Jalen Nailor or Mack Hollins?
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: Jalen Nailor
- Rest of season: Jalen Nailor — 3 of 4 experts
- Trade value: Jalen Nailor
All three measures favor the same player. Your scoring, lineup and matchup still matter.
| Jalen Nailor | Mack Hollins | |
|---|---|---|
| Rest of season 3 of 4 experts rank Jalen Nailor ahead · 1 rank Mack Hollins ahead | WR82#76–#91edge | WR92#67–#115 |
| Week 3 | WR62#60–#65edge | WR64#59–#68 |
| Week 3 projection (PPR) | 7.3 | 8.4edge |
| Market Index value (redraft PPR) | 5 #176 overalledge | 3 #321 overall |
| Last 30 days (Market Index) | +4 ranks · +11 val | -14 ranks · -13 val |
| Rostered | 21% | 4% |
| Bye | 13 | 11 |
| 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, Jalen Nailor or Mack Hollins?
- Jalen Nailor. This week's consensus has Jalen Nailor at WR62 (range #60–#65) and Mack Hollins at WR64 (range #59–#68). Projections: 7.3 vs 8.4 PPR points.
- Who is better for the rest of the season, Jalen Nailor or Mack Hollins?
- Jalen Nailor. Rest-of-season consensus: Jalen Nailor WR82 (range #76–#91) vs Mack Hollins WR92 (range #67–#115). 3 of 4 FantasyPros experts who rank both have Jalen Nailor ahead for the rest of the season.
- Should I trade Jalen Nailor for Mack Hollins?
- On the LeagueLogs Market Index (redraft PPR) Jalen Nailor is ranked #176 overall and Mack Hollins #321, so Jalen Nailor 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.