NegativeProjectionFri, July 10, 2026Listen 5:10 – 6:30
Caleb Williams headshot

Caleb Williams' 64.5% completion rate is second-worst among QBs

Caleb WilliamsQBCHI

Caleb Williams finished QB7 last year but is now going as QB6 at ADP 81; however, the source is very much out on him due to a completion percentage (64.5%) that ranked second-worst among QBs with 200+ attempts (only above Shedeur Sanders), poor turnover profile, and lack of defensive support to generate late-game fantasy points. His ADP rise is driven by stack dependency on pass catchers (Luther Burden, Colson Loveland) rather than standalone value.

View Caleb Williams 2026 fantasy football value pagePlayer profile with fantasy value, ADP, projections, news, and source-backed STACKED insights
Source transcript excerpt
if you just look at quarterbacks who threw the ball at least 200 times, Williams' completion percentage was only above Shadour Sanders. That's it. That's a bad, bad stat.
Common questions

Caleb Williams fantasy football FAQ

What did Fantasy Football Weekly say about Caleb Williams?
Caleb Williams finished QB7 last year but is now going as QB6 at ADP 81; however, the source is very much out on him due to a completion percentage (64.5%) that ranked second-worst among QBs with 200+ attempts (only above Shedeur Sanders), poor turnover profile, and lack of defensive support to generate late-game fantasy points. His ADP rise is driven by stack dependency on pass catchers (Luther Burden, Colson Loveland) rather than standalone value.
Is this good or bad for Caleb Williams's fantasy football value?
STACKED tags this as a negative fantasy football signal for Caleb Williams (QB CHI). Caleb Williams' 64.5% completion rate is second-worst among QBs
Where can I see Caleb Williams's full 2026 fantasy outlook, projections, and ADP?
Caleb Williams's complete 2026 fantasy football outlook — projections, ADP movement across every platform, injury context, and all source-backed STACKED insights — is on their STACKED player profile.
Related signal

More player and source insights