1 00:00:02,400 --> 00:00:06,400 Speaker 1: This is the Late with your host JJ zachera JJ 2 00:00:06,600 --> 00:00:14,120 Speaker 1: zacher reson what's up everyone, It's JJ zachar Esen in 3 00:00:14,160 --> 00:00:18,079 Speaker 1: this episode eleven hundred of the Late Round Fantasy Football Podcast. 4 00:00:19,600 --> 00:00:22,320 Speaker 1: Thanks for tuning in. You guys know it by now, 5 00:00:22,320 --> 00:00:24,520 Speaker 1: but the Late Round Prospect Guide is still available to 6 00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:27,360 Speaker 1: purchase on Lateround dot com. It's got everything you need 7 00:00:27,400 --> 00:00:30,560 Speaker 1: to crush your rookie drafts and it's very much analytically driven. 8 00:00:31,280 --> 00:00:33,320 Speaker 1: In the guide, you can learn about what goes into 9 00:00:33,360 --> 00:00:36,080 Speaker 1: the zapp models. You get ZAP scores for these prospects, 10 00:00:36,120 --> 00:00:38,920 Speaker 1: you get my rankings. There's year two profiles, let's not 11 00:00:38,920 --> 00:00:42,000 Speaker 1: forget about those, and so much more. Check it all 12 00:00:42,040 --> 00:00:44,839 Speaker 1: out over on lateround dot com. Now let's get to 13 00:00:44,880 --> 00:00:49,440 Speaker 1: these mailbag questions. The first question this week is from 14 00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:52,159 Speaker 1: my friend Joey Wright at the Joey Wright on Twitter. 15 00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:57,600 Speaker 1: He says, what is your process on Klon Black? Now, 16 00:00:57,640 --> 00:01:00,480 Speaker 1: without a doubt, Joey's asking this question because there's a 17 00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:03,520 Speaker 1: really strange interaction this week on Twitter between myself and 18 00:01:03,560 --> 00:01:06,600 Speaker 1: someone else, and that interaction had to do with Klon 19 00:01:06,680 --> 00:01:10,160 Speaker 1: Black and on this show, in this podcast feed, since 20 00:01:10,200 --> 00:01:13,200 Speaker 1: the draft, I don't think I've really broken down Klon 21 00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:17,600 Speaker 1: Black the prospect. I've mostly talked about San Francisco reaching 22 00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:21,240 Speaker 1: for him based on mock draft data, so objectively from 23 00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:24,120 Speaker 1: an analytical perspective, with the things that I look at, 24 00:01:24,160 --> 00:01:27,280 Speaker 1: what do we have with Klon Black? Well, first off, 25 00:01:27,319 --> 00:01:29,600 Speaker 1: I think overall there's a lot of red flags to 26 00:01:29,680 --> 00:01:32,680 Speaker 1: his profile. Not being an NFL combine invite was a 27 00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:35,520 Speaker 1: little bit weird, but I won't even hold that against him. 28 00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:37,640 Speaker 1: What I will hold against him is the fact that 29 00:01:37,720 --> 00:01:40,399 Speaker 1: he's already twenty four and a half years old. Now, 30 00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:42,080 Speaker 1: this isn't the same that I care about his age 31 00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:45,039 Speaker 1: from the perspective of having him through a second contract, 32 00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:48,080 Speaker 1: or that I'm worried about him breaking down quickly in 33 00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:51,960 Speaker 1: the NFL. It's that generally younger running back prospects are 34 00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:55,200 Speaker 1: better than older ones. There's more room for growth than 35 00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:57,200 Speaker 1: if they enter the league at a younger age. That 36 00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:00,000 Speaker 1: signals to us that they're talented. They were able to 37 00:02:00,280 --> 00:02:03,720 Speaker 1: do that at a younger age, oftentimes leaving college early. 38 00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:06,480 Speaker 1: Now I'm coming off of an episode where I talked 39 00:02:06,480 --> 00:02:09,240 Speaker 1: about the impact of this current college landscape with nil 40 00:02:09,360 --> 00:02:12,400 Speaker 1: and transfer rules all that stuff, and how that's driving 41 00:02:12,520 --> 00:02:16,680 Speaker 1: prospect age up, but it's generally driving the age up 42 00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:20,280 Speaker 1: for undrafted players in later round picks, not Day two once, 43 00:02:20,720 --> 00:02:22,680 Speaker 1: so we're bound to see some of this happening a 44 00:02:22,680 --> 00:02:24,760 Speaker 1: little bit more, where we get a twenty four year 45 00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:27,840 Speaker 1: old player getting drafted on Day two just because there's 46 00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:31,160 Speaker 1: more of them entering the NFL right now, that doesn't 47 00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:34,520 Speaker 1: mean that we ignore the age signal, though we admittedly 48 00:02:34,600 --> 00:02:36,919 Speaker 1: don't have a lot of data of top one hundred 49 00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:39,520 Speaker 1: running backs, we're past their twenty fourth birthday when they 50 00:02:39,520 --> 00:02:42,720 Speaker 1: were drafted. In