1 00:00:02,440 --> 00:00:11,840 Speaker 1: This is the with your host, JJ Zachera, JJ Zacherson. 2 00:00:12,200 --> 00:00:14,960 Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, is JJ Zacharyeson, the editor in chief 3 00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:17,600 Speaker 1: over at number fire dot com and this is episode 4 00:00:17,640 --> 00:00:20,040 Speaker 1: twenty eight of the Late Round podcast, one of the 5 00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:22,600 Speaker 1: many shows that are part of the number fire podcast network. 6 00:00:22,880 --> 00:00:24,720 Speaker 1: Thanks for tuning in. I feel like I haven't talked 7 00:00:24,720 --> 00:00:26,360 Speaker 1: to you guys in ages. I was busy over the 8 00:00:26,360 --> 00:00:28,680 Speaker 1: Fourth of July weekend with some friends in town, and 9 00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:32,080 Speaker 1: I hope everyone enjoyed their Fourths as much as I did. 10 00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:34,320 Speaker 1: But we're back to the grind and fantasy football season 11 00:00:34,400 --> 00:00:36,959 Speaker 1: is starting to heat up, so let's dig into these 12 00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:42,000 Speaker 1: mailbag questions. The first one is from Twitter at Adrian 13 00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:45,160 Speaker 1: Underscore Charlie. He says, am I alone in fading round 14 00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:47,839 Speaker 1: four to five running backs feels like Round one to 15 00:00:47,920 --> 00:00:51,080 Speaker 1: three are juicy, but can't get hyped on guys in 16 00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:53,400 Speaker 1: the four to five range. So the fourth round on 17 00:00:53,440 --> 00:00:57,920 Speaker 1: Fantasy Football Calculator dot com consists of Time Montgomery, Carloside, 18 00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:00,440 Speaker 1: and Spencer Ware and then the fifth round and includes 19 00:01:00,760 --> 00:01:04,800 Speaker 1: Doug Martin, Adrian Peterson, C. J. Anderson, and Amer Abdullah. 20 00:01:04,959 --> 00:01:08,839 Speaker 1: That's roughly the same according to FANTASYADHD dot COM's MFL 21 00:01:08,880 --> 00:01:11,399 Speaker 1: ten best ball data, but there are fewer running backs 22 00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:13,960 Speaker 1: being drafted in that area by degenerates who have been 23 00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:17,080 Speaker 1: drafting in those drafts since March. In order for those 24 00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:19,679 Speaker 1: players to be fade worthy, you'd like to see guys 25 00:01:19,720 --> 00:01:23,200 Speaker 1: going after them who are fairly interchangeable from a projection standpoint, 26 00:01:23,360 --> 00:01:25,880 Speaker 1: and guys with similar floor and ceilings. And I think 27 00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:28,600 Speaker 1: you're right, Adrian. I think there are players going in 28 00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:31,800 Speaker 1: the sixth and seventh round who feel just as safe 29 00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:36,319 Speaker 1: and have the same risk profile as those players do 30 00:01:36,520 --> 00:01:38,400 Speaker 1: in the fourth and the fifth. For instance, if you 31 00:01:38,440 --> 00:01:41,600 Speaker 1: want a floor, Frank Gore is a decent enough RB 32 00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:44,000 Speaker 1: two who you can get in the middle rounds. If 33 00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:46,440 Speaker 1: you want a ceiling, you can look at Mike Gillisley, 34 00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:49,160 Speaker 1: whom I love because he could easily outscore any of 35 00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:51,200 Speaker 1: those players that I mentioned, given that he's in that 36 00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:54,240 Speaker 1: New England offense. Eddie Lacy another guy who has tons 37 00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:56,560 Speaker 1: of upside given the offense that he's in, and the 38 00:01:56,640 --> 00:01:58,080 Speaker 1: quarterback who's under center. 39 00:01:57,960 --> 00:01:58,840 Speaker 2: For the Seahawks. 40 00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:03,120 Speaker 1: Honestly, look at at my projections and analyzing this situation time, 41 00:02:03,160 --> 00:02:05,600 Speaker 1: Montgomery is the only fourth and fifth round running back 42 00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:09,400 Speaker 1: that I really dig when balancing floor and ceiling at 43 00:02:09,400 --> 00:02:11,400 Speaker 1: a higher level. Though, something to keep in mind is 44 00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:14,600 Speaker 1: that this isn't totally abnormal. I wish I could show 45 00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:16,240 Speaker 1: you the chart, but this is a podcast and you 46 00:02:16,320 --> 00:02:18,480 Speaker 1: only get to hear my sweet sweet voice. But if 47 00:02:18,480 --> 00:02:21,880 Speaker 1: you chart average draft position by Fantasy points scored, so 48 00:02:21,919 --> 00:02:25,320 Speaker 1: what players did at season's end versus where they were drafted, 49 00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:28,840 Speaker 1: the trend line shows some sort of leveling out around 50 00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:32,240 Speaker 1: pick fifty over the last half decade. What this means 51 00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:35,040 Speaker 1: is that as you move down one pick to the next, 52 00:02:35,240 --> 00:02:37,920 Speaker 1: you're gaining less of an edge points wise at the 53 00:02:37,960 --> 00:02:41,320 Speaker 1: position after that pick. So while I agree with you 54 00:02:41,600 --> 00:02:44,240 Speaker 1: and think that your observation is correct, I think this 55 00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:46,880 Speaker 1: is an occurrence that we should almost feel every single season. 