1
00:00:02,440 --> 00:00:12,559
Speaker 1: This is your host, JJ zacheraj Zacharison. What's up everyone.

2
00:00:12,600 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 1: It's JJ Zachareson, the editor in chief over at number

3
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:18,720
Speaker 1: fire dot com and this is episode twenty one of

4
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:21,000
Speaker 1: the Late Round podcast, one of the many shows that

5
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:23,680
Speaker 1: are part of the number fire podcast network. Thanks for

6
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:26,840
Speaker 1: tuning in, man. I've had a really, really weird couple

7
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:29,800
Speaker 1: days on social media. Two days ago, I tweeted this

8
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:33,040
Speaker 1: article written on ESPN that questioned the legacies of Sidney

9
00:00:33,040 --> 00:00:36,360
Speaker 1: Crosby and Afgany Malkin, despite the fact that both players

10
00:00:36,360 --> 00:00:39,440
Speaker 1: are thirtysh year old guys playing in their four Stanley

11
00:00:39,479 --> 00:00:42,680
Speaker 1: Cup already having won two Stanley Cups. Stay with me.

12
00:00:42,760 --> 00:00:44,519
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about this just so I can talk

13
00:00:44,520 --> 00:00:47,040
Speaker 1: about the Penguins. I know you don't come here for

14
00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:49,319
Speaker 1: my hockey takes, so I tweet the article with some

15
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:52,920
Speaker 1: comment like after clicking this link, my computer caught on fire.

16
00:00:53,159 --> 00:00:55,760
Speaker 1: And then one of the most respected hockey writers in Pittsburgh,

17
00:00:55,920 --> 00:00:59,960
Speaker 1: Josh Joey, saw it because he follows me on Twitter Humblebragg.

18
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:03,000
Speaker 1: He quote tweeted me and he said, this is one

19
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:05,920
Speaker 1: of the worst articles I've ever read. So to recap

20
00:01:06,040 --> 00:01:08,280
Speaker 1: so far, I tweeted an article out. I made a

21
00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:12,360
Speaker 1: sarcastic comment with that article. Josh Joey retweets it, quote

22
00:01:12,360 --> 00:01:14,960
Speaker 1: tweets it, and he puts this is one of the

23
00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:18,640
Speaker 1: worst articles I've ever read as his comment. Now, anyone

24
00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:22,640
Speaker 1: with average Twitter comprehension knows that I was poking fun

25
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:26,560
Speaker 1: at the hot takiness of said article. Even still, I

26
00:01:26,600 --> 00:01:30,760
Speaker 1: had Penguins fans in my mentions thinking I wrote the article,

27
00:01:31,080 --> 00:01:34,080
Speaker 1: that I was the author. I was called a peasant,

28
00:01:34,480 --> 00:01:36,800
Speaker 1: told do you know what myself, and was told that

29
00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:41,399
Speaker 1: I quote just hate Malkin and Crosby. Meanwhile, the background

30
00:01:41,480 --> 00:01:45,080
Speaker 1: picture on my Twitter profile has a picture of the

31
00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 1: Penguins last season after winning the Stanley Cup. What is

32
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:55,280
Speaker 1: going on? That was the first weird thing people coming

33
00:01:55,320 --> 00:01:57,600
Speaker 1: at me for something I didn't even do. Go figure.

34
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:00,200
Speaker 1: The second weird thing is so random that I still

35
00:02:00,280 --> 00:02:02,760
Speaker 1: can't comprehend it. I'm sitting at my computer. I go

36
00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:04,880
Speaker 1: and check Twitter, and I look at my mentions. There's

37
00:02:04,920 --> 00:02:07,560
Speaker 1: a tweet from this account named deb something, and the

38
00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:10,480
Speaker 1: tweet has a picture of a selfie of this mom

39
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:14,560
Speaker 1: and two teenage girls, and the caption says, patiently waiting

40
00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:18,280
Speaker 1: at late Round QB at Imagine Dragons and then there's

41
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:21,880
Speaker 1: three heart emojis insert white guy blinking dot gift