Power Rankings - 2026 Week 5
| # | Team | Location | Outlook |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 49ers (SF) | San Francisco | Consensus average: 1.00. Week 4: won 24-14, gaining 358 yards and allowing 296. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 2 | Chiefs (KC) | Kansas City | Consensus average: 2.33. Week 4: won 30-27, gaining 399 yards and allowing 437. The result came despite being outgained; reducing yards allowed would give future wins a firmer foundation. |
| 3 | Seahawks (SEA) | Seattle | Consensus average: 3.00. Week 4: won 30-23, gaining 286 yards and allowing 301. The result came despite being outgained; reducing yards allowed would give future wins a firmer foundation. |
| 4 | Jaguars (JAX) | Jacksonville | Consensus average: 5.00. Week 4: won 22-17, gaining 323 yards and allowing 437. The result came despite being outgained; reducing yards allowed would give future wins a firmer foundation. |
| 5 | Bills (BUF) | Buffalo | Consensus average: 6.00. Week 4: lost 26-29, gaining 340 yards and allowing 405. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 6 | Ravens (BAL) | Baltimore | Consensus average: 6.00. Week 4: won 24-18, gaining 384 yards and allowing 297. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 7 | Vikings (MIN) | Minnesota | Consensus average: 7.67. Week 4: won 15-10, gaining 336 yards and allowing 198. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 8 | Bears (CHI) | Chicago | Consensus average: 8.00. Week 4: won 23-12, gaining 492 yards and allowing 157. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 9 | Rams (LA) | Los Angeles | Consensus average: 10.00. Week 4: won 24-20, gaining 415 yards and allowing 172. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 10 | Broncos (DEN) | Denver | Consensus average: 10.00. Week 4: lost 14-24, gaining 296 yards and allowing 358. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 11 | Raiders (LV) | Las Vegas | Consensus average: 10.67. Week 4: lost 27-30, gaining 437 yards and allowing 399. The yardage advantage did not produce a win; converting drives into points is the immediate priority. |
| 12 | Cowboys (DAL) | Dallas | Consensus average: 10.67. Week 4: won 34-30, gaining 399 yards and allowing 397. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 13 | Bengals (CIN) | Cincinnati | Consensus average: 11.33. Week 4: lost 17-22, gaining 437 yards and allowing 323. The yardage advantage did not produce a win; converting drives into points is the immediate priority. |
| 14 | Patriots (NE) | New England | Consensus average: 15.33. Week 4: won 29-26, gaining 405 yards and allowing 340. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 15 | Eagles (PHI) | Philadelphia | Consensus average: 16.33. Week 4: lost 20-24, gaining 172 yards and allowing 415. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 16 | Falcons (ATL) | Atlanta | Consensus average: 16.67. Week 4: won 45-24, gaining 420 yards and allowing 320. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 17 | Panthers (CAR) | Carolina | Consensus average: 16.67. Week 4: won 32-26, gaining 445 yards and allowing 452. The result came despite being outgained; reducing yards allowed would give future wins a firmer foundation. |
| 18 | Giants (NYG) | New York | Consensus average: 17.67. Week 4: won 36-24, gaining 319 yards and allowing 270. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 19 | Browns (CLE) | Cleveland | Consensus average: 17.67. Week 4: won 27-24, gaining 372 yards and allowing 361. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 20 | Lions (DET) | Detroit | Consensus average: 18.33. Week 4: lost 26-32, gaining 452 yards and allowing 445. The yardage advantage did not produce a win; converting drives into points is the immediate priority. |
| 21 | Colts (IND) | Indianapolis | Consensus average: 22.00. Week 4: won 30-13, gaining 257 yards and allowing 317. The result came despite being outgained; reducing yards allowed would give future wins a firmer foundation. |