56 00:02:47,240 --> 00:02:50,600 Speaker 1: Snake drafts are not linear, meaning one pick to the 57 00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:53,160 Speaker 1: next pick to the next pick doesn't decrease by the 58 00:02:53,160 --> 00:02:56,919 Speaker 1: same expected point value. Once you hit rounds four and five, 59 00:02:57,240 --> 00:02:59,440 Speaker 1: the difference in players from there to round six and 60 00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:02,960 Speaker 1: seven isn't all that significant, and I think that's exaggerated 61 00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:05,760 Speaker 1: at running back because the NFL has moved to so 62 00:03:05,880 --> 00:03:10,679 Speaker 1: many committee systems. This next question is an email from 63 00:03:10,760 --> 00:03:13,840 Speaker 1: Matthew Rice, I shortened it a bit for podcast purposes. 64 00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:16,560 Speaker 1: He says, Hey, JJ just started listening to the podcast 65 00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:18,880 Speaker 1: this week, and I'm a believer in the zero running 66 00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:21,880 Speaker 1: back strategy. Here's what I'm struggling with. I was wondering 67 00:03:21,919 --> 00:03:23,920 Speaker 1: if you could explain the value of tight ends in 68 00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:26,960 Speaker 1: a PPR league using the zero RB strategy. In a 69 00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:29,320 Speaker 1: mock draft, I landed Gronk with my third pick in 70 00:03:29,360 --> 00:03:32,919 Speaker 1: a twelve person draft and thought that wasn't terrible. Should 71 00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:34,840 Speaker 1: I value him the same as a top tier wide 72 00:03:34,880 --> 00:03:37,720 Speaker 1: receiver or does the volatility of the position lessen his 73 00:03:37,840 --> 00:03:40,000 Speaker 1: value and increase my chances of a wide receiver with 74 00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:44,320 Speaker 1: higher upside? Matt, the beautiful part about analyzing flex spots 75 00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:47,200 Speaker 1: and fantasy football is that you can actually look at 76 00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:50,160 Speaker 1: the number of points scored across positions rather than. 77 00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:51,200 Speaker 2: Just within positions. 78 00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:53,960 Speaker 1: But don't think the supply and demand aspect of the 79 00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:57,080 Speaker 1: game doesn't matter as a result of this. For instance, 80 00:03:57,560 --> 00:04:00,040 Speaker 1: let's just pretend, in a hypothetical world we'll call this 81 00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:03,600 Speaker 1: world Jeff Fisherland, that fantasy team defense could be played 82 00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:06,480 Speaker 1: at the flex spot. And let's pretend that defenses generally 83 00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:10,680 Speaker 1: score more points, not significantly more, but more than running backs, 84 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:11,760 Speaker 1: wide receivers. 85 00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:12,040 Speaker 2: And tight ends. 86 00:04:12,200 --> 00:04:16,159 Speaker 1: That doesn't mean you should heavily prioritize team defense. Like 87 00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:18,880 Speaker 1: the podcast on adjusting to League Settings taught you, or 88 00:04:18,920 --> 00:04:20,680 Speaker 1: hopefully taught you, I won't go as far to say 89 00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:23,039 Speaker 1: that everything I say is so easy to consume or 90 00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:26,280 Speaker 1: makes total sense, But what that episode hopefully taught you 91 00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:28,960 Speaker 1: is that you should look at roster requirements first and 92 00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:31,400 Speaker 1: foremost in your league to get an idea of the 93 00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:34,120 Speaker 1: supply and demand of that league. So if you're starting 94 00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:36,479 Speaker 1: just one team defense, and you can play that team 95 00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:39,680 Speaker 1: defense in the flex, but if you're starting, say four 96 00:04:39,760 --> 00:04:43,200 Speaker 1: running backs and six wide receivers, despite that defense being 97 00:04:43,279 --> 00:04:46,200 Speaker 1: significantly better in the Flex, the demand of the other 98 00:04:46,240 --> 00:04:48,800 Speaker 1: positions in your starting lineup should still dictate a wide 99 00:04:48,839 --> 00:04:52,279 Speaker 1: out and or a running back heavy approach in your draft. 100 00:04:52,440 --> 00:04:54,640 Speaker 1: So back to your question, the inherent value of tight 101 00:04:54,720 --> 00:04:58,120 Speaker 1: ends is less compared to wide receivers in running backs 102 00:04:58,320 --> 00:05:02,240 Speaker 1: because most leagues just one tight end. That means more 103 00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:05,000 Speaker 1: will be available on the waiver wire and more usable 104 00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:08,280 Speaker 1: ones will be available later in drafts. That makes a 105 00:05:08,320 --> 00:05:11,719 Speaker 1: player like Rob Gronkowski less valuable because you can get 106 00:05:11,800 --> 00:05:14,599 Speaker 1: say Kyle Rudolph in round nine or ten and still 107 00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:17,159 Speaker 1: feel pretty decent about the position. If you can flex 108 00:05:17,200 --> 00:05:19,760 Speaker 1: the tight end position, they do become more valuable as 109 00:05:19,760 --> 00:05:22,120 Speaker 1: you're able to play them in more spots in your lineup. 