOPR | 0.363 |
| RACR | 1.018 |
| Average depth of target | 9 |
| Yards after catch per reception | 4.3 |
| Yards before catch per reception | 8 |
| Total YAC | 250 |
| Broken tackles | 4 |
| Drop rate | 0% |
| Passer rating when targeted | 121.6 |
| Receiving EPA per game | 2.97 |
| Rushing EPA per game | -0.05 |
| Red-zone targets | 17 |
| Red-zone target share | 21.3% |
| End-zone target share | 17.1% |
| Red-zone carry share | 0.9% |
| Expected receiving TDs | 4.24 |
| Actual receiving TDs | 4 |
| Receiving TD luck | -0.24 |
| Expected rushing TDs | 0.14 |
Against everyone in the 80+ targets pool that season:
| Points per game | 12 of 13 |
| Yards per target | 3 of 13 |
| Target share | 12 of 13 |
| Air-yards share | 6 of 13 |
The offense threw it 574 times. He took 15.47% of the targets. 2 team-mates cleared the competing-target threshold.
| Rome Odunze | 16.98% |
| D.J. Moore | 16.04% |
| Colston Loveland ← | 15.47% |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 12.26% |
| Luther Burden III | 11.32% |
| D'Andre Swift | 9.06% |
3 of his 16 games were blowouts, 8.6% of his snaps coming in them. He averaged 4.73 in those and 13.29 in close games — his scoring did not depend on garbage time.
Ask the Coach about Colston Loveland →