WEBVTT - Perfect Landing 0:00:00.320 --> 0:00:04.000 Welcome to Fantasy Football Weekly, a production of iHeartRadio. 0:00:06.120 --> 0:00:10.400 Time now for Fantasy Football Weekly from iHeartRadio, your weekly 0:00:10.440 --> 0:00:14.440 source for the nation's best fantasy football advice, speculation, and 0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:17.880 whatever stupid stuff they decide to drop into the show. Now, 0:00:17.920 --> 0:00:21.600 here's your host, Paul Chargony. 0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:28.400 Everybody, it is Fantasy Football Weekly and off season free 0:00:28.520 --> 0:00:32.320 Agent edition of Fantasy Football Weekly. My co host today, 0:00:32.760 --> 0:00:35.680 like two weeks ago, Brian Johnson, Hey, buddy. 0:00:36.520 --> 0:00:39.879 What's going on, charg Yeah, We're we're in full on 0:00:40.760 --> 0:00:45.000 off season, full on depression, no games on Sunday mode. 0:00:45.040 --> 0:00:47.479 But our first, our first milestone we have to look 0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:51.919 forward to is free agency. There's a well, actually the 0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:52.920 combine coming. 0:00:52.800 --> 0:00:55.880 Yeah, Combine coming up is a biggie, right, So that's 0:00:56.000 --> 0:00:57.720 a couple of weeks from now, and then you know, 0:00:57.720 --> 0:00:59.880 we're only three and a half weeks away from free 0:00:59.880 --> 0:01:03.040 agency starting. It's it's all coming. Over the course of 0:01:03.080 --> 0:01:06.319 the show, we'll talk through the key free agents, not 0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:08.600 all of them, just too many, the guys that you 0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:11.640 care most about at quarterback, running back, wide receiver, tight end. 0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:16.600 We'll talk about what kind of landing space they might find, 0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:18.120 you know, is it going to be a hot market. 0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:19.920 Is it going to be a cold market? You know? 0:01:19.959 --> 0:01:22.360 Where do we want them to go? And we'll break 0:01:22.360 --> 0:01:26.640 down all of those guys. Also, I'll mention this, Brian, 0:01:28.400 --> 0:01:30.920 We're recording this a couple of days before people are 0:01:30.959 --> 0:01:32.240 going to hear it because I'm going to be a 0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:35.360 whiskey weekend. I can't wait. If you're a bourbon drinker 0:01:35.400 --> 0:01:38.200 and you want to follow along with our fourth this 0:01:38.319 --> 0:01:41.720 our fifteenth year, I think of our our blind March 0:01:41.880 --> 0:01:47.600 Madness style whiskey bracket double elimination. Follow me on Twitter 0:01:47.680 --> 0:01:49.720 at Paul charci In very excited for that. 0:01:50.880 --> 0:01:53.360 I threw you a recommendation as you tweeted it out 0:01:53.400 --> 0:01:56.160 as you do every year, because we don't you don't 0:01:56.200 --> 0:01:57.920 get too into into your bit, but you got to 0:01:57.920 --> 0:02:00.320 bring a new bottle every year essentially, And yeah, I 0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:04.600 had a somewhat out of the box recommendation. I'll be 0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:06.760 curious to see if you actually took it. We can't. 0:02:06.880 --> 0:02:10.639 We can't can't because it's all it's all blind. That's 0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:13.880 part of the beauty of this format is at the 0:02:13.919 --> 0:02:16.280 top of every hour you get we have one guy 0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:18.240 who administers it, and so he knows all the secrets. 0:02:18.240 --> 0:02:20.320 He knows what bottles what we don't know when we're 0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:22.440 drinking it. All you know is you get about a 0:02:22.440 --> 0:02:26.000 half shot glass of one that's marked A and one 0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:29.240 that's marked B. So there's no marketing. You don't the bottle. 0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:31.200 You don't have. All you have to go on is taste. 