110 00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:24,240 Speaker 1: The problem is that tight ends as a whole don't 111 00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:26,080 Speaker 1: score a ton of points compared to running backs and 112 00:05:26,080 --> 00:05:28,840 Speaker 1: wide receivers. Last year was a down year for tight ends, 113 00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:32,160 Speaker 1: but Travis Kelce, the top tight end, ranked twenty eighth 114 00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:34,480 Speaker 1: in scoring among running backs and wide receivers and tight 115 00:05:34,600 --> 00:05:38,760 Speaker 1: ends Ronk the year prior was fifteenth. Basically, it'd be 116 00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:42,520 Speaker 1: hard to justify placing him then with the elite wide 117 00:05:42,560 --> 00:05:46,320 Speaker 1: receivers because even if he finishes, say tenth in total 118 00:05:46,400 --> 00:05:50,520 Speaker 1: scoring non quarterback scoring, that is this season, you're ignoring 119 00:05:50,560 --> 00:05:53,080 Speaker 1: the opportunity cost and that you're not getting a wide 120 00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:55,800 Speaker 1: out or a running back with that early pick, getting 121 00:05:55,880 --> 00:05:59,440 Speaker 1: Grounk instead, And there's a positional scarcity issue in doing that. 122 00:06:00,200 --> 00:06:03,880 Speaker 1: Overall ranking, despite being tenth overall in points scored, should 123 00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:06,920 Speaker 1: be lowered a bit because of that positional scarcity. By 124 00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:10,479 Speaker 1: how much is the question, and that to me is 125 00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:12,919 Speaker 1: dependent upon how you feel about your first pick or 126 00:06:12,920 --> 00:06:15,600 Speaker 1: your second pick, and the way your draft is projected 127 00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:17,560 Speaker 1: to go. I don't mind him in the third round, though. 128 00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:20,120 Speaker 1: I think that's strong value for a player that can 129 00:06:20,200 --> 00:06:24,479 Speaker 1: still give you a significant edge this season. This next 130 00:06:24,480 --> 00:06:27,640 Speaker 1: one is from Twitter at shocker Manor. Last year around 131 00:06:27,640 --> 00:06:30,520 Speaker 1: week ten to eleven, you discussed Flacco as a positive 132 00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:33,599 Speaker 1: regression candidate in the touchdown rate department. Is he still 133 00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:36,559 Speaker 1: for twenty seventeen? So I did discuss this last season 134 00:06:36,600 --> 00:06:39,680 Speaker 1: because Flacco was on pace to break yardage versus touchdown 135 00:06:39,680 --> 00:06:42,520 Speaker 1: records last season, but in the wrong way. Basically, he 136 00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:44,600 Speaker 1: had way too many passing yards for the number of 137 00:06:44,680 --> 00:06:46,560 Speaker 1: touchdowns that he had thrown. And even at the end 138 00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:49,120 Speaker 1: of the season, Flaco averaged almost two hundred and sixteen 139 00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:52,239 Speaker 1: yards per touchdown pass, which was a bottom five number 140 00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:54,760 Speaker 1: among relevant quarterbacks, and he had a three point zero 141 00:06:54,839 --> 00:06:57,719 Speaker 1: percent touchdown rate when his career rate is three point 142 00:06:57,800 --> 00:07:00,720 Speaker 1: eight percent. So yes, I do think think he's a 143 00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:04,600 Speaker 1: positive regression candidate. The problem with Flacco in single quarterback 144 00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:06,840 Speaker 1: leagues is that he's never shown much of a ceiling 145 00:07:06,839 --> 00:07:08,839 Speaker 1: in the past. Last year was the first time he 146 00:07:08,839 --> 00:07:11,040 Speaker 1: threw for over four thousand yards in a season, and 147 00:07:11,080 --> 00:07:13,480 Speaker 1: his highest touchdown total in the season was twenty seven, 148 00:07:13,480 --> 00:07:15,920 Speaker 1: which was done in twenty fourteen. When you can get 149 00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:19,360 Speaker 1: so many good quarterbacks late, it seems odd to focus 150 00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:24,000 Speaker 1: on Joe Flacco in a regular fantasy football format best 151 00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:25,960 Speaker 1: ball I can understand, But in leagues where you can 152 00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:29,400 Speaker 1: adjust and play by matchup and go for ceiling, Flaco 153 00:07:29,480 --> 00:07:31,480 Speaker 1: does not fit the bill. With that being said, I 154 00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:34,200 Speaker 1: think he's a great second quarterback in two quarterback leagues 155 00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:37,720 Speaker 1: and twenty fifteen he had five top twelve performances in 156 00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:41,000 Speaker 1: ten games played, which is actually really strong at the position. 157 00:07:41,440 --> 00:07:43,800 Speaker 1: That year, he played Denver in Week one and was 158 00:07:43,880 --> 00:07:46,760 Speaker 1: just smoked, But after that game he had four top 159 00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:50,679 Speaker 1: eight performances and as I said, five top twelve ones. Granted, 160 00:07:50,680 --> 00:07:52,520 Speaker 1: the Ravens threw the ball a lot that year and 161 00:07:52,520 --> 00:07:54,600 Speaker 1: they've led the league in pass attempts over the last 162 00:07:54,600 --> 00:07:57,200 Speaker 1: two seasons. I expect that number to drop for reasons 163 00:07:57,240 --> 00:08:00,520 Speaker 1: I've discussed on this podcast before. So if that volume dips, 164 00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:04,559 Speaker 1: he'll need slightly better efficiency. I think he can given 165 00:08:04,560 --> 00:08:07,400 Speaker 1: the positive regression coming, but that also is a reason 166 00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:08,239 Speaker 1: to not love. 167 00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:10,320 Speaker 2: Him as your late round quarterback. This season. 168 00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:15,000 Speaker 1: This next question is an email from Joel Schlosser. This 169 00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:17,920 Speaker 1: group assembled for a league I'm in is relatively inexperienced 170 00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:21,280 Speaker 1: in fantasy football and the drafting process. Some will more 171 00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:24,120 Speaker 1: than likely auto draft. Should my strategy change going into 172 00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:26,960 Speaker 1: a draft with such unknown I like to go zero 173 00:08:27,160 --> 00:08:28,960 Speaker 1: r B and grab a late round quarterback. 