fact, the only other top one hundred 51 00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:45,600 Speaker 1: pick at this age since twenty eleven in the zapmodel 52 00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:49,000 Speaker 1: database is RJ. Harvey, and I think we'd all agree 53 00:02:49,040 --> 00:02:53,080 Speaker 1: that right now today Harvey was overvalued as a dynasty asset, 54 00:02:53,639 --> 00:02:56,040 Speaker 1: largely due to landing spot. And it's not to say 55 00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:59,239 Speaker 1: that things can't turn around. I'm just saying, right now, 56 00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:03,040 Speaker 1: versus where we were a year ago, RJ. Harvey's value 57 00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:07,120 Speaker 1: isn't looking amazing. We know that age matters even in 58 00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:10,440 Speaker 1: this nil era, and honestly, we can even ignore that 59 00:03:10,600 --> 00:03:12,240 Speaker 1: raw age if you want to and just look at 60 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:15,680 Speaker 1: age adjusted production, like if Kaylon Black is twenty four 61 00:03:15,720 --> 00:03:17,720 Speaker 1: and a half years old, but he produced right away. 62 00:03:17,880 --> 00:03:20,280 Speaker 1: He had a sweet production profile. When you adjust for 63 00:03:20,360 --> 00:03:23,560 Speaker 1: when that production happened, then we might be more forgiving 64 00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:27,120 Speaker 1: about his overall age. But according to my numbers, that's 65 00:03:27,160 --> 00:03:31,040 Speaker 1: not really the case. I will say this Black didn't 66 00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:33,840 Speaker 1: even get a high risk Draft Capital delta tag within 67 00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:36,400 Speaker 1: the ZAP Model, which means the model has seen plenty 68 00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:39,360 Speaker 1: of worst picks, which is kind of surprising. He's got 69 00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:41,920 Speaker 1: pretty good size, and even his pro day adjusted speed 70 00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:45,240 Speaker 1: score it's solid enough. Meanwhile, he had a best season 71 00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:48,600 Speaker 1: reception share around ten percent. That's a forty seven percentile number. 72 00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:51,240 Speaker 1: He had an adjusted yards per team pass attempt, adjusted 73 00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:54,880 Speaker 1: for age, and strength of schedule of point six that's 74 00:03:54,920 --> 00:03:58,560 Speaker 1: in his best season. That's also a forty seven percentile number. 75 00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:02,240 Speaker 1: But that's percent tile among all prospects in the ZAP 76 00:04:02,240 --> 00:04:05,920 Speaker 1: Model database. All prospects meaning the guys who were drafted 77 00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:08,240 Speaker 1: are the guys who went to the combine since twenty eleven. 78 00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:11,560 Speaker 1: When we look solely at picks thirty three through one hundred, 79 00:04:11,680 --> 00:04:14,360 Speaker 1: so day two picks, we're removing the round one guys here, 80 00:04:14,760 --> 00:04:17,680 Speaker 1: it's closer to a thirty first percentile number. And that's 81 00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:20,920 Speaker 1: for adjusted receiving yards per team pass attempt. Now, look, 82 00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:23,920 Speaker 1: one number doesn't make or break a prospect. We've seen 83 00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:26,320 Speaker 1: hits from players with an adjusted yards per team pass 84 00:04:26,320 --> 00:04:29,240 Speaker 1: attempt this low. When we look at players in the 85 00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:31,680 Speaker 1: ZAP model database who were below the point seven mark, 86 00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:35,039 Speaker 1: remember Kaylon Black was point six, we find thirty seven 87 00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:37,919 Speaker 1: running backs who were drafted between pick thirty three and 88 00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:41,240 Speaker 1: pick one hundred since twenty eleven. Of those thirty seven, 89 00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:45,400 Speaker 1: Eddie Lacy, Le'Veon Bell, Carlos Hide, Tevin Coleman, David Montgomery, 90 00:04:45,400 --> 00:04:48,760 Speaker 1: and Miles Sanders each produced an RB two type season, 91 00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:51,920 Speaker 1: and Quinn Shawn Judkins is on that list too. He'll 92 00:04:51,920 --> 00:04:55,880 Speaker 1: probably get there. Here's the issue, though, many of those 93 00:04:55,920 --> 00:04:59,400 Speaker 1: players were really good on the ground in college. I 94 00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:01,800 Speaker 1: have a just did total yards per team play in 95 00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:05,160 Speaker 1: the model too, and each one of those players cleared 96 00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:08,560 Speaker 1: one point seventy