0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:33.880 That's it. You don't know what you're drinking. And so 0:02:34.800 --> 0:02:38.160 a lot of the times you think you love this 0:02:38.240 --> 0:02:42.880 particular bourbon, and then when it comes up, it might 0:02:42.880 --> 0:02:45.320 turn out you like a different one better, and maybe 0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:47.480 you're even lukewarm on the one that you brought. And 0:02:47.560 --> 0:02:49.760 that's what has happened a lot. We had. One year, 0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:52.720 my good friend Brian other Brian, not You've not you 0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:58.119 friend Brian brought a two hundred dollar bottle of Middleton 0:02:58.919 --> 0:03:03.400 and he I previously described it as angels tears in 0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:08.880 a bottle, which I can understand. And then the first 0:03:08.880 --> 0:03:11.320 time it came up, he voted against it. Second time 0:03:11.320 --> 0:03:13.640 it came came up, voted against it again and knocked 0:03:13.680 --> 0:03:16.320 He knocked his own bottle out of our competition. 0:03:17.440 --> 0:03:21.080 That's like the sixteen seed knocking out the one seed 0:03:21.120 --> 0:03:23.480 in the n c DOAA tournament, which happened recently. I 0:03:23.480 --> 0:03:24.440 believe it was Virginia. 0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:26.160 Yeah, was it just last year? 0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:29.080 No, it was a a few years ago. And then 0:03:29.120 --> 0:03:32.639 they went on to win the national championship the next year, Virginia. 0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:36.240 I remember that because that was the final four in Minneapolis, Virginia. 0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:38.200 A few years ago. 0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:40.880 Yeah. Yeah, but they they were the first team to 0:03:40.920 --> 0:03:43.520 lose as the number one seed, and then the next 0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:46.120 year they came back and won the national championship. Pretty 0:03:46.160 --> 0:03:50.920 impressive rebound from the most embarrassing, yeah, accomplishment in college basketball. 0:03:51.000 --> 0:03:53.600 Right, So that's either going to galvanize you into a 0:03:53.600 --> 0:03:56.960 great team or it's going to go the opposite direction 0:03:57.040 --> 0:04:00.000 and it's going to spiral you down. In Virginia, obviously, 0:04:00.320 --> 0:04:03.760 you know they rebounded from it. An impressive job for them. 0:04:04.360 --> 0:04:06.400 Look at us breaking down and c doub play best. 0:04:06.480 --> 0:04:08.800 Yeah, that's well barely, it's about all that. 0:04:08.840 --> 0:04:09.680 Let's talk football. 0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:12.320 Now, let's talk football. Let's begin at the quarterback position. 0:04:12.400 --> 0:04:17.240 We have two notable unrestricted free agents there more Obviously, 0:04:17.279 --> 0:04:19.560 we don't think Gardner Minshew and Ryan Tannehill deserve a 0:04:19.600 --> 0:04:21.560 lot of time and we're not going to turn this 0:04:21.600 --> 0:04:24.599 into a like hour long session here, but let's start 0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:28.920 with Baker Mayfield coming off by I think, in most regards, 0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:33.279 the best year of his career when he was just 0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:35.680 sort of an afterthought when Tampa signed him and he 0:04:35.720 --> 0:04:38.080 turned out to be fantasy relevant for much of the season. 0:04:39.920 --> 0:04:43.039 Yeah, I mean he was. He wasn't guaranteed to start 0:04:43.440 --> 0:04:46.359 for the Bucks. Last year was basically came down to 0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:49.520 the last preseason game between Baker and Kyle Trask, and 0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:52.400 we know how that ended. Baker won the job and 0:04:52.440 --> 0:04:55.359 he never gave it back. Let's look back at his 0:04:55.400 --> 0:04:58.840 stats real quick from last year. Ninth in passing yards, 0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:03.360 Baker was. His twenty nine passing touchdowns were the sixth most. 0:05:04.200 --> 0:05:07.640 And of the six quarterbacks who threw more touchdown passes 0:05:07.640 --> 0:05:12.920 than Baker, only one of them through fewer