174 00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:30,560 Speaker 2: Thanks in advance. To be honest. 175 00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:33,439 Speaker 1: With more inexperienced players or owners who aren't going to 176 00:08:33,559 --> 00:08:36,800 Speaker 1: care about their teams, you can just take more chances. 177 00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:39,920 Speaker 1: That means you can go with an earlier round quarterback 178 00:08:39,960 --> 00:08:43,720 Speaker 1: approach and easily correct the opportunity cost involved in doing 179 00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:46,839 Speaker 1: so because fewer teams will be playing the waiver wire 180 00:08:46,920 --> 00:08:51,280 Speaker 1: and so on. Essentially, anything that you can't usually easily correct, 181 00:08:51,559 --> 00:08:55,400 Speaker 1: you can in drafts like these. I wouldn't change my 182 00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:57,960 Speaker 1: approach up dramatically, but you can be a little bit 183 00:08:58,000 --> 00:09:02,640 Speaker 1: more of a risk taker in this type scenario. This 184 00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:05,520 Speaker 1: next one is an email from Samir ahmad Hi JJ. 185 00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:07,440 Speaker 1: This is my first time writing to you. I'm really 186 00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:09,920 Speaker 1: enjoying listening to your podcast. Love the short to the 187 00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:13,160 Speaker 1: point format as it makes it easy to digest. Thanks Samir, 188 00:09:13,240 --> 00:09:15,880 Speaker 1: I really appreciate that I had a question about making 189 00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:18,240 Speaker 1: the most out of the flex position. I understand that 190 00:09:18,320 --> 00:09:20,760 Speaker 1: in a PPR format you probably want to aim for 191 00:09:20,800 --> 00:09:23,040 Speaker 1: a top wide receiver or pass catching running back in 192 00:09:23,040 --> 00:09:25,120 Speaker 1: the draft that you can plug in the flex, But. 193 00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:27,160 Speaker 2: What's your strategy in standard drafts? 194 00:09:27,559 --> 00:09:30,280 Speaker 1: I play in a league that starts one quarterback, three 195 00:09:30,280 --> 00:09:32,840 Speaker 1: wide receivers, two running backs, one tight end, and one flex, 196 00:09:32,960 --> 00:09:35,000 Speaker 1: where you can plug in either a tight end, wide receiver, 197 00:09:35,120 --> 00:09:38,040 Speaker 1: or running back in that flex. Do you recommend targeting 198 00:09:38,120 --> 00:09:40,320 Speaker 1: three running backs early so you can plug one in 199 00:09:40,360 --> 00:09:42,360 Speaker 1: the flex spot or do you just go with the 200 00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:44,880 Speaker 1: best players available and then worry about the flex later. 201 00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:47,440 Speaker 2: Would love to get your insight. Thanks and keep up 202 00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:49,880 Speaker 2: the great work with the podcast in Number Fire, Samir. 203 00:09:50,000 --> 00:09:52,360 Speaker 1: So we've got another flex question, but it's definitely different 204 00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:52,880 Speaker 1: than the first. 205 00:09:52,880 --> 00:09:56,200 Speaker 2: So let's dig into this. A lot of my analysis. 206 00:09:55,800 --> 00:09:58,680 Speaker 1: Is done from a PPR perspective, so I normally just 207 00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:00,959 Speaker 1: mentioned that wide out should be used in the flex 208 00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:04,400 Speaker 1: when talking about the flex. The reason for that is because, well, 209 00:10:04,679 --> 00:10:07,440 Speaker 1: they score more points over the last three years if 210 00:10:07,440 --> 00:10:10,080 Speaker 1: you can bind wide receiver and running back scoring. So 211 00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:12,160 Speaker 1: this has nothing to do with tight ends. Because of 212 00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:15,240 Speaker 1: what I talked about earlier. The top fifty running backs 213 00:10:15,240 --> 00:10:18,240 Speaker 1: and wide receivers over the last three seasons in PPR 214 00:10:18,320 --> 00:10:22,079 Speaker 1: leagues consisted of thirty four wide receivers and sixteen running back. 215 00:10:22,160 --> 00:10:25,120 Speaker 1: The top forty had a twenty seven to thirteen split, 216 00:10:25,480 --> 00:10:28,000 Speaker 1: the top thirty was nineteen to eleven, and so on. 217 00:10:28,160 --> 00:10:31,880 Speaker 1: Wide receivers in PPR leagues rule the flex switch things 218 00:10:31,920 --> 00:10:35,040 Speaker 1: over to standard, and literally the opposite happens. The top 219 00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:37,240 Speaker 1: fifty is a twenty eight to twenty two split in 220 00:10:37,240 --> 00:10:39,840 Speaker 1: favor of running backs, the top forty is a twenty 221 00:10:39,880 --> 00:10:42,680 Speaker 1: one to nineteen split, and over the last three years, 222 00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,440 Speaker 1: nine of the top ten scoring seasons in standard leagues 223 00:10:46,679 --> 00:10:49,079 Speaker 1: have come from running backs. So to answer your question 224 00:10:49,240 --> 00:10:52,240 Speaker 1: super directly, yes, you should assume a running back is 225 00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:55,079 Speaker 1: going to be in net flex spot. As a result, 226 00:10:55,120 --> 00:10:58,000 Speaker 1: you should have a running back heavy approach. Though not 227 00:10:58,080 --> 00:11:01,080 Speaker 1: only be more predictable in standard format, but they'll just 228 00:11:01,160 --> 00:11:04,640 Speaker 1: generally score more points for you in that flex spot. 229 00:11:06,320 --> 00:11:09,040 Speaker 1: The next one is from Twitter at Michael Dubner. He 230 00:11:09,120 --> 00:11:12,840 Speaker 1: says four hashtag SFB seven do you expect to go 231 00:11:13,000 --> 