four, which means nothing to many of you. 97 00:05:08,800 --> 00:05:12,080 Speaker 1: I get that, But Kaylon Black is at one point 98 00:05:12,080 --> 00:05:14,800 Speaker 1: one to two in his best season, and that's an 99 00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:18,600 Speaker 1: adjusted total yards per team play. That's where I start 100 00:05:18,640 --> 00:05:22,000 Speaker 1: to get concerned about his outlook. I certainly don't think 101 00:05:22,040 --> 00:05:24,360 Speaker 1: that he's an elite receiver. But I think at one 102 00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:27,200 Speaker 1: point I mentioned that his receiving numbers were kind of awful, 103 00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:30,839 Speaker 1: but they're not awful. I'd say they're below average for sure, 104 00:05:31,480 --> 00:05:32,960 Speaker 1: but it's not to the point where I think he's 105 00:05:33,000 --> 00:05:35,760 Speaker 1: like incapable of playing some role as a pass catcher. 106 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:38,640 Speaker 1: But we have to remember why we're looking at receiving 107 00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:41,800 Speaker 1: metrics for running backs when we're prospecting. It's because it 108 00:05:41,880 --> 00:05:45,120 Speaker 1: shows how well rounded they are. It shows how frequently 109 00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:47,560 Speaker 1: their teams were trying to get them the ball. It 110 00:05:47,640 --> 00:05:51,880 Speaker 1: shows intent. It's not just about capability of being able 111 00:05:51,880 --> 00:05:53,920 Speaker 1: to handle a ten percent target share in the NFL. 112 00:05:54,760 --> 00:05:59,000 Speaker 1: It's talent evaluation. And with Black, he's at least below 113 00:05:59,080 --> 00:06:01,560 Speaker 1: average there. I don't know how you could point to 114 00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:03,599 Speaker 1: any metric for him and say that he's got a 115 00:06:03,640 --> 00:06:07,039 Speaker 1: good or great receiving profile. But yeah, I've seen worse. 116 00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:11,039 Speaker 1: Where I haven't really seen worse is in total yards 117 00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:14,159 Speaker 1: per team play, at least for this kind of draft capital. 118 00:06:14,920 --> 00:06:17,880 Speaker 1: Among that same subset of backs who've been drafted between 119 00:06:17,880 --> 00:06:20,240 Speaker 1: thirty three and one hundred over the last fifteen years, 120 00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:23,919 Speaker 1: blacks adjusted total yards per team play rate is the 121 00:06:24,160 --> 00:06:28,480 Speaker 1: absolute worst, and again, we've seen some hits from running 122 00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:32,200 Speaker 1: backs with low total yards per team play rates. James 123 00:06:32,200 --> 00:06:34,279 Speaker 1: Cook is one of them. He was at one point 124 00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:37,120 Speaker 1: one point nine and adjusted total yards per team play 125 00:06:37,120 --> 00:06:41,200 Speaker 1: in his best season. Antonio Gibson's was one point one seven. 126 00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:45,880 Speaker 1: He's had his moments. The difference is that those two players, 127 00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:49,159 Speaker 1: they were excellent and adjusted receiving yards per team pass 128 00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:52,200 Speaker 1: attempt If we lose some parameters here a little bit, 129 00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:54,520 Speaker 1: and we look at players with adjusted receiving yards per 130 00:06:54,520 --> 00:06:57,440 Speaker 1: team pass attempt rates below point eight and then adjusted 131 00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:00,920 Speaker 1: total yards per team play rates below one point five. Remember, 132 00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:04,560 Speaker 1: Kaylon Black is at point six and one point one two, 133 00:07:04,720 --> 00:07:09,080 Speaker 1: significantly below those thresholds. We get the following day two 134 00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:13,360 Speaker 1: running backs Jeric McKinnon, who wasn't a traditional running back prospect, 135 00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:18,760 Speaker 1: Terrence West, Matt Jones, Damian Harris, Funny Enough, ty Davis Price, 136 00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:22,680 Speaker 1: and then Trey Benson. Let's move that even further north. 