interceptions than 0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:17.839 Baker Mayfield. Wow, and that was Dak Prescott. And back 0:05:17.839 --> 0:05:21.320 to those six quarterbacks who threw more touchdowns in Baker Mayfield, 0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:23.680 Patrick Mahomes was not one of them. 0:05:26.040 --> 0:05:29.120 Yeah, did not expect that going into the season that 0:05:29.160 --> 0:05:31.480 you get more touchdowns out of Baker Mayfield than Patrick 0:05:31.480 --> 0:05:34.320 Mahomes And they both played full seasons yep. 0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:37.160 And Baker had less picks than Mahomes he had more 0:05:37.279 --> 0:05:40.680 rushing touchdowns in Mahomes wown to zero. I was like, well, 0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:42.560 he must have had more fantasy points in Mahomes. 0:05:42.560 --> 0:05:43.000 He didn't. 0:05:43.320 --> 0:05:46.120 Mahomes beat him out on rushing yards. Essentially, he had 0:05:46.160 --> 0:05:48.159 like two hundred more rushing yards and that's how he 0:05:48.200 --> 0:05:51.280 beat out Patrick. I'm sorry how Patrick Mahomes beat out 0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.080 Baker Mayfield in terms of fantasy points. So he is 0:05:54.120 --> 0:05:56.080 a hot commodity, Like you said, he's a lot hotter 0:05:56.360 --> 0:05:59.120 commodity than he was last year. Basically, he was just 0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:02.200 a free you know, Tampa grabbed him off the street 0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:04.480 for free. But now we're looking at a return to 0:06:04.560 --> 0:06:07.960 Tampa Bay, which honestly isn't as appealing because Mike Evans 0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:08.560 might be gone. 0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:09.360 We'll talk about that. 0:06:09.960 --> 0:06:15.520 Yeah, So we're looking at like the Patriots, the Falcons, Raiders, Broncos, Steelers. 0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:18.880 Of all those, to me, the Falcons and the Raiders 0:06:18.880 --> 0:06:21.840 stand out most for the most appealing landing spot. So 0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:24.359 I'm hoping he ends up there. But I just feel 0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:27.280 like Tampa Bay is going to resign Baker, but without 0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:30.200 Mike Evans. I don't like his prospects as much. Assumably 0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:32.800 presumably without Mike Evans, So. 0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:37.760 Ye kind of with you on that Atlanta would be interesting, 0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:39.320 Raiders to be interesting. I don't think the Patriots are 0:06:39.360 --> 0:06:42.600 in because they're ridiculous if they don't take a quarterback 0:06:42.800 --> 0:06:45.960 at pick three. So we'll find out, but I don't 0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:48.040 think I think they'll use that pick on a quarterback. 0:06:48.320 --> 0:06:51.560 Let's talk Kirk Cousins, who was on an MVP pace 0:06:51.600 --> 0:06:54.560 when he blew out his achilles, leading the league in yards, 0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:57.600 tied for the lead league in touchdowns, and if you 0:06:57.640 --> 0:07:01.279 were to convert the Vikings, if you think Kirks was 0:07:01.320 --> 0:07:05.800 good for one extra touchdown a game over the Josh 0:07:05.880 --> 0:07:09.200 Dobbs and you know Nick Bullins, then he would have 0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:11.320 put the Vikings in a position where they would have 0:07:11.360 --> 0:07:14.320 been soundly in the playoffs. And I think Kirk Cousins 0:07:14.360 --> 0:07:18.160 would have been a very, very legit contender for MVP 0:07:18.680 --> 0:07:21.800 in a season in which Lamar Jackson won the MVP 0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:26.240 with twenty four passing touchdowns and I think five rushing touchdowns. 0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:26.760 That's it. 0:07:27.960 --> 0:07:30.600 And before Kirk quent down in what week eight nine, 0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:34.640 he was five fantasy quarterback just speaking fantasy. 