00:11:15,320 Speaker 1: zero wide receiver? So, for those of you who don't 232 00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:17,640 Speaker 1: know about Scott Fish Bull. It's a massive league of 233 00:11:17,679 --> 00:11:20,440 Speaker 1: fans and analysts run by Scott Fish each year. This 234 00:11:20,520 --> 00:11:22,400 Speaker 1: year there are seven hundred and twenty teams, giving us 235 00:11:22,440 --> 00:11:24,880 Speaker 1: sixty leagues that then will play later in the season 236 00:11:24,960 --> 00:11:27,400 Speaker 1: and a playoff. The scoring changes each year to make 237 00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:29,880 Speaker 1: it fun and more competitive. This year we've got a 238 00:11:29,880 --> 00:11:33,640 Speaker 1: starting lineup of one quarterback, two running backs, three wide receivers, 239 00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:37,520 Speaker 1: one tight end, three flex spots, and one super flex spot, 240 00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:41,160 Speaker 1: so it's pretty insane. Scoring in the league is pretty normal, 241 00:11:41,240 --> 00:11:43,520 Speaker 1: aside from the fact that quarterbacks get six points per 242 00:11:43,520 --> 00:11:45,600 Speaker 1: touchdown pass which I talked about before. I don't care 243 00:11:45,640 --> 00:11:48,320 Speaker 1: about that, and then players get a first down for 244 00:11:48,440 --> 00:11:51,640 Speaker 1: rushing and receiving. But on top of this, tight ends 245 00:11:51,679 --> 00:11:54,360 Speaker 1: get two and a half points per first down. It 246 00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:57,520 Speaker 1: makes tight ends a lot more valuable, and running backs 247 00:11:57,559 --> 00:11:59,440 Speaker 1: are going to be pretty beastly two given the first 248 00:11:59,440 --> 00:12:02,000 Speaker 1: down and nine PPR scoring. So this is actually a 249 00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:04,640 Speaker 1: good example of the type of scoring and rules that 250 00:12:04,679 --> 00:12:07,240 Speaker 1: should alter the way you think about a league. You 251 00:12:07,320 --> 00:12:09,640 Speaker 1: are starting three wide receivers, but you can also start 252 00:12:09,679 --> 00:12:11,599 Speaker 1: five running backs or even four tight ends if you 253 00:12:11,640 --> 00:12:14,840 Speaker 1: wanted to. But this type of draft definitely should dictate 254 00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:17,280 Speaker 1: a running back heavy approach, and I would guess that 255 00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:19,679 Speaker 1: I'd be going zero wide receiver when the draft starts 256 00:12:19,679 --> 00:12:20,240 Speaker 1: in a couple. 257 00:12:20,080 --> 00:12:21,440 Speaker 2: Of days as a result of that. 258 00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:26,400 Speaker 1: This next one's from Twitter as well, at skan nineteen 259 00:12:26,480 --> 00:12:28,800 Speaker 1: ninety seven. What are your thoughts on Paul Perkins, his 260 00:12:28,880 --> 00:12:31,920 Speaker 1: ADP and the Giants backfield in general? You know, when 261 00:12:31,920 --> 00:12:34,000 Speaker 1: I read this question, I realized that I haven't dug 262 00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:36,960 Speaker 1: into the Giants backfield situation enough this offseason. I mean, 263 00:12:37,000 --> 00:12:39,680 Speaker 1: I have projections for each player and whatnot, and Paul 264 00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:42,240 Speaker 1: Perkins comes out as a decent enough low end RB 265 00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:45,160 Speaker 1: two slash high end RB three, But I don't think 266 00:12:45,160 --> 00:12:47,440 Speaker 1: I've done enough thinking around the true ceiling of the 267 00:12:47,480 --> 00:12:50,800 Speaker 1: guys in this offense. So thank you Ian for this question. 268 00:12:50,960 --> 00:12:53,920 Speaker 1: You've got Paul Perkins, Shane Vereen, and now Wayne Goaalman 269 00:12:54,000 --> 00:12:56,160 Speaker 1: in that backfield, and Orlan's dark well, of course, who 270 00:12:56,160 --> 00:12:58,760 Speaker 1: sounds more like a cartoon superhero than an actual person. 271 00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:03,199 Speaker 1: But Gallman is a below average prospect in my prospect model, 272 00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:06,439 Speaker 1: and Paul Perkins is slightly above average. Perkins didn't have 273 00:13:06,480 --> 00:13:08,920 Speaker 1: the best measurables in the world, but his college production 274 00:13:09,520 --> 00:13:12,920 Speaker 1: was definitely above average overall, Perkins did get a little 275 00:13:13,000 --> 00:13:14,920 Speaker 1: run last year as a rookie, and according to Number 276 00:13:14,920 --> 00:13:17,920 Speaker 1: Fivere's metrics, he was the most efficient Giants running back 277 00:13:18,040 --> 00:13:21,320 Speaker 1: in per rush efficiency as well as success rate. That's 278 00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:23,880 Speaker 1: not saying much considering the competition in New York, but 279 00:13:23,920 --> 00:13:26,640 Speaker 1: that's got account for something considering he was a rookie. 280 00:13:26,720 --> 00:13:29,240 Speaker 1: I do think that Perkins gets a decent market share 281 00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:31,760 Speaker 1: chunk this year on the ground, somewhere in the forty 282 00:13:31,760 --> 00:13:34,240 Speaker 1: eight to fifty five percent range, which can lead to 283 00:13:34,240 --> 00:13:37,600 Speaker 1: two hundred or so carries in that offense. That's totally fine, 284 00:13:37,600 --> 00:13:40,200 Speaker 1: and to me, that makes him worthy enough at his 285 00:13:40,280 --> 00:13:42,400 Speaker 1: ADP in the sixth or seventh round. I think he's 286 00:13:42,440 --> 00:13:43,800 Speaker 1: one of those players that I talked about at the 287 00:13:43,840 --> 00:13:45,960 Speaker 1: top of the show that you can feel decent enough 288 00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:49,320 Speaker 1: about after forgoing a running back in round four or 289 00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:52,839 Speaker 1: round five. However, and this is important, it's tough to 290 00:13:52,880 --> 00:13:55,160 Speaker 1: get excited about a Giants running back from a true 291 00:13:55,760 --> 00:13:58,679 Speaker 1: ceiling perspective. Shane Vereen should demand a lot of volume 292 