| 22 | Saints (NO) | New Orleans | Consensus average: 22.00. Week 4: lost 24-45, gaining 320 yards and allowing 420. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 23 | Steelers (PIT) | Pittsburgh | Consensus average: 22.33. Week 4: lost 24-27, gaining 361 yards and allowing 372. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 24 | Packers (GB) | Green Bay | Consensus average: 25.00. Week 4: won 17-14, gaining 283 yards and allowing 275. The yardage advantage provides a useful foundation, but sustaining efficient scoring remains the next test. |
| 25 | Texans (HOU) | Houston | Consensus average: 25.00. Week 4: lost 30-34, gaining 397 yards and allowing 399. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 26 | Cardinals (ARI) | Arizona | Consensus average: 26.00. Week 4: lost 24-36, gaining 270 yards and allowing 319. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 27 | Commanders (WAS) | Washington | Consensus average: 27.00. Week 4: lost 13-30, gaining 317 yards and allowing 257. The yardage advantage did not produce a win; converting drives into points is the immediate priority. |
| 28 | Jets (NYJ) | New York | Consensus average: 27.00. Week 4: lost 12-23, gaining 157 yards and allowing 492. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 29 | Chargers (LAC) | Los Angeles | Consensus average: 29.00. Week 4: lost 23-30, gaining 301 yards and allowing 286. The yardage advantage did not produce a win; converting drives into points is the immediate priority. |
| 30 | Buccaneers (TB) | Tampa Bay | Consensus average: 30.00. Week 4: lost 14-17, gaining 275 yards and allowing 283. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 31 | Dolphins (MIA) | Miami | Consensus average: 31.00. Week 4: lost 10-15, gaining 198 yards and allowing 336. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
| 32 | Titans (TEN) | Tennessee | Consensus average: 31.33. Week 4: lost 18-24, gaining 297 yards and allowing 384. The defense allowed more production than the offense generated; improving that balance is the clearest route forward. |
MFT Offense and Defense Rankings
Entering Week 5: season totals through Week 4. 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 | 22 | 21 | 22 | 24 | 20 | 22 |
| ATL | 10 | 2 | 25 | 8 | 1 | 30 |
| BAL | 5 | 4 | 13 | 10 | 10 | 16 |
| BUF | 8 | 5 | 12 | 27 | 19 | 27 |
| CAR | 4 | 18 | 1 | 29 | 32 | 20 |
| CHI | 1 | 1 | 15 | 3 | 13 | 3 |
| CIN | 11 | 31 | 5 | 22 | 8 | 26 |
| CLE | 23 | 23 | 21 | 23 | 18 | 23 |
| DAL | 12 | 25 | 7 | 30 | 31 | 24 |
| DEN | 27 | 29 | 20 | 28 | 29 | 21 |
| DET | 6 | 20 | 3 | 32 | 21 | 32 |
| GB | 20 | 32 | 11 | 14 | 28 | 4 |
| HOU | 14 | 30 | 6 | 20 | 4 | 28 |
| IND | 25 | 14 | 26 | 31 | 26 | 29 |
| JAX | 18 | 11 | 19 | 25 | 2 | 31 |
| KC | 3 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 5 | 18 |
| LAC | 21 | 9 | 24 | 16 | 22 | 14 |
| LAR | 2 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 2 |
| LV | 15 | 24 | 9 | 19 | 27 | 8 |
| MIA | 30 | 19 | 30 | 17 | 15 | 19 |
| MIN | 31 | 16 | 32 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| NE | 16 | 10 | 17 | 6 | 14 | 5 |
| NO | 9 | 27 | 4 | 26 | 30 | 15 |
| NYG | 26 | 12 | 27 | 9 | 15 | 10 |
| NYJ | 24 | 28 | 18 | 11 | 25 | 6 |
| PHI | 29 | 15 | 31 | 21 | 23 | 17 |
| PIT | 17 | 22 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 12 |
| SEA | 13 | 13 | 14 | 1 | 11 | 1 |
| SF | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 11 |
| TB | 28 | 17 | 28 | 4 | 3 | 9 |
| TEN | 32 | 26 | 28 | 15 | 24 | 13 |
| WAS | 19 | 8 | 23 | 18 | 6 | 25 |
MFT unit calculations from retained nflverse game statistics and final scores. Source as of 2026-10-06.
Week 5 Power Ranking methodology: Equal-weight average of three complete post-Monday lists published and retrieved October 6, 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 4 scores and yardage. The six statistical categories use season totals through Week 4 and are separate from editorial consensus.