Power Rankings - 2026 Week 4
| # | Team | Location | Outlook |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bills (BUF) | Buffalo | Consensus average: 1.67. Week 3: won 24-16, gaining 350 yards and allowing 348. The rushing attack supplied just over half the offense. That balance is useful, but this narrow yardage edge leaves room for cleaner execution. |
| 2 | 49ers (SF) | San Francisco | Consensus average: 1.67. Week 3: won 36-30, gaining 437 yards and allowing 365. Strong passing production drove another high-scoring result. Allowing thirty points leaves a clear defensive concern beneath the successful finish. |
| 3 | Chiefs (KC) | Kansas City | Consensus average: 3.00. Week 3: won 24-10, gaining 334 yards and allowing 329. The defense kept the scoring low despite a nearly even yardage total. Stronger rushing output would give the offense another reliable option. |
| 4 | Seahawks (SEA) | Seattle | Consensus average: 4.00. Week 3: lost 31-33, gaining 437 yards and allowing 258. A large passing total could not offset the final score. The modest rushing contribution highlights an area that could make the offense more dependable. |
| 5 | Ravens (BAL) | Baltimore | Consensus average: 6.00. Week 3: won 34-31, gaining 378 yards and allowing 415. A strong rushing contribution helped overcome a yardage deficit. The defense needs to allow fewer sustained drives to make future wins less precarious. |
| 6 | Broncos (DEN) | Denver | Consensus average: 6.67. Week 3: won 30-26, gaining 257 yards and allowing 482. The win arrived despite a large yardage deficit. More sustained offense and fewer yards allowed would make the next result easier to support. |
| 7 | Jaguars (JAX) | Jacksonville | Consensus average: 7.00. Week 3: won 35-6, gaining 315 yards and allowing 317. The scoring margin was much stronger than the yardage margin. Keeping opponents out of the end zone remains valuable even when they move the ball. |
| 8 | Vikings (MIN) | Minnesota | Consensus average: 7.33. Week 3: won 23-16, gaining 230 yards and allowing 243. The defense held the opponent below 250 yards. More offensive production would provide breathing room in games where that defensive standard slips. |
| 9 | Rams (LA) | Los Angeles | Consensus average: 9.67. Week 3: lost 26-30, gaining 482 yards and allowing 257. A major yardage advantage still ended in defeat. Converting that production into a more reliable scoring return is more urgent than adding raw volume. |
| 10 | Bears (CHI) | Chicago | Consensus average: 10.67. Week 3: won 27-7, gaining 375 yards and allowing 248. The offense combined passing and rushing production while the defense limited scoring. Repeating that balanced performance would strengthen the case for moving higher. |
| 11 | Bengals (CIN) | Cincinnati | Consensus average: 11.33. Week 3: lost 27-30, gaining 352 yards and allowing 411. The offense scored enough to stay close, but the defense conceded substantial production. Limiting both phases is the priority after this setback. |
| 12 | Raiders (LV) | Las Vegas | Consensus average: 11.67. Week 3: won 35-27, gaining 340 yards and allowing 381. The scoring was strong despite being outgained. Keeping the offense productive while tightening the defense is the next test of this early success. |
| 13 | Lions (DET) | Detroit | Consensus average: 13.00. Week 3: won 31-24, gaining 381 yards and allowing 335. A balanced offensive day was enough to win. Allowing 24 points keeps the defensive work visible even with a positive yardage margin. |
| 14 | Eagles (PHI) | Philadelphia | Consensus average: 13.33. Week 3: lost 7-27, gaining 248 yards and allowing 375. Both scoring and total production fell short. Restoring a more effective passing game is central to recovering from this uneven performance. |
| 15 | Cowboys (DAL) | Dallas | Consensus average: 14.33. Week 3: lost 31-34, gaining 415 yards and allowing 378. The offense generated plenty of yardage and points. Better resistance against the run would reduce the burden on that scoring pace. |
| 16 | Steelers (PIT) | Pittsburgh | Consensus average: 16.33. Week 3: won 30-27, gaining 411 yards and allowing 352. Production through the air and on the ground supported a useful win. The defense still allowed enough points to keep the outcome uncertain. |
| 17 | Saints (NO) | New Orleans | Consensus average: 17.33. Week 3: lost 27-35, gaining 381 yards and allowing 340. The offense had a balanced, productive day without getting the result. Conceding thirty-five points leaves little margin for missed scoring chances. |
| 18 | Giants (NYG) | New York | Consensus average: 19.67. Week 3: won 12-7, gaining 238 yards and allowing 262. The defense made a low offensive total sufficient. That is a narrow path to repeat, especially with only 100 net passing yards. |
| 19 | Colts (IND) | Indianapolis | Consensus average: 19.67. Week 3: won 19-17, gaining 300 yards and allowing 223. Limiting the opponent to 223 yards gave the offense a manageable target. Another solid defensive effort would help establish that improvement. |
| 20 | Browns (CLE) | Cleveland | Consensus average: 20.67. Week 3: won 21-18, gaining 259 yards and allowing 360. Winning while being outgained shows why yardage alone cannot explain a game. More passing production would make the next result less dependent on small margins. |
| 21 | Falcons (ATL) | Atlanta | Consensus average: 22.33. Week 3: won 35-14, gaining 498 yards and allowing 328. The ground game supplied a clear route to control. Sustaining that balance matters more than expecting another comfortable margin. |