137 00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:25,600 Speaker 1: Let's go one point seven in yards per team play 138 00:07:25,800 --> 00:07:29,520 Speaker 1: and point nine in yards per team pass attempt. That 139 00:07:29,560 --> 00:07:35,680 Speaker 1: added Alex Green, Stephen Ridley, Kristin, Michael Kenyan, Drake, Darrenton Evans, 140 00:07:35,840 --> 00:07:39,120 Speaker 1: Tank Bigsby, and Marshawn Lloyd in addition to the other 141 00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:42,960 Speaker 1: backs that I already mentioned. I mean, flat out, plain 142 00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:46,560 Speaker 1: and simple, this is not a good profile. I genuinely 143 00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:49,400 Speaker 1: don't know how you would spin this profile to look 144 00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:53,040 Speaker 1: above average. At the very least. The problem is that 145 00:07:53,080 --> 00:07:56,440 Speaker 1: the prospect himself isn't the only thing that matters, especially 146 00:07:56,440 --> 00:07:59,440 Speaker 1: for running backs. There's no doubt that the system that 147 00:07:59,480 --> 00:08:01,680 Speaker 1: he's in right now with Kyle Shanahan can give him 148 00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:04,600 Speaker 1: a boost. There's no doubt that running back production in 149 00:08:04,640 --> 00:08:08,160 Speaker 1: fantasy football is tied more closely to simple coaching decisions 150 00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:11,400 Speaker 1: than wide receiver production is. This is why the model 151 00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:14,520 Speaker 1: is still weighing draft capital and still isn't saying fade 152 00:08:14,560 --> 00:08:18,000 Speaker 1: at all costs. And that's the key. I mentioned this 153 00:08:18,040 --> 00:08:19,640 Speaker 1: in the Late Round show a couple of weeks ago, 154 00:08:19,880 --> 00:08:23,800 Speaker 1: But my rankings they've had Black ahead of ADP. Not 155 00:08:23,920 --> 00:08:26,960 Speaker 1: dramatically because I don't think he's a great prospect, but 156 00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:29,280 Speaker 1: it was ahead because I'm trying to recognize range of 157 00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:32,000 Speaker 1: outcomes here, and I also know that weird things can 158 00:08:32,040 --> 00:08:35,840 Speaker 1: happen in prospect evaluation. If he were a second round 159 00:08:35,880 --> 00:08:38,680 Speaker 1: rookie pick, he'd be an easy fade but he's not 160 00:08:38,760 --> 00:08:41,520 Speaker 1: at all, which is why within this bad rookie class, 161 00:08:41,520 --> 00:08:43,400 Speaker 1: I don't think he's a fade. I don't think he's 162 00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:45,199 Speaker 1: a good prospect, but I don't think there's a lot 163 00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:48,320 Speaker 1: of good prospects in this class. Am I excited about 164 00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:51,920 Speaker 1: his potential? Not really. I thought there were more talented 165 00:08:52,000 --> 00:08:54,760 Speaker 1: running backs to choose from when San Francisco made that pick. 166 00:08:55,520 --> 00:08:58,880 Speaker 1: And historically, players with these types of numbers they don't 167 00:08:58,960 --> 00:09:01,400 Speaker 1: pan out at a very high rate at all. In fact, 168 00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:04,800 Speaker 1: they just don't pan out. But again, it's a really 169 00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:08,240 Speaker 1: weak class, and crazy things happen in prospecting all the time. 170 00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:10,800 Speaker 1: You have to weigh the pros and cons. You have 171 00:09:10,840 --> 00:09:13,960 Speaker 1: to weigh the range of outcomes. And with Kaylon Black, 172 00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:16,280 Speaker 1: it's fine if you want to throw a third round 173 00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:20,040 Speaker 1: rookie pick at him. That's really not costly at all. 174 00:09:20,480 --> 00:09:23,120 Speaker 1: You can just say I'll plug my nose and just 175 00:09:23,160 --> 00:09:26,920 Speaker 1: look at situation. But overall, do I think Kaylon Black's 176 00:09:26,920 --> 00:09:32,320 Speaker 1: a good prospect? No, I don't. This best question from 177 00:09:32,320 --> 00:09:36,080 Speaker 1: at sideshow Tim too it says at some point Jonathan 178 00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:39,360 Speaker 1: Brooks has to be healthy again. The Panthers backfield seems 179 00:09:39,360 --> 00:09:42,280 Speaker 1: wide open. Canal has loved him coming out of Texas. 180 00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:44,600 Speaker 1: He seems to have a reasonable path to shooting up 181 00:09:44,640 --> 00:09:48,360 Speaker 1: in average draft position. Or am I missing something? You're 182 00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:51,280 Speaker 1: not missing anything. I think Brooks is a very, very 183 00:09:51,320 --> 00:09:54,400 Speaker 1: intriguing player who I'll probably be in on this year 184 00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:57,280 Speaker 1: when season long drafts start. I've already taken him in 185 00:09:57,320 --> 00:10:00,240 Speaker 1: Best Ball drafts. I think some people with pain me 186 00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:02,760 Speaker 1: as a Chuba Hubbard hater because last year I faded 187 00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:05,280 Speaker 1: him a cost. But I think Hubbard is a fine 188 00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:08,240 Speaker 1: running back. My issue is I don't think he's an 189 00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:11,480 Speaker 1: excellent pass catcher, and so he doesn't bring enough upside 190 00:10:11,520 --> 00:10:14,320 Speaker 1: for me to want to be aggressive with him. As 191 00:10:14,360 --> 00:10:16,000 Speaker 1: of today, He's not a fade for me in twenty 192 00:10:16,040 --> 00:10:19,240 Speaker 1: twenty six, but I do have my concerns. For one, 193 00:10:19,720 --> 00:10:21,720 Speaker 1: we learned last year through a study that I did, 194 00:10:21,880 --> 00:10:24,360 Speaker 1: that middle round running backs their yards per route run 195 00:10:24,360 --> 00:10:27,880 Speaker 1: in the previous season can be pretty predictive at the extremes. 