0:07:34.440 --> 0:07:35.960 As a matter of fact, Yeah, I'm glad you brought 0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:37.760 that up, so let's talk about that. So when he 0:07:37.800 --> 0:07:40.560 went down, he was quarterback five in fantasy for a 0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:45.280 non rushing, like zero rushing quarterback. That's pretty good. He's 0:07:45.320 --> 0:07:47.560 still only playing half a season. He still finished his 0:07:47.640 --> 0:07:53.040 quarterback twenty four. Just pretty impressive year. Prior, Kirk Cousins 0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:56.800 was quarterback six before that, quarterback nine. So you know, 0:07:56.840 --> 0:08:00.000 he had been a solidly top ten quarterback for three 0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:02.840 straight seasons. Now you have to give a little bit 0:08:02.840 --> 0:08:07.120 of caution because of the Achilles, but never a mobile 0:08:07.120 --> 0:08:10.960 guy anyway, and doesn't to me. I'm not terribly worried 0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:13.680 about him coming back off that injury, especially with all 0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:15.880 the time they'll have to rehab from it. We just 0:08:15.920 --> 0:08:20.160 saw him dance three weeks ago, right, so I think 0:08:20.160 --> 0:08:23.360 he's doing okay. You already hit on some of the 0:08:23.440 --> 0:08:27.720 landing places for Cousins, Denver, Pittsburgh, Tampa if they don't go, 0:08:27.760 --> 0:08:30.760 Baker Mayfield, Atlanta. But the best fit is just to 0:08:30.800 --> 0:08:33.440 stay with Minnesota. With what we know that he's got here, 0:08:33.920 --> 0:08:37.840 Kirk Kirk and Kevin O'Connell really were hitting their stride 0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:41.520 in a big way. Presumably the team resigns Justin Jefferson 0:08:41.559 --> 0:08:44.280 they've got Jordan Addison and at some point they get TJ. 0:08:44.400 --> 0:08:46.320 Hockkinson back off of his knee injury. 0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:52.480 Well, yeah, isn't that a focal point to keeping Justin Jefferson? Apparently, 0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:56.480 is that they signs. I mean, Jefferson's almost given them 0:08:56.480 --> 0:09:00.640 an ultimatum at this point, like either sign Kirk, signed Kirk, 0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:02.720 or you're gonna lose us both. 0:09:03.320 --> 0:09:06.320 So what we know from Jefferson is super Bowl Week 0:09:06.320 --> 0:09:09.320 when he at Radio Row, he was pounding the table 0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:11.439 for Kirk Cousins at every stop, and he had been 0:09:11.440 --> 0:09:14.560 doing that since the latter part of the season and 0:09:14.640 --> 0:09:17.080 saying pretty much outright, you know, look at what we're 0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:19.320 struggling with with the other guys when we don't have 0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:24.360 Kirk and then Justin Jefferson. Recently, a report came media 0:09:24.360 --> 0:09:27.880 report came out and said that Jefferson says that if 0:09:27.920 --> 0:09:29.440 he's going to resign, the team has to have a 0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:33.079 solution in place at quarterback. Totally. I don't blame him, 0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:36.920 and obviously Kirk would qualify for that. Let's go to 0:09:37.000 --> 0:09:40.360 the running backs, Brian, you can go as it me 0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:42.360 or you first. I think it's I think it is 0:09:42.520 --> 0:09:45.760 you first. Let's take. Let's take a look at your 0:09:45.760 --> 0:09:46.720 first running. 0:09:46.440 --> 0:09:48.560 Back off the I'll go first because I got the King. 0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:53.280 Derek Henry. Yeah, yeah, Dereck Henry. Future Hall of Famer. 