Emmett Johnson or Keaton Mitchell?
Who to start in Week 4, 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 4 · 2026 season · Consensus updated October 5 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: Keaton Mitchell
- Rest of season: Emmett Johnson — 5 of 8 experts
- Trade value: close to even
The weekly, season-long and trade-value calls differ. Choose the measure that fits your decision.
| Emmett Johnson | Keaton Mitchell | |
|---|---|---|
| Rest of season 5 of 8 experts rank Emmett Johnson ahead · 3 rank Keaton Mitchell ahead | RB43#38–#47edge | RB49#42–#54 |
| Week 4 | RB47#36–#53 | RB42#37–#48edge |
| Week 4 projection (PPR) | 4.8 | 5.8edge |
| Market Index value (redraft PPR) | 5 #175 overall | 5 #185 overall |
| Last 30 days (Market Index) | 0 ranks · 0 val | -38 ranks · -119 val |
| Rostered | 27% | 31% |
| Bye | 5 | 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 4, Emmett Johnson or Keaton Mitchell?
- Keaton Mitchell. This week's consensus has Emmett Johnson at RB47 (range #36–#53) and Keaton Mitchell at RB42 (range #37–#48). Projections: 4.8 vs 5.8 PPR points.
- Who is better for the rest of the season, Emmett Johnson or Keaton Mitchell?
- Emmett Johnson. Rest-of-season consensus: Emmett Johnson RB43 (range #38–#47) vs Keaton Mitchell RB49 (range #42–#54). 5 of 8 FantasyPros experts who rank both have Emmett Johnson ahead for the rest of the season.
- Should I trade Emmett Johnson for Keaton Mitchell?
- On the LeagueLogs Market Index (redraft PPR) Emmett Johnson is ranked #175 overall and Keaton Mitchell #185, so a one-for-one is close to even. Run the exact deal through the free AI Trade Analyzer for a verdict on your league's scoring.