196 00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:30,199 Speaker 1: And look, Hubbard was a little bit better last year 197 00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:32,760 Speaker 1: in that department at a one point zero one rate 198 00:10:32,800 --> 00:10:36,080 Speaker 1: according to PFF, but he's been below that one mark 199 00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:38,440 Speaker 1: in two of his last three seasons and three of 200 00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:41,080 Speaker 1: his five seasons in the league. He has not been 201 00:10:41,080 --> 00:10:44,360 Speaker 1: an a fishing pass catcher, and I saw them bringing 202 00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:47,640 Speaker 1: Rico Dowdell and drafting Trevor Etn last year a pass 203 00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:50,480 Speaker 1: catching specialist because they need a little bit more help there. 204 00:10:51,480 --> 00:10:53,680 Speaker 1: But Brooks can bring that pass catching element to this 205 00:10:53,720 --> 00:10:57,840 Speaker 1: Panthers offense. He's got that well rounded profile. He also 206 00:10:57,880 --> 00:10:59,840 Speaker 1: looked pretty good in the Zapp model. We just haven't 207 00:10:59,840 --> 00:11:01,760 Speaker 1: been able to see him on the NFL field for 208 00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:05,160 Speaker 1: obvious reasons. Now, look, Brooks has not been able to 209 00:11:05,200 --> 00:11:07,800 Speaker 1: stay healthy, and a big reason I don't have Chewpa 210 00:11:07,880 --> 00:11:10,480 Speaker 1: Hubbard as a clear fade right now is because of that. 211 00:11:11,080 --> 00:11:14,640 Speaker 1: If things do go south, Cheopa Hubbard just on volume alone, 212 00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:17,800 Speaker 1: can be fine in fantasy football. He's not the player 213 00:11:17,800 --> 00:11:20,440 Speaker 1: that I'm gonna aggressively target, like I said, but I 214 00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:23,040 Speaker 1: do think he's gonna have a very good floor because 215 00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:25,920 Speaker 1: unlike last year, where we had some data on Rico 216 00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:29,319 Speaker 1: Dowdell being a decent NFL back, we have no data 217 00:11:29,559 --> 00:11:32,760 Speaker 1: on Jonathan Brooks and we have no idea if he's 218 00:11:32,800 --> 00:11:36,280 Speaker 1: gonna look the same after these injuries. But as a 219 00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:39,839 Speaker 1: standalone late round target, yes, this is the kind of 220 00:11:39,880 --> 00:11:45,400 Speaker 1: player Jonathan Brooks that I love throwing darts. At this 221 00:11:45,559 --> 00:11:48,240 Speaker 1: last question from Blue Skies from at Leif Peterson, it 222 00:11:48,280 --> 00:11:52,720 Speaker 1: says any udfas that you're keeping an eye on this summer. Yeah, 223 00:11:52,720 --> 00:11:55,520 Speaker 1: there's plenty of udfas, but there's one in particular who 224 00:11:55,559 --> 00:11:59,240 Speaker 1: I'm interested in, and that's John Michael Gillenborg. I'd mentioned 225 00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:01,640 Speaker 1: Gillenborg is a deep sleeper pre draft, and then he 226 00:12:01,640 --> 00:12:03,760 Speaker 1: didn't get drafted, which is sad because he had a 227 00:12:03,840 --> 00:12:06,360 Speaker 1: ninety first percentile heighth adjusted speed score in the ZAP 228 00:12:06,400 --> 00:12:10,000 Speaker 1: model and his breakout score wasn't amazing due to program adjustments. 229 00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:13,240 Speaker 1: It was fifty third percentile, but that's still not bad 230 00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:17,199 Speaker 1: given the program adjustments. And I say program adjustments because 231 00:12:17,200 --> 00:12:20,520 Speaker 1: he went to Wyoming. At Wyoming, though he had a 232 00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:23,280 Speaker 1: best season yards parole run rate in the eighty eight percentile, 233 00:12:23,600 --> 00:12:25,640 Speaker 1: in a career yards parole run rate in the eighty 234 00:12:25,679 --> 00:12:29,000 Speaker 1: six percentile. And in Kansas City you obviously get Andy 235 00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:32,000 Speaker 1: Reid and Patrick Mahomes, but Travis Kelcey's on the verge 236 00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:34,840 Speaker 1: of retirement. Noah Gray would probably be the next man 237 00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:37,720 Speaker 1: up if Travis kelce retires, But it's not like He's 238 00:12:37,760 --> 00:12:42,040 Speaker 1: just undeniably good and there are mostly projects behind him, 239 00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:46,640 Speaker 1: so why not interesting profile, pretty good situation. Let's see 240 00:12:46,640 --> 00:12:49,239 Speaker 1: what happens there. And I also think that Jeff Caldwell 241 00:12:49,640 --> 00:12:53,400 Speaker 1: on that same team, he's also an interesting UDFA. He's 242 00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:57,360 Speaker 1: an absolute size speed freak, and Kansas City