0:09:53.640 --> 0:09:55.640 He should be in the Hall of Fame already based 0:09:55.679 --> 0:09:57.760 on his career numbers. We'll sort of dive into those 0:09:57.800 --> 0:10:01.040 in a minute, but he turned thirty last month, going 0:10:01.080 --> 0:10:04.920 into his ninth season in twenty twenty four. So of course, 0:10:04.960 --> 0:10:08.120 the age old question for running backs is he have 0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:11.640 enough tread on the tires. Last year, two hundred and 0:10:11.640 --> 0:10:15.200 eighty carries. That's still like belcow usage, especially in this 0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:18.680 day and age, And despite averaging a career low four 0:10:18.679 --> 0:10:22.160 point two yards per carry, Henry finished with nearly twelve 0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:26.640 hundred rushing yards twelve rushing touchdowns that gave him six 0:10:26.760 --> 0:10:32.040 straight seasons with double digit rushing scores. Twenty eight catches 0:10:32.120 --> 0:10:35.320 last year thirty three and twenty twenty two. Now those 0:10:35.320 --> 0:10:38.160 aren't huge numbers, but those are the two highest season 0:10:38.200 --> 0:10:41.680 catch totals in his career for the last two years, 0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:44.199 so he's still he's more versatile than ever, you can 0:10:44.200 --> 0:10:46.360 put it that way. So I mean two hundred and 0:10:46.400 --> 0:10:48.520 eighty carries, he was down from about like three hundred 0:10:48.559 --> 0:10:51.880 and thirty carries last year, so he's not gonna be 0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:56.679 his three hundred plus carry seasons likely over. But I'm 0:10:56.760 --> 0:10:59.040 in on Derrick Henry. Wherever he ends up. He's already 0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:01.520 got the hype video up on Twitter. You know, he's 0:11:01.840 --> 0:11:05.800 doing bench presses with a car on his stomach and 0:11:05.840 --> 0:11:07.959 he's like chewing through metal chord. 0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:08.720 I don't know. 0:11:09.280 --> 0:11:12.600 He's a beast. And you know, places where he could 0:11:12.640 --> 0:11:19.760 end up would be really intriguing, like Baltimore, how about Dallas, Minnesota. 0:11:20.040 --> 0:11:23.320 I think Minnesota could use a guy like Derrick Henry 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:26.760 in the backfield. Chargers. I mean, there's a lot of 0:11:26.800 --> 0:11:30.559 teams looking at running backs Philadelphia. So wherever he ends up, 0:11:30.840 --> 0:11:33.440 I'm in on Derrick Henry. And right now I believe 0:11:33.480 --> 0:11:36.079 he's like, it's of course way too really best ball 0:11:36.120 --> 0:11:40.880 adp but he's going like fourth round, fifth round. 0:11:40.800 --> 0:11:44.160 Tyja Spears is going before him. Spears is going end 0:11:44.160 --> 0:11:47.480 of third, beginning of fourth. And on the presumption that 0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:48.880 Derrick Henry is gonna be gone. 0:11:50.720 --> 0:11:53.400 But I mean, what if he ends up on Baltimore Dallas. 0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:56.679 It's a clear lead back. We're talking it's late second 0:11:56.760 --> 0:11:58.720 round at latest. I think with Henry. 0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:00.560 So I don't be interesting to see if Henry ends 0:12:00.640 --> 0:12:03.360 up in a more of a time share a little 0:12:03.400 --> 0:12:05.600 bit like he had with Taja Spears. All the Spears 0:12:05.640 --> 0:12:07.560 was more like, you know, he was getting like six 0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:10.880 seven touches a game. But what if he what if 0:12:10.880 --> 0:12:13.640 he what if they compliment him with somebody who's more 0:12:13.640 --> 0:12:16.760 of a pure pass catching back That might be really 0:12:16.760 --> 0:12:19.840 interesting to see if you know how that backfield could 0:12:19.880 --> 0:12:22.400 work and what that would mean for Derrick Henry if 0:12:22.440 --> 0:12:25.319 he's not, you know, going to be an eighteen to 0:12:25.440 --> 0:12:26.920 twenty carry a game guy. 0:12:28.280 --> 0:12:30.320 Yeah, I think that the eighteen to twenty is gone, 0:12:30.320 --> 0:12:32.600 but I think that the fifteen carries not to twelve 0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:35.320 to fifteen per game. A couple catches and yeah, and 0:12:35.400 --> 0:12:37.920 a with the like he's the queer thunder of any 0:12:37.960 --> 0:12:40.280 kind of thunder and lightning backfield for. 0:12:40.320 --> 0:12:43.800 Sure, the ultimate thunder right there, Derrick Henry, and he'll 0:12:43.800 --> 0:12:46.320 get all the goal line work in almost any scenario 0:12:46.800 --> 0:12:51.200 where he falls. Let's talk