| 22 | Commanders (WAS) | Washington | Consensus average: 23.33. Week 3: won 33-31, gaining 258 yards and allowing 437. The win came despite a substantial yardage deficit. Better sustained offensive production would provide a more repeatable foundation for the next game. |
| 23 | Patriots (NE) | New England | Consensus average: 23.33. Week 3: lost 6-35, gaining 317 yards and allowing 315. The teams were nearly even in yardage, yet the score was lopsided. More reliable scoring drives are essential; raw volume offers little comfort here. |
| 24 | Panthers (CAR) | Carolina | Consensus average: 24.67. Week 3: lost 18-21, gaining 360 yards and allowing 259. A sizeable yardage advantage did not produce a win. Finishing drives must improve before the underlying production can support a higher placement. |
| 25 | Texans (HOU) | Houston | Consensus average: 25.00. Week 3: lost 17-19, gaining 223 yards and allowing 300. The offense struggled in both phases. Generating more sustained production is the clearest requirement for reversing the early results. |
| 26 | Packers (GB) | Green Bay | Consensus average: 25.00. Week 3: lost 14-35, gaining 328 yards and allowing 498. Seventeen rushing yards left almost everything on the passing game. A more dependable rushing attack is needed to reduce that imbalance. |
| 27 | Jets (NYJ) | New York | Consensus average: 25.00. Week 3: lost 24-31, gaining 335 yards and allowing 381. The passing game carried the offense while the running game contributed little. Better balance would make it easier to sustain drives. |
| 28 | Cardinals (ARI) | Arizona | Consensus average: 25.67. Week 3: lost 30-36, gaining 365 yards and allowing 437. Thirty points kept the offense competitive. The defense needs to reduce passing production allowed before that scoring can translate into more wins. |
| 29 | Chargers (LAC) | Los Angeles | Consensus average: 26.67. Week 3: lost 16-24, gaining 348 yards and allowing 350. The yardage gap was only two yards, so this was competitive despite the result. Turning possession into points remains the immediate challenge. |
| 30 | Buccaneers (TB) | Tampa Bay | Consensus average: 29.33. Week 3: lost 16-23, gaining 243 yards and allowing 230. The defense limited yardage, but the offense could not generate enough points. Improving the rushing contribution would relieve some pressure on the passing game. |
| 31 | Titans (TEN) | Tennessee | Consensus average: 31.33. Week 3: lost 7-12, gaining 262 yards and allowing 238. Holding an opponent to twelve points should keep a team in contention. The passing and rushing production still need to create more scoring opportunities. |
| 32 | Dolphins (MIA) | Miami | Consensus average: 31.33. Week 3: lost 10-24, gaining 329 yards and allowing 334. The offense moved the ball but finished with only ten points. Improving the return on those possessions is the first step toward competitiveness. |
MFT Offense and Defense Rankings
Entering Week 4: season totals through Week 3. Ranks use yards per game. No. 1 is best: most yards gained on offense, fewest allowed on defense. Passing yards are net of sacks. Ties share a rank.
Consider sample size, player usage, injuries and matchup context when using these ranks for Start/Sit decisions.
| Team | Overall offense | Rushing offense | Passing offense | Overall defense | Rushing defense | Passing defense |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARI | 23 | 25 | 17 | 26 | 26 | 23 |
| ATL | 11 | 2 | 29 | 8 | 1 | 29 |
| BAL | 6 | 3 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 17 |
| BUF | 4 | 4 | 9 | 25 | 16 | 27 |
| CAR | 7 | 21 | 1 | 28 | 32 | 5 |
| CHI | 3 | 1 | 15 | 15 | 21 | 13 |
| CIN | 15 | 27 | 13 | 24 | 9 | 28 |
| CLE | 30 | 29 | 28 | 22 | 23 | 18 |
| DAL | 12 | 23 | 12 | 30 | 31 | 14 |
| DEN | 28 | 31 | 22 | 29 | 30 | 25 |
| DET | 9 | 9 | 8 | 31 | 22 | 32 |
| GB | 16 | 32 | 4 | 21 | 28 | 11 |
| HOU | 14 | 30 | 10 | 16 | 5 | 26 |
| IND | 25 | 15 | 25 | 32 | 29 | 30 |
| JAX | 17 | 10 | 21 | 17 | 8 | 24 |
| KC | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 6 |
| LAC | 20 | 12 | 20 | 23 | 19 | 21 |
| LAR | 1 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 4 |
| LV | 19 | 19 | 16 | 11 | 19 | 10 |
| MIA | 26 | 20 | 23 | 19 | 12 | 20 |
| MIN | 32 | 16 | 32 | 12 | 4 | 22 |
| NE | 21 | 14 | 19 | 5 | 17 | 2 |
| NO | 8 | 16 | 3 | 20 | 27 | 16 |
| NYG | 29 | 11 | 31 | 18 | 12 | 19 |
| NYJ | 13 | 26 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 3 |
| PHI | 24 | 13 | 24 | 13 | 25 | 9 |
| PIT | 22 | 22 | 18 | 7 | 18 | 8 |
| SEA | 10 | 18 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 |
| SF | 5 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 14 |
| TB | 27 | 23 | 26 | 6 | 2 | 12 |
| TEN | 31 | 28 | 30 | 10 | 24 | 7 |
| WAS | 18 | 8 | 27 | 27 | 3 | 31 |
MFT unit calculations from retained nflverse game statistics and final scores. Source as of 2026-09-29.
Week 4 Power Ranking methodology: Equal-weight average of three complete post-Monday lists published and retrieved September 29, 2026: Nick Shook, NFL.com; Frank Schwab, Yahoo Sports; Pete Prisco, CBS Sports. Lower average is better; unrounded means determine order. Ties use median, previous MFT week rank, then abbreviation. Outlooks are original MFT analysis of completed Week 3 scores and yardage. The six statistical categories use season totals through Week 3 and are separate from editorial consensus.