DraftCall
DraftCallFantasy Football

Head to Head

Updated from live stats

Cedric Tillman vs Jordan AddisonWho should you start in 2026 fantasy football?

Cedric Tillman is the better fantasy start for 2026, averaging 8.2 PPG to Jordan Addison's 8.1 in 2025. Full head to head breakdown below.

The Bottom Line

Cedric Tillman is the better fantasy play this season.

Statistically, Cedric Tillman and Jordan Addison are interchangeable on a season-long basis. The 0.1-PPG gap is one broken play per game. For weekly start/sit calls, check opponent defense and recent form before defaulting to the name.

Low confidence: the production gap is narrow enough that weekly context matters more than the season line.

Want this verdict updated live on Sunday?

Track Cedric Tillman and Jordan Addison in the DraftCall app and get their updates the moment they change.

Get the App
WRCleveland Browns#99PPG LEADER
Cedric Tillman
PPG
8.2
Games
14
Rec
50
Rec Yds
612
Rec TDs
4
Targets
78
Bye
Week 10
WRMinnesota Vikings#49
Jordan Addison
PPG
8.1
Games
14
Rec
42
Rec Yds
610
Rec TDs
3
Targets
79
Bye
Week 6

The Edge Chart

VolumeEfficiencyTD UpsideFloorCeilingDurability
Cedric Tillman
Jordan Addison

Head to Head

8.2 PPG8.1 PPG
14 GP14 GP
Bye: Week 10Bye: Week 6

Fantasy Tiers

Cedric Tillman: Tier 5 (Deep League) WR (ranked #99 at the position). Jordan Addison: Tier 5 (Deep League) WR (ranked #49 at the position). Among the top 50 wide receivers this season, Cedric Tillman is producing at 37% of elite pace and Jordan Addison at 37%. That ranking gap means Jordan Addison carries more trade value and a higher draft cost in 2026.

Cedric Tillman vs Jordan Addison: The Full Breakdown

The gap between Cedric Tillman and Jordan Addison is smaller than most fantasy managers think. Separated by just 0.1 PPG in 2025, this is one of those wide receiver decisions that comes down to context, not name recognition. Cedric Tillman averaged 8.2 PPG with the Cleveland Browns across 14 games, and Jordan Addison posted 8.1 with the Minnesota Vikings in 14.

When two wide receivers are separated by less than two points per game, the decision shifts to weekly context. Who has the softer defense? Who is trending up over the last month? Which team is projected for more total points? Those are the tiebreakers that actually matter.

Both are workload receivers with similar target shares. Cedric Tillman turned 78 targets into 612 yards and 4 touchdowns, while Jordan Addison converted 79 looks into 610 yards and 3 scores. When target volume is this close, game script and defensive matchup typically decide the weekly winner.

Cedric Tillman has his bye in Week 10, and Jordan Addison rests in Week 6. Managers rostering both need waiver wire depth at wide receiver for those two weeks, and that is exactly the kind of planning DraftCall's matchup engine surfaces automatically so you are not scrambling on a Sunday morning.

Trade Value + Dynasty Outlook

Both are in a similar trade value range. A straight swap would be fair in most leagues, with the tiebreaker going to whichever manager values schedule or bye week more. Dynasty outlook: Cedric Tillman (age 27) is in the middle of his productive window. Stable dynasty value. Jordan Addison (age 24) has years of prime production ahead. Buy-and-hold dynasty asset.

Did You Know?

  • Cedric Tillman outscored Jordan Addison by a projected 2 total fantasy points over a full 17-game season.
  • Cedric Tillman scored 4 total touchdowns in 2025 (0.3 per game), making him one of the more reliable scoring options at wide receiver.
  • Jordan Addison saw 79 targets in 2025. Target volume is the single strongest predictor of weekly PPR production at the wide receiver position.

Detailed Stat Breakdown

Cedric Tillman vs Jordan Addison: 2025 fantasy football stat comparison in the half-PPR scoring format.
StatCedric TillmanJordan Addison
PPG (Half-PPR)8.28.1
Games Played1414
Total Fantasy Pts (est.)115113
Receptions5042
Rec/Game3.63.0
Receiving Yards612610
Rec Yds/Game43.743.6
Receiving TDs43
Targets7879
Target Share/Game5.65.6
Age-24
Experience-2 yrs
Bye WeekWeek 10Week 6

Summary

8.2 PPG for Cedric Tillman versus 8.1 for Jordan Addison in 2025. The baseline favors Cedric Tillman, though the right weekly matchup can flip the script. For a full breakdown that weighs matchup quality, form, and injury reports, try DraftCall's AI comparison engine.

DraftCall app on iPhone

Website vs App

Get the AI verdict on Cedric Tillman vs Jordan Addison

DraftCall's AI analyzes matchup quality, recent trends, injury impact, and game script to give you a clear start/sit recommendation.

See everything in the app →

Launch List

Get the live verdict on Cedric Tillman vs Jordan Addison

The DraftCall app delivers live game-day verdicts on every matchup. Join the launch list and we will email you the day it goes live for the 2026 NFL season, with your direct iOS and Android install links.

We will never share your email. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I start Cedric Tillman or Jordan Addison in fantasy football?

Based on 2025 season averages, Cedric Tillman has the edge at 8.2 PPG compared to Jordan Addison's 8.1 PPG. However, the best start depends on weekly matchup, recent form, and injury status. DraftCall's app provides real-time AI-powered verdicts that factor in all of these variables.

How many fantasy points did Cedric Tillman and Jordan Addison average in 2025?

Cedric Tillman averaged 8.2 fantasy points per game (half-PPR) across 14 games in 2025. Jordan Addison averaged 8.1 PPG over 14 games. That is a difference of 0.1 points per game.

When are Cedric Tillman and Jordan Addison's bye weeks in 2026?

Cedric Tillman (CLE) has a bye in Week 10, and Jordan Addison (MIN) has a bye in Week 6. Plan your roster accordingly if you are carrying both players.

Is Cedric Tillman or Jordan Addison a better fantasy wide receiver in 2026?

Cedric Tillman outscored Jordan Addison by 0.1 PPG in 2025, which gives him the edge heading into 2026. For a week-by-week verdict, DraftCall's AI analyzes matchup quality and recent trends in real time.