needs some 243 00:12:57,400 --> 00:13:00,600 Speaker 1: help at wide receiver. Now, look, I highly doubt either 244 00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:03,080 Speaker 1: of these players are going to become something because it's 245 00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:06,800 Speaker 1: very very rare to see udfas really work out. I 246 00:13:06,800 --> 00:13:09,040 Speaker 1: think I've only correctly called two of them over the 247 00:13:09,120 --> 00:13:11,880 Speaker 1: last like six or seven years. James Robinson was one, 248 00:13:12,280 --> 00:13:15,520 Speaker 1: Jalen Coker was another. At least that's who I remember most, 249 00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:20,360 Speaker 1: But those are two names to watch out for. The 250 00:13:20,440 --> 00:13:23,319 Speaker 1: nice question from raw Luga on Patreon. It says most 251 00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:25,960 Speaker 1: everyone has Cede Lamb and George Pickens and their top 252 00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:29,320 Speaker 1: ten wide receivers, but Dak Prescott barely cracks the top 253 00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:32,920 Speaker 1: twelve quarterbacks. Do you think Dak will hold back both 254 00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:37,719 Speaker 1: wide receivers from actually finishing as wide receiver ones. No, 255 00:13:37,800 --> 00:13:41,320 Speaker 1: because that offense and Dak himself it's very fantasy friendly. 256 00:13:42,000 --> 00:13:44,120 Speaker 1: Something I do want to call out, though, is the 257 00:13:44,120 --> 00:13:46,840 Speaker 1: way that we're thinking about this. I've done some research 258 00:13:46,840 --> 00:13:48,600 Speaker 1: over the last couple of years, and while it's not 259 00:13:48,640 --> 00:13:50,960 Speaker 1: bad to have a quarterback who has high end wide receivers, 260 00:13:51,440 --> 00:13:54,120 Speaker 1: we should actually care more if the quarterback has no 261 00:13:54,280 --> 00:13:57,360 Speaker 1: high end talent. There's a little bit more signal from 262 00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:01,280 Speaker 1: what I've found. Typically, not always, but so typically those 263 00:14:01,320 --> 00:14:04,920 Speaker 1: are the quarterbacks who tend to underperform versus expectation when 264 00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:07,880 Speaker 1: they don't have high end wide receivers or pass catchers 265 00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:11,800 Speaker 1: according to ADP, but Dak not ranking in the top 266 00:14:11,840 --> 00:14:14,360 Speaker 1: twelve fantasy quarterbacks has just as much to do about 267 00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:17,720 Speaker 1: rushing as it does anything else. He's not super mobile, 268 00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:20,560 Speaker 1: and the market is adjusted to quarterback rushing over the 269 00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:23,040 Speaker 1: last three to five years. So at the top of 270 00:14:23,120 --> 00:14:26,800 Speaker 1: quarterback ADPs we're getting like josh Allen, Lamar Jackson. But 271 00:14:26,840 --> 00:14:29,560 Speaker 1: then there's Jayden Daniels who's still getting drafted high, Drake 272 00:14:29,640 --> 00:14:31,880 Speaker 1: May and so on, and they should I'm not saying 273 00:14:31,880 --> 00:14:35,240 Speaker 1: that's wrong, that's actually right in my opinion. I'm saying 274 00:14:35,320 --> 00:14:37,640 Speaker 1: looking at the ranking of Dak Prescott and saying that 275 00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:40,960 Speaker 1: he can't support two wide receivers because of that ranking 276 00:14:41,480 --> 00:14:45,280 Speaker 1: isn't super relevant these days because quarterback ADP is going 277 00:14:45,360 --> 00:14:49,520 Speaker 1: to skew towards those mobile players. It's a pass friendly offense, 278 00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:51,600 Speaker 1: and those targets are going to be funneled to those 279 00:14:51,640 --> 00:14:54,840 Speaker 1: wide receivers. As long as Pickens is there in playing, 280 00:14:55,440 --> 00:14:57,440 Speaker 1: I wouldn't worry about Dak, who's been one of the 281 00:14:57,440 --> 00:15:00,000 Speaker 1: better quarterbacks in the league since he's entered the NFL. 282 00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:05,880 Speaker 1: There are far worse situations out there. The last question 283 00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:08,520 Speaker 1: this week is from at sam heard Shipping. It says, 284 00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:11,560 Speaker 1: as fantasy players who aren't statisticians or spend their time 285 00:15:11,600 --> 00:15:14,960 Speaker 1: researching data, only use analytics and insights from the pros, 286 00:15:15,360 --> 00:15:18,480 Speaker 1: what should I think of Jordan Tyson being so drastically 287 00:15:18,480 --> 00:15:21,800 Speaker 1: different in so many models drafted him one oh two 288 00:15:21,840 --> 00:15:24,960 Speaker 1: because of you, but so many others think that he 289 00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:29,040 Speaker 1: won't hit. Now, Honestly, I haven't seen other models that 290 00:15:29,080 --> 00:15:31,600 Speaker 1: are saying that Tyson won't hit. If I'm just being honest, 291 00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:35,120 Speaker 1: like most models will