Alec Pierce or Khalil Shakir?
Who to start in Week 3, who is better for the rest of the season, and who carries more trade value — from the FantasyPros expert consensus and the LeagueLogs Market Index.
Week 3 · 2026 season · Consensus updated September 22 at 6:11 AM EDT
Connect your league and an AI analyst settles debates like this one against your actual roster.
The lean
- This week: Khalil Shakir
- Rest of season: Alec Pierce — 3 of 4 experts
- Trade value: Alec Pierce
The weekly, season-long and trade-value calls differ. Choose the measure that fits your decision.
| Alec Pierce | Khalil Shakir | |
|---|---|---|
| Rest of season 3 of 4 experts rank Alec Pierce ahead · 1 rank Khalil Shakir ahead | WR48#45–#50edge | WR50#44–#54 |
| Week 3 | WR58#55–#67 | WR48#46–#51edge |
| Week 3 projection (PPR) | 6.6 | 9.9edge |
| Market Index value (redraft PPR) | 9 #97 overalledge | 7 #128 overall |
| Last 30 days (Market Index) | +1 ranks · +8 val | -5 ranks · -27 val |
| Rostered | 84% | 60% |
| Bye | 13 | 7 |
| Status | No injury designation | No injury designation |
Expert consensus and ownership data via FantasyPros · Market Index values by LeagueLogs
Go deeper
More comparisons
Frequently Asked Questions
- Who should I start in Week 3, Alec Pierce or Khalil Shakir?
- Khalil Shakir. This week's consensus has Alec Pierce at WR58 (range #55–#67) and Khalil Shakir at WR48 (range #46–#51). Projections: 6.6 vs 9.9 PPR points.
- Who is better for the rest of the season, Alec Pierce or Khalil Shakir?
- Alec Pierce. Rest-of-season consensus: Alec Pierce WR48 (range #45–#50) vs Khalil Shakir WR50 (range #44–#54). 3 of 4 FantasyPros experts who rank both have Alec Pierce ahead for the rest of the season.
- Should I trade Alec Pierce for Khalil Shakir?
- On the LeagueLogs Market Index (redraft PPR) Alec Pierce is ranked #97 overall and Khalil Shakir #128, so Alec Pierce carries more trade value and a one-for-one favors the side receiving him. Run the exact deal through the free AI Trade Analyzer for a verdict on your league's scoring.