00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:00,960 Speaker 1: through the air. They added brand in Marshall to limit 293 00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:03,840 Speaker 1: the receiving market share even more, and Evan Ingram is 294 00:14:03,840 --> 00:14:06,400 Speaker 1: there now too. The offensive line on top of this 295 00:14:06,920 --> 00:14:08,800 Speaker 1: is not very great, and there's always a chance that 296 00:14:08,800 --> 00:14:11,760 Speaker 1: they change up the goal line back. Considering Perkins's smaller frame, 297 00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:14,280 Speaker 1: that could be Wayne Golman, that could be his role. 298 00:14:14,520 --> 00:14:17,280 Speaker 1: So overall, I think Perkins is probably a decent value 299 00:14:17,320 --> 00:14:20,200 Speaker 1: in fantasy drafts right now. But he's not someone I'm 300 00:14:20,200 --> 00:14:22,920 Speaker 1: going to tout like crazy as a screaming bargain because 301 00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:25,440 Speaker 1: there are certainly scenarios where his floor becomes a little 302 00:14:25,480 --> 00:14:27,680 Speaker 1: bit more scary. He could become a guy that you 303 00:14:27,720 --> 00:14:30,920 Speaker 1: feel confident in going into each given week, and then 304 00:14:30,920 --> 00:14:33,320 Speaker 1: he doesn't give you enough Like I could see his 305 00:14:33,400 --> 00:14:35,720 Speaker 1: situation being a mere abdola like where he's not the 306 00:14:35,760 --> 00:14:39,000 Speaker 1: primary goal line guy and he's not the primary pass catcher. 307 00:14:39,240 --> 00:14:41,160 Speaker 1: He's just sort of in the middle, and that's not 308 00:14:41,240 --> 00:14:44,480 Speaker 1: where fantasy points are scored. And if he's healthy, you're 309 00:14:44,480 --> 00:14:46,240 Speaker 1: going to keep trotting him out in your lineup. And 310 00:14:46,280 --> 00:14:49,200 Speaker 1: like I said, he's not gonna give you that ceiling 311 00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:51,200 Speaker 1: week to week. But I do like him enough and 312 00:14:51,200 --> 00:14:53,120 Speaker 1: I think that he's a good running back for zero 313 00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:57,320 Speaker 1: R beers to grab. This next one is an email 314 00:14:57,320 --> 00:15:00,360 Speaker 1: from Ross Kidwell and keeper or dynasty leagues. Many times 315 00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:02,680 Speaker 1: owners trade future picks for players in order to win 316 00:15:02,680 --> 00:15:05,320 Speaker 1: a championship. When it comes to the draft, then you 317 00:15:05,400 --> 00:15:07,880 Speaker 1: don't have a full complement of picks. How does that 318 00:15:07,920 --> 00:15:10,200 Speaker 1: affect your draft strategy? Are you more or less likely 319 00:15:10,240 --> 00:15:13,400 Speaker 1: to draft floor or ceiling type players? Do you embrace 320 00:15:13,560 --> 00:15:16,680 Speaker 1: variability in the draft? Would your strategy change if you 321 00:15:16,760 --> 00:15:20,680 Speaker 1: had traded earlier picks or traded later picks? Thanks Ross, 322 00:15:20,800 --> 00:15:22,320 Speaker 1: This is going to be a super lame answer, but 323 00:15:22,360 --> 00:15:25,200 Speaker 1: it all depends on your roster construction. But generally speaking, 324 00:15:25,280 --> 00:15:28,240 Speaker 1: I think that you should approach the draft in a 325 00:15:28,320 --> 00:15:31,560 Speaker 1: pretty similar way. You're getting dudes you like based on 326 00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:33,640 Speaker 1: analysis that you've done. You can think of it this 327 00:15:33,680 --> 00:15:37,080 Speaker 1: way too. Our evaluation of prospects is far from correct. 328 00:15:37,120 --> 00:15:39,400 Speaker 1: It's actually pretty bad because it's such a tough thing 329 00:15:39,440 --> 00:15:42,360 Speaker 1: to perfect. So as a result, players who you think 330 00:15:42,440 --> 00:15:45,320 Speaker 1: are safe aren't safe, and players who you think are 331 00:15:45,400 --> 00:15:49,640 Speaker 1: volatile aren't volatile. It's how football goes. I think changing 332 00:15:49,640 --> 00:15:51,960 Speaker 1: your strategy heavily as a result of having more or 333 00:15:52,000 --> 00:15:55,000 Speaker 1: fewer picks assumes that you know a lot more than 334 00:15:55,040 --> 00:15:57,160 Speaker 1: you actually do. You can change up the types of 335 00:15:57,160 --> 00:15:59,680 Speaker 1: positions you're drafting, that's fine, but I wouldn't think too 336 00:15:59,760 --> 00:16:02,120 Speaker 1: much into the type of players that you're getting unless 337 00:16:02,160 --> 00:16:04,400 Speaker 1: it's something like a player who's never healthy or a 338 00:16:04,440 --> 00:16:08,880 Speaker 1: guy who has serious, serious off the field issues. This 339 00:16:08,960 --> 00:16:12,000 Speaker 1: next one's from Twitter at Craig Evers. He says thoughts 340 00:16:12,000 --> 00:16:14,720 Speaker 1: on Jordan Howard would be my flex in a twelve team, 341 00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:18,920 Speaker 1: seven keeper non PPR league thinking of trying to trade 342 00:16:18,960 --> 00:16:22,760 Speaker 1: for a wide receiver starter like Sammy Watkins. Thanks, first off, 343 00:16:22,800 --> 00:16:25,320 Speaker 1: I definitely would not trade him for Sammy in a 344 00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:27,880 Speaker 1: non PPR league. Not only could Howard end up being 345 00:16:27,880 --> 00:16:30,360 Speaker 1: a top notch running back for years to come, but 346 00:16:30,440 --> 00:16:32,960 Speaker 1: this is non PPR. I just went over why that's 347 00:16:33,040 --> 00:16:36,160 Speaker 1: vital for running backs. Regarding Howard himself, it's not that 348 00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:38,080 Speaker 1: I'm in love with the guy, but the Bears offensive 349 00:16:38,080 --> 00:16:40,680 Speaker 1: line is actually pretty good, and Howard produced like an 350 00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:43,200 Speaker 1: animal last year. Regression can hit a bit, I get that, 351 00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:46,440 Speaker 1: but this is not a Todd Gurley situation where Gurley's 352 00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:49,360 Speaker 1: efficiency was super super high his rookie year and his 353 00:16:49,440 --> 00:16:52,240 Speaker 1: success rate was low, meaning he was fortunate to be 354 00:16:52,280 --> 