have him wide receiver three at worst, 292 00:15:35,160 --> 00:15:38,280 Speaker 1: wide receiver one at best, which I think is honestly 293 00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:41,920 Speaker 1: pretty reasonable. I obviously like him as the wide receiver one, 294 00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:44,600 Speaker 1: but I can see why a model might like Carnell 295 00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:48,280 Speaker 1: Tate or Mackay Lemon more for Tate, he had better 296 00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:51,640 Speaker 1: draft capital. You've got program adjustments or teammates score stuff 297 00:15:51,680 --> 00:15:55,200 Speaker 1: that favors him. He's in early declare. McKay Lemon is 298 00:15:55,240 --> 00:15:58,440 Speaker 1: two and he had a really strong production profile. Depending 299 00:15:58,440 --> 00:16:00,960 Speaker 1: on some metrics, you could argue that Lemon had a 300 00:16:00,960 --> 00:16:03,000 Speaker 1: better production profile than both, that he has the best 301 00:16:03,000 --> 00:16:06,600 Speaker 1: production profile in this entire class. Breakout score, though, is 302 00:16:06,600 --> 00:16:09,120 Speaker 1: really reliable for me. So I lean on that, and 303 00:16:09,160 --> 00:16:11,960 Speaker 1: I lean on Tyson, But there are many many ways 304 00:16:12,000 --> 00:16:14,960 Speaker 1: to analyze production. Now, if I were to assume that 305 00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:18,200 Speaker 1: models really do disagree with Jordan Tyson, I'd say it's 306 00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:20,800 Speaker 1: probably because he missed a lot of time in college. 307 00:16:21,160 --> 00:16:23,520 Speaker 1: And people could look at that a lot differently, Like 308 00:16:23,880 --> 00:16:25,880 Speaker 1: I use a pro rated number in the Zapp model, 309 00:16:25,880 --> 00:16:27,720 Speaker 1: so as long as the player plays six games, his 310 00:16:27,760 --> 00:16:31,120 Speaker 1: season's gonna count. Others may look at season long data 311 00:16:31,840 --> 00:16:33,840 Speaker 1: that to me is a little bit unfair. But again, 312 00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:37,400 Speaker 1: maybe they're finding signal through doing that. And I kind 313 00:16:37,440 --> 00:16:39,480 Speaker 1: of already alluded to this, But Tyson's not an early 314 00:16:39,480 --> 00:16:44,040 Speaker 1: declare receiver either. Some people really weigh that factor. I 315 00:16:44,120 --> 00:16:47,280 Speaker 1: care more about age adjusted production, even though early declare 316 00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:50,400 Speaker 1: status is an input in the ZAP model, but some 317 00:16:50,480 --> 00:16:52,880 Speaker 1: might weigh that more heavily than I am, and they 318 00:16:52,960 --> 00:16:55,640 Speaker 1: might not care about age as much as the college 319 00:16:55,720 --> 00:16:58,520 Speaker 1: year year one as a freshman, year two as a sophomore, 320 00:16:58,520 --> 00:17:01,800 Speaker 1: and so on. There are loads and loads of numbers 321 00:17:01,800 --> 00:17:04,320 Speaker 1: that we can look at in so many ways to 322 00:17:04,400 --> 00:17:09,080 Speaker 1: manipulate those numbers. College football data, unfortunately is not super robust, 323 00:17:09,119 --> 00:17:12,119 Speaker 1: but we collectively as a fantasy community have come up 324 00:17:12,160 --> 00:17:15,240 Speaker 1: with a lot of cool ways to measure things. And 325 00:17:15,320 --> 00:17:17,679 Speaker 1: some of those things will be in one model but 326 00:17:17,720 --> 00:17:20,600 Speaker 1: not another, and sometimes for some players that can make 327 00:17:20,600 --> 00:17:23,040 Speaker 1: a difference. Though I stand by the fact that I 328 00:17:23,080 --> 00:17:26,159 Speaker 1: haven't seen Tyson further down than wide receiver three in 329 00:17:26,160 --> 00:17:28,760 Speaker 1: a model. But I'm not looking at every single model 330 00:17:28,800 --> 00:17:31,600 Speaker 1: that's out there, obviously, But I think you asking this 331 00:17:31,720 --> 00:17:33,959 Speaker 1: question raises a point that I think is very valid, 332 00:17:34,240 --> 00:17:36,959 Speaker 1: and that's how do I know what models to follow 333 00:17:36,960 --> 00:17:39,440 Speaker 1: and what to rely on? Now. I did talk about 334 00:17:39,440 --> 00:17:41,880 Speaker 1: this more in depth a couple of mailbag episodes ago, 335 00:17:42,640 --> 00:17:44,640 Speaker 1: but i'd make sure that you're listening to an analyst 336 00:17:44,680 --> 00:17:48,760 Speaker 1: who's being open and transparent, talking honestly about the inputs 337 00:17:49,040 --> 00:17:52,240 Speaker 1: and their process. If they're just throwing names into a 338 00:17:52,280 --> 00:17:56,439 Speaker 1: list without explaining the why. That's a huge problem. But 339 00:17:56,480 --> 00:17:59,159 Speaker 1: there could be differing results analytically because the way we 340 00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:02,840 Speaker 1: calculate things can be slightly different. Even just purely what 341 00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:05,480 Speaker 1: we're solving can be different. I'm looking at B two 342 00:18:05,600 --> 00:18:07,720 Speaker 1: s or the best two seasons across the player's first 343 00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:10,480 Speaker 1: three years of his career. Someone else might be looking 344 00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:13,000 