say Kwon Barkley. You know, 0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:53.080 when we look back at his whole career, never as 0:12:53.080 --> 0:12:55.200 good as he was as a rookie. Tragically, when he 0:12:55.320 --> 0:12:58.520 was unbelievable. That season one rookie of the year put 0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:01.079 up two thousand yards, fifteen ten touchdowns in five yards 0:13:01.120 --> 0:13:03.920 per carry as a rookie and then never hit any 0:13:03.920 --> 0:13:07.440 of those metrics again in any season after that. And 0:13:07.480 --> 0:13:10.120 then last year just in a really tough position. You know, 0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:16.000 Daniel Jones goes down. The quarterbacking was somewhere between awful 0:13:16.679 --> 0:13:19.360 and subpar for most of the year, really all of 0:13:19.400 --> 0:13:23.600 the year, and teams just played to stop Saquon Barkley largely. 0:13:24.120 --> 0:13:27.760 Now kind of interesting. Saquon's not old, but he's also 0:13:27.800 --> 0:13:30.160 not young anymore. He's twenty seven years old. He's been 0:13:30.200 --> 0:13:32.960 hurt a lot. You know, he had the full ACL injury, 0:13:33.520 --> 0:13:36.680 high ankle sprains, just a lot of nagging injuries for him. 0:13:37.559 --> 0:13:41.240 Last year. He was running back thirteen year before that, 0:13:41.320 --> 0:13:45.199 running back six year before that, thirty four year before that, 0:13:45.440 --> 0:13:47.360 running back one hundred and twenty because he missed almost 0:13:47.360 --> 0:13:52.440 the entire season. So, you know, it feels like Saquon 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:56.200 Barkley could have some bell kow left in him. But 0:13:56.360 --> 0:13:58.920 I think the best fit for him, honestly, is in 0:13:59.000 --> 0:14:01.080 more of a split bat that backfield, more of a 0:14:01.120 --> 0:14:03.640 sixty forty where he can just stay healthy. You know 0:14:03.679 --> 0:14:06.400 what happens if Saquon Barkley doesn't have to carry the 0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:10.360 ball touch the ball two hundred and twenty five times. 0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:12.360 What if he can be one hundred and eighty more 0:14:12.400 --> 0:14:16.560 effective times where he can play seventeen games and stay fresher. 0:14:17.080 --> 0:14:18.520 I'd love to see him in more of a one 0:14:18.559 --> 0:14:21.680 to two punch. What if he goes you know, we 0:14:21.680 --> 0:14:24.960 were talking about Tennessee. What if he replaces What if 0:14:25.000 --> 0:14:27.200 he's a part of a one two punch with Tad J. Spears. 0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:30.400 What if he goes to New England replacing Ezekiel Elliott 0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:33.600 and pairing with Remandre Stevenson. You know, that could be 0:14:33.640 --> 0:14:36.400 an interesting fit for him as an as a high 0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:37.880 end pass catching back. 0:14:38.880 --> 0:14:41.680 What about the Minnesota Vikings. Does that doing anything for you? 0:14:41.760 --> 0:14:43.960 It does? I have a lot of interest in that. 0:14:44.120 --> 0:14:48.400 Vikings haven't had a great receiving back in Kevin O'Connell's tenure, 0:14:48.880 --> 0:14:52.040 and it would be fascinating to see what Saquon Barkley 0:14:52.040 --> 0:14:54.360 could do. If Kevin O'Connell decides he's finally going to 0:14:54.400 --> 0:14:56.280 start throwing the running back, something he has not done 0:14:56.280 --> 0:15:00.640 in the past, that would be interesting Saquon Bark right there. 0:15:01.200 --> 0:15:03.480 Let's go to our next running back and that is 0:15:05.320 --> 0:15:11.000 I'll Pollard. Oh, Tony Pollard. What a disappointing season, Brian, Yeah. 0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:15.280 You can argue he was the biggest you bust in 0:15:15.360 --> 0:15:19.080 fantasy football last year, early second round pick, so I'm 0:15:19.120 --> 0:15:21.080 taking him in the You know, some people were pegging 0:15:21.160 --> 0:15:22.760 him as he was gonna be the RB one because 0:15:22.760 --> 0:15:26.680 we saw for years working behind Zeke Elliott pretty much 0:15:26.720 --> 0:15:29.840 out producing Zeke Elliott as the secondary back, and we're like, 0:15:29.920 --> 0:15:32.960 just give Pollard the bell cow usage and he's gonna 0:15:33.000 --> 