00:16:55,520 Speaker 1: gaining his efficiency off of big plays. When charting rushing 355 00:16:55,640 --> 00:16:58,760 Speaker 1: unexpected points per rush, which is number fires metric of 356 00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:02,560 Speaker 1: efficiency versus success rate, or the percentage of positive runs 357 00:17:02,600 --> 00:17:05,439 Speaker 1: made by a running back. Jordan Howard last year was 358 00:17:05,480 --> 00:17:08,840 Speaker 1: actually perfectly in line with the trend line of backs 359 00:17:08,880 --> 00:17:12,040 Speaker 1: over the last half decade. His success rate was strong, 360 00:17:12,480 --> 00:17:15,479 Speaker 1: as was his efficiency, meaning he was just playing at 361 00:17:15,480 --> 00:17:17,440 Speaker 1: a high level. He was a really good running back 362 00:17:17,520 --> 00:17:20,760 Speaker 1: last year. He doesn't have much competition too, which is nice, 363 00:17:20,840 --> 00:17:23,120 Speaker 1: so even if he slips a bit, you'd imagine he'll 364 00:17:23,160 --> 00:17:25,560 Speaker 1: still be on the field. The downside for Howard is 365 00:17:25,600 --> 00:17:28,360 Speaker 1: obviously the offense that he plays in. When you're at 366 00:17:28,400 --> 00:17:31,040 Speaker 1: that point in the draft, you'll probably feel more confident 367 00:17:31,160 --> 00:17:34,200 Speaker 1: drafting players in similar roles but in better offenses in general, 368 00:17:34,240 --> 00:17:36,840 Speaker 1: like Jay a Jie or Melvin Gordon. With that being said, 369 00:17:37,119 --> 00:17:40,879 Speaker 1: Howard's production profile last season trumped both a Jiie and 370 00:17:40,960 --> 00:17:43,000 Speaker 1: Gordon according to the Number five metrics that I work 371 00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:46,159 Speaker 1: with with running backs. So again, don't trade Howard for 372 00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:49,720 Speaker 1: Sammy Watkins. And how I feel about Howard, Well, I've 373 00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:52,200 Speaker 1: got him as an RB one again this year projections wise, 374 00:17:52,359 --> 00:17:54,879 Speaker 1: but he is below Gordon and a JII given the 375 00:17:54,920 --> 00:17:57,600 Speaker 1: offense that he plays in. I'm worried about that touchdown upside, 376 00:17:57,600 --> 00:18:00,640 Speaker 1: which is even more important in standard leagues. He's still 377 00:18:00,640 --> 00:18:04,080 Speaker 1: in a good spot this year though. This next one's 378 00:18:04,119 --> 00:18:06,880 Speaker 1: from Robert Young an email. He says, Hi, JJ, thanks 379 00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:09,320 Speaker 1: for your insight on whether or not to draft handcuff 380 00:18:09,400 --> 00:18:12,359 Speaker 1: running backs. I was recently listening to your broadcast on 381 00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:15,320 Speaker 1: handcuffing running backs and I thought it was very enlightening. 382 00:18:15,400 --> 00:18:16,000 Speaker 2: Thanks man. 383 00:18:16,280 --> 00:18:18,280 Speaker 1: I learned a lot, and you really open my eyes 384 00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:19,879 Speaker 1: to a lot of things I wasn't aware of. It 385 00:18:19,920 --> 00:18:21,439 Speaker 1: makes so much sense now that I think of it. 386 00:18:21,480 --> 00:18:24,399 Speaker 1: Thanks again. My question is regarding something else. I don't 387 00:18:24,440 --> 00:18:27,520 Speaker 1: know the context of the specific topic, but you talked 388 00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:30,480 Speaker 1: about drafting a wide receiver with a really consistent weekly 389 00:18:30,520 --> 00:18:33,040 Speaker 1: scoring rate, a wide receiver that you can pretty much 390 00:18:33,080 --> 00:18:36,239 Speaker 1: count on for a regular score each week. Then you 391 00:18:36,280 --> 00:18:39,120 Speaker 1: said you combine that with a player like DeShawn Jackson 392 00:18:39,480 --> 00:18:41,240 Speaker 1: or a wide receiver who could blow up for a 393 00:18:41,320 --> 00:18:44,560 Speaker 1: high score in a week but could also give you zero, one, two, 394 00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:47,800 Speaker 1: three points in other weeks. Was I correct? If so, 395 00:18:47,960 --> 00:18:51,240 Speaker 1: would that be for standard PPR or keeper leagues. Additionally, 396 00:18:51,320 --> 00:18:53,840 Speaker 1: if that's correct, my next question would be, this, is 397 00:18:53,880 --> 00:18:56,440 Speaker 1: that something that you always use as a strategy because 398 00:18:56,480 --> 00:18:59,119 Speaker 1: I find that I would rather have players that score 399 00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:02,399 Speaker 1: a consistent weekly amount rather than having wide receivers that 400 00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:05,280 Speaker 1: are all over the board. I don't like players scoring 401 00:19:05,359 --> 00:19:07,800 Speaker 1: one or two points per week for two to three 402 00:19:07,840 --> 00:19:10,600 Speaker 1: weeks and then go off for thirty the next You 403 00:19:10,640 --> 00:19:12,879 Speaker 1: can't count on them, and I just get really frustrated 404 00:19:12,920 --> 00:19:14,240 Speaker 1: with the roller coaster ride. 405 00:19:14,359 --> 00:19:16,280 Speaker 2: What do you think? And then he signed it. 406 00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:18,920 Speaker 1: He said, call me why the Frown, But my real 407 00:19:19,000 --> 00:19:21,560 Speaker 1: name is Robert Well, why the Frown? 408 00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:22,760 Speaker 2: Yes, this is correct. 