Speaker 1: at top twenty four performances or something across a player's 345 00:18:13,040 --> 00:18:17,280 Speaker 1: rookie contract. Those small things can dictate what the inputs 346 00:18:17,280 --> 00:18:19,760 Speaker 1: are gonna be in a certain model. I guess what 347 00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:22,119 Speaker 1: I'm saying here is just because something is numbers driven 348 00:18:22,119 --> 00:18:26,600 Speaker 1: and analytical doesn't mean it's objectively true. We're humans trying 349 00:18:26,600 --> 00:18:30,120 Speaker 1: to predict human behavior. We're trying to forecast how well 350 00:18:30,200 --> 00:18:32,880 Speaker 1: humans are gonna play a game. That means not only 351 00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:35,800 Speaker 1: is the result pretty volatile, but the process in which 352 00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:38,240 Speaker 1: we get to that result that's gonna be volatile too, 353 00:18:39,119 --> 00:18:41,800 Speaker 1: no matter the method, whether it's purely film based or 354 00:18:41,840 --> 00:18:45,399 Speaker 1: purely analytics based. But I see it no differently than 355 00:18:45,440 --> 00:18:47,480 Speaker 1: how I see how. There are differing ideas for film 356 00:18:47,520 --> 00:18:52,320 Speaker 1: based analysis. In fact, i'd strongly strongly argue that numbers 357 00:18:52,359 --> 00:18:55,840 Speaker 1: based prospecting is gonna align more closely to other numbers 358 00:18:55,840 --> 00:19:00,000 Speaker 1: based prospecting processes than film based ones will, just because 359 00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:03,760 Speaker 1: there's more objective overlap, and because, in my opinion, when 360 00:19:03,760 --> 00:19:06,159 Speaker 1: you prospect through numbers, it's a little bit easier to 361 00:19:06,160 --> 00:19:08,720 Speaker 1: fix any issues that you might be having, and as 362 00:19:08,760 --> 00:19:11,120 Speaker 1: you fix them and as you get better results, you're 363 00:19:11,119 --> 00:19:13,240 Speaker 1: more likely gonna align with others who are doing the 364 00:19:13,280 --> 00:19:16,160 Speaker 1: exact same thing. That just doesn't mean that there's gonna 365 00:19:16,160 --> 00:19:19,080 Speaker 1: be one hundred percent overlap. I'm gonna have different results 366 00:19:19,240 --> 00:19:22,720 Speaker 1: than Dwayne McFarlane and his Rookie Supermodel. And if you 367 00:19:22,880 --> 00:19:25,520 Speaker 1: the consumer would rather lean in on the players where 368 00:19:25,520 --> 00:19:28,879 Speaker 1: there's serious overlap between my analysis and Dwayne's, although I 369 00:19:28,920 --> 00:19:31,240 Speaker 1: do think that Dwayne likes Tyson, But if you'd rather 370 00:19:31,359 --> 00:19:34,760 Speaker 1: just draft the true overlap players, maybe there's some validity 371 00:19:34,800 --> 00:19:37,840 Speaker 1: to that. Maybe that's a process that you can take 372 00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:40,879 Speaker 1: on that has really good results. I don't have the 373 00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:42,920 Speaker 1: answer to that, because I'm trying to give you, guys, 374 00:19:42,920 --> 00:19:44,840 Speaker 1: what I think is the best analysis or the best 375 00:19:44,840 --> 00:19:48,399 Speaker 1: analysis that I can give, and it's analysis that I 376 00:19:48,560 --> 00:19:51,200 Speaker 1: know has been successful, not just through how I've used 377 00:19:51,240 --> 00:19:54,160 Speaker 1: it in my leagues, but how others have used it. 378 00:19:54,160 --> 00:19:57,520 Speaker 1: It won't be perfect. Jordan Tyson is not guaranteed to hit, 379 00:19:58,200 --> 00:20:00,000 Speaker 1: but I'm confident that what I'm doing is gonna hel 380 00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:02,000 Speaker 1: help you out in the long run because I've tested 381 00:20:02,000 --> 00:20:04,480 Speaker 1: it and I've lived it, and there are others in 382 00:20:04,520 --> 00:20:06,680 Speaker 1: the fantasy space who can claim the exact same thing. 383 00:20:06,760 --> 00:20:09,280 Speaker 1: The guy I just mentioned, Dwayne, not only a friend, 384 00:20:09,400 --> 00:20:11,840 Speaker 1: but he's a great analyst too. You just have to 385 00:20:11,880 --> 00:20:14,600 Speaker 1: find the mix that works best for you, and you 386 00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:16,800 Speaker 1: have to understand that we're not always going to see 387 00:20:16,800 --> 00:20:20,080 Speaker 1: things the exact same way because we're projecting something that's 388 00:20:20,080 --> 00:20:23,880 Speaker 1: inherently very volatile. That doesn't mean that we can't find 389 00:20:23,880 --> 00:20:27,159 Speaker 1: a serious edge though. That's it for today's show, though, 390 00:20:27,200 --> 00:20:28,760 Speaker 1: thanks to all of you for listening. If you had 391 00:20:28,800 --> 00:20:31,480 Speaker 1: subscribed to the Late Round Fantasy Football podcast, make sure 392 00:20:31,480 --> 00:20:33,680 Speaker 1: you are by searching for it pretty much anywhere podcasts 393 00:20:33,720 --> 00:20:35,720 Speaker 1: can be found, and to follow me on Twitter and 394 00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:39,080 Speaker 1: on Blue Sky at Late Round QB. Thanks for listening 395 00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:42,160 Speaker 1: this week everyone, I greatly appreciate it. Enjoy your weekend 396 00:20:42,320 --> 00:20:43,440 Speaker 1: and I'll catch you next week.