0:15:36.240 be a top five fantasy running back, right And he 0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:39.160 pretty much got that usage last year, but he did 0:15:39.160 --> 0:15:42.080 not produce. Let's let's take a quick look back at 0:15:42.120 --> 0:15:45.280 his last two years. So in twenty twenty two, Pollard 0:15:45.360 --> 0:15:48.040 was third in yards per carry five point two. That 0:15:48.120 --> 0:15:51.480 dropped to twenty ninth in twenty twenty three. Four yards 0:15:51.520 --> 0:15:55.720 per carry twenty twenty two, Tony Pollard was first in 0:15:55.880 --> 0:15:59.800 yards after contact per carry at three point eight last 0:15:59.840 --> 0:16:03.640 year year twenty third a two point nine. In twenty 0:16:03.680 --> 0:16:08.520 twenty two, Pollard was second and explosive run rate thirty fifth. 0:16:08.600 --> 0:16:12.040 Yeah, man, it just because all the highlights we had 0:16:12.080 --> 0:16:15.000 two seasons ago. And if I asked you right now 0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:19.240 to conjure up in your head a Tony Pollard highlight 0:16:19.520 --> 0:16:23.760 from last year, can you do it? No? 0:16:23.880 --> 0:16:25.440 Most of them are him getting stuffed at the one 0:16:25.520 --> 0:16:31.360 yard right. There was some bad luck there for sure. 0:16:31.560 --> 0:16:34.640 And actually, I mean he did come on stronger towards 0:16:34.680 --> 0:16:38.160 the end of the year. We'll give him that. Now. 0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:44.280 Pro Football Focus grades and ratings don't necessarily translate to 0:16:44.320 --> 0:16:47.840 fantasy points, but he was the highest graded runner by 0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:51.760 PFF from from weeks eleven to eighteen. Oh okay last year. 0:16:51.960 --> 0:16:56.080 And the usage was what was kind of head scratching, 0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:58.880 because in the Zeke days, you know, they use him 0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:01.120 in a world read him out more, but they just 0:17:01.280 --> 0:17:05.080 ran him up the middle mercilessly. Last year. They kind 0:17:05.080 --> 0:17:07.359 of just mixed up the usage where they should have 0:17:07.560 --> 0:17:12.080 given Rico Dowdell, who by all means was a would 0:17:12.080 --> 0:17:15.040 have been a better draft pick as if he took 0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:18.080 Dowdell in the last round over Pollard in the second round. 0:17:18.440 --> 0:17:21.520 But long story short, I hope he gets another chance 0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:24.080 on a different team. We kind of mentioned the the 0:17:24.160 --> 0:17:30.360 sexy landing spots in Baltimore, Tennessee, not really Tennessee with spears, 0:17:30.400 --> 0:17:34.719 but Houston. Sorry to say, Damian Pierce charge might not 0:17:34.760 --> 0:17:38.040 be the bell cow you wanted, but obviously, but I. 0:17:37.960 --> 0:17:39.800 Don't think he's a Pollard's not a bell cow. I 0:17:39.840 --> 0:17:41.600 don't want him to go anywhere where he has to 0:17:41.600 --> 0:17:44.920 be a bell cow, do you. 0:17:43.720 --> 0:17:45.800 No, not really, but I want him to go somewhere 0:17:45.800 --> 0:17:48.760 where he is in more of a split. It just utilized. 0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:52.040 His strengths are not between the tackles, that they're outside 0:17:52.040 --> 0:17:54.160 of them, and he was just running the A gap 0:17:54.240 --> 0:17:57.520 B gaps over and over again by Dallas, which is 0:17:57.520 --> 0:18:00.080 not where he found success in the year's past. So 0:18:00.160 --> 0:18:02.960 I'd like to see him get a fresh start somewhere else. 0:18:02.960 --> 0:18:05.800 He was tagged franchise tagged by the Cowboys in twenty 0:18:05.840 --> 0:18:08.480 twenty three, so highly unlikely they use that on an again. 0:18:08.640 --> 0:18:11.880 No chance. I don't think he's back in Dallas either. 0:18:12.200 --> 0:18:15.399 I'll mention again another pairing. I'd like Ramandre Stevenson Tony 0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:19.800 Pollard and he'd follow Ezekiel Elliott's path to New England. 