409 00:19:22,920 --> 00:19:26,000 Speaker 1: I'll admit back in the day, I was overly concerned 410 00:19:26,040 --> 00:19:29,640 Speaker 1: with consistency in fantasy football. I wanted players who gave 411 00:19:29,680 --> 00:19:32,399 Speaker 1: me the most top twelve or top twenty four weeks 412 00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:35,520 Speaker 1: without thinking about what that really meant. The way I've 413 00:19:35,560 --> 00:19:37,880 Speaker 1: approached fantasy over the last three to four years, though, 414 00:19:38,000 --> 00:19:41,080 Speaker 1: is less about finding that floor and predictability and more 415 00:19:41,119 --> 00:19:45,159 Speaker 1: about mixing floor and ceiling for any league type. And 416 00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:49,000 Speaker 1: the reason is because intuitively, a team without ceiling players 417 00:19:49,040 --> 00:19:51,480 Speaker 1: may never yield a high enough weekly score to get 418 00:19:51,520 --> 00:19:54,760 Speaker 1: you victories, while a team with only ceiling players is 419 00:19:54,880 --> 00:19:57,680 Speaker 1: naturally far too volatile. With that being said, I think 420 00:19:57,680 --> 00:20:00,840 Speaker 1: it's important that we don't overstate what the means. Players 421 00:20:00,880 --> 00:20:03,439 Speaker 1: like Jarvis Landry and Golden Tate and Julian Edelman will 422 00:20:03,520 --> 00:20:06,840 Speaker 1: certainly be bucketed as floor wide receivers, but they still 423 00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:09,120 Speaker 1: are capable of big enough weeks. It's more that their 424 00:20:09,119 --> 00:20:12,120 Speaker 1: standard deviation is less than players who are more touchdown dependent, 425 00:20:12,200 --> 00:20:14,360 Speaker 1: like a des Bryant. You can look at the coefficient 426 00:20:14,359 --> 00:20:16,440 Speaker 1: of variation to help you out with this. You take 427 00:20:16,480 --> 00:20:19,439 Speaker 1: the standard deviation of a player's weekly output and divide 428 00:20:19,480 --> 00:20:22,520 Speaker 1: it by that player's average or mean. The closer that 429 00:20:22,600 --> 00:20:25,560 Speaker 1: number then is to zero, the more predictable and stable 430 00:20:25,640 --> 00:20:29,480 Speaker 1: his performances are. The top notable players who aren't necessarily 431 00:20:29,520 --> 00:20:32,440 Speaker 1: elite in that statistic over the last few years are 432 00:20:32,480 --> 00:20:37,000 Speaker 1: guys like Damarius Thomas, Julian Edelman, and actually Mike Wallace. 433 00:20:37,480 --> 00:20:39,560 Speaker 1: Jarvis Landry and Golden Tat are up there as well, 434 00:20:39,560 --> 00:20:43,200 Speaker 1: which is no surprise. On the other side, aj Green 435 00:20:43,240 --> 00:20:46,360 Speaker 1: pops up a lot, as does Sammy Watkins and Dez Bryant. 436 00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:49,400 Speaker 1: This shouldn't be shocking though. They're deep threats who can 437 00:20:49,440 --> 00:20:53,040 Speaker 1: put together monster games because they score all these touchdowns. 438 00:20:53,160 --> 00:20:54,680 Speaker 2: So it's those players. 439 00:20:54,400 --> 00:20:56,800 Speaker 1: That want to pair with the former group to have 440 00:20:56,880 --> 00:20:59,800 Speaker 1: a great balance of stealing and floor each and every week. 441 00:21:01,560 --> 00:21:04,320 Speaker 1: The next one is an email from Rolando Martinez. How 442 00:21:04,320 --> 00:21:06,800 Speaker 1: do you feel about stingy listeners who don't want to 443 00:21:06,800 --> 00:21:09,160 Speaker 1: share your awesome pod to other league mates? 444 00:21:09,400 --> 00:21:10,240 Speaker 2: Lol? Thanks? 445 00:21:10,440 --> 00:21:12,639 Speaker 1: I'm flattered by this question, but I wanted to include 446 00:21:12,640 --> 00:21:14,200 Speaker 1: it in here because if you don't want to share 447 00:21:14,200 --> 00:21:16,520 Speaker 1: my podcast and help a brother out, you can still 448 00:21:16,560 --> 00:21:19,480 Speaker 1: help by leaving a review on iTunes. They really really 449 00:21:19,520 --> 00:21:22,640 Speaker 1: go a long way in helping get this podcast out there. 450 00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:24,720 Speaker 1: So if You've liked what I've been dishing out and 451 00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:28,840 Speaker 1: that includes the Airhorns, please please please go leave a review. 452 00:21:28,880 --> 00:21:31,000 Speaker 1: I'd greatly appreciate it, to the point that if we 453 00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:33,800 Speaker 1: ever met Irl, I'd give you not just a high five, 454 00:21:33,840 --> 00:21:37,760 Speaker 1: but a bro hug too. This last question is from 455 00:21:37,800 --> 00:21:40,600 Speaker 1: Brian Whitten. He says, Hey, JJ, I'm a thirty three 456 00:21:40,680 --> 00:21:43,119 Speaker 1: year old dad who loves eating cereal, and I'm not 457 00:21:43,160 --> 00:21:46,000 Speaker 1: talking about the mulch mix type garbage. What are your 458 00:21:46,040 --> 00:21:49,680 Speaker 1: top three cereals? Mine are cinnamon To's Crunch because it's 459 00:21:49,680 --> 00:21:53,679 Speaker 1: always consistent, good for breakfast or a snack, Rice Crispyes, 460 00:21:53,920 --> 00:21:56,920 Speaker 1: RK Treats, always solid again, good for breakfast or snack 461 00:21:56,960 --> 00:22:00,000 Speaker 1: with spoonfuls of sugar of course. And then lastly, small 462 00:22:00,359 --> 00:22:02,439 Speaker 1: can literally eat an entire box in one sitting if 463 00:22:02,480 --> 00:22:05,000 Speaker 1: you aren't careful. This is a once in a while treat. 464 00:22:05,280 --> 00:22:07,960 Speaker 1: Or I'll embrace full Dad by having one of those 465 00:22:07,960 --> 00:22:11,680 Speaker 1: hard dad bellies. Keep up the podcast, brother Brian. I'll 466 00:22:11,720 --> 00:22:14,400 Speaker 1: admit I'm kind of into the mulch mixed type garbage. 467 00:22:14,440 --> 00:22:16,480 Speaker 1: I eat a bowl of cereal with almond milk each 468 00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:19,359 Speaker 1: morning to get me going. If I ate cinnamon Toa's crunch, 469 00:22:19,560 --> 00:22:22,679 Speaker 1: I'd undoubtedly be way heavier than I am. Now. With 470 00:22:22,760 --> 00:22:25,480 Speaker 1: that being said, cinnamon too's crunch is the true goat 471 00:22:25,800 --> 00:22:28,200 Speaker 1: the after eating milk is one of the most delicious 472 00:22:28,200 --> 00:22:31,480 Speaker 1: things man has ever created. And here's a hot take 473 00:22:31,520 --> 00:22:34,200 Speaker 1: for you. I don't mind fruity pebbles and I don't 474 00:22:34,240 --> 00:22:38,080 Speaker 1: mind soggy fruity pebbles. That milk is super underrated too. 475 00:22:38,280 --> 00:22:40,960 Speaker 1: That'll do it for this week's questions, though, guys, thanks 476 00:22:41,000 --> 00:22:43,639 Speaker 1: again for tuning in. As always, you can subscribe to 477 00:22:43,680 --> 00:22:45,800 Speaker 1: the show by searching for the Late Round podcast pretty 478 00:22:45,880 --> 00:22:48,800 Speaker 1: much anywhere podcasts are found, and like I said, please 479 00:22:48,880 --> 00:22:52,359 Speaker 1: leave a review on iTunes. I'd greatly appreciate the love. 480 00:22:52,920 --> 00:22:55,000 Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and I'll talk to you all early 481 00:22:55,119 --> 00:22:55,680 Speaker 1: next week.