0:18:19.880 --> 0:18:24.040 Wouldn't that That'd be great. Josh Jacobs last year was 0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:28.680 the highest scoring running back in fantasy football. Cratered hard 0:18:28.840 --> 0:18:32.560 this year, posting half the yards and half the touchdowns 0:18:32.600 --> 0:18:35.560 despite only missing four games, and he ran for only 0:18:35.600 --> 0:18:39.000 three and a half yards per carry, and Josh Jacobs's replacement, 0:18:39.040 --> 0:18:42.159 Samir White, ran for almost a yard more per carry 0:18:42.240 --> 0:18:47.680 in obviously the same offense, which could suggest that the 0:18:47.840 --> 0:18:49.919 Raiders are not going to use him very much. You know, 0:18:50.000 --> 0:18:52.360 Jacobs is relatively young. He's just twenty six years old, 0:18:52.359 --> 0:18:54.600 but he's kind of an old twenty six. He's got 0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:58.760 one thousand, five hundred touches in his career, and you 0:18:58.840 --> 0:19:02.240 get the feeling the last last two seasons where the 0:19:02.320 --> 0:19:05.800 Raiders have strong harmed him, strong armed him contractually. We're 0:19:05.880 --> 0:19:10.199 just all about taking taking tread off his tires and 0:19:10.240 --> 0:19:12.199 then kicking him to the curb and free agency. I 0:19:12.200 --> 0:19:14.160 don't think he's going to be a Raider next year, 0:19:14.200 --> 0:19:14.760 do you, Brian? 0:19:16.960 --> 0:19:18.640 No, I don't think they got there. They've got their 0:19:18.960 --> 0:19:20.679 their money's worth out of them, and then some like 0:19:20.720 --> 0:19:23.800 you said, they're kind of used and abused them per se, 0:19:23.880 --> 0:19:26.920 which is a kind of you know, we've seen running 0:19:26.920 --> 0:19:29.520 backs get that treatment and then they fall off hard 0:19:29.840 --> 0:19:32.320 at their new teams, like the Marco Murray is one 0:19:32.320 --> 0:19:36.040 of the classic cases, and so yeah, we'll see where 0:19:36.040 --> 0:19:36.640 he ends up. 0:19:37.560 --> 0:19:39.760 This is you know what you'll have to decide, listeners, 0:19:40.280 --> 0:19:43.080 was Josh Jacob's bad year last year? Was it just 0:19:43.119 --> 0:19:45.639 a one off dip or was it the beginning of 0:19:45.680 --> 0:19:48.240 the end for a high volume back, Because you know 0:19:48.280 --> 0:19:50.160 we've seen, you know, we've seen both of those scenarios 0:19:50.160 --> 0:19:53.840 play themselves out. At twenty six, he still could have 0:19:54.040 --> 0:19:57.400 some good years left in him, but it could also 0:19:57.480 --> 0:19:59.280 just be the end of the road because we've seen 0:19:59.280 --> 0:20:03.480 it both ways. I suspect that in a better offense, 0:20:03.600 --> 0:20:06.840 Josh Jacobs could still be a good player, and I 0:20:06.840 --> 0:20:08.600 don't think he's a change of pace guy. I want 0:20:08.600 --> 0:20:11.040 to see him in an offense where Josh Jacobs can 0:20:11.080 --> 0:20:13.119 still be the workhorse, where he can catch forty or 0:20:13.160 --> 0:20:17.320 fifty passes like he's done before. So Cincinnati, assuming Mixon 0:20:17.400 --> 0:20:20.040 moves on, which I encourage them to do, that would 0:20:20.080 --> 0:20:25.119 be a fantastic landing spot for Josh Jacobs. Houston, as 0:20:25.160 --> 0:20:29.840 you mentioned, Singletary's an unrestricted free agent. The Chargers assuming 0:20:29.920 --> 0:20:32.600 Eckler moves on, makes sense. How about Washington They could 0:20:32.640 --> 0:20:34.800 use a gritty runner who can actually break a tackle. 0:20:35.040 --> 0:20:37.920 They haven't had that in years. Maybe not an ideal 0:20:37.960 --> 0:20:40.199 landing spot in terms of the quality of overall offense 0:20:40.200 --> 0:20:43.720 in Washington, but that would make sense. Minnesota would make sense. 0:20:44.000 --> 0:20:46.520 So there's some nice landing spots for Josh Jacobs out there, 0:20:46.560 --> 0:20:49.040 But if I could pick one, Cincinnati would be my 0:20:49.119 --> 0:20:49.840 top choice. 0:20:50.720 --> 0:20:54.639 Yeah, that's an ideal landing spot on a landing spot 0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:57.520 for another position. We'll get to get too soon, but 0:20:57.800 --> 0:21:00.240 we should have prefaced before we go to break. To 0:21:00.280 --> 0:21:04.000 preface the running backs, I feel that it's it's a 0:21:04.040 --> 0:21:06.439 great year for free the free agent class, and that 0:21:06.800 --> 0:21:10.600 it's probably the weakest incoming rookie class of running backs 0:21:11.000 --> 0:21:16.760 that I can remember. I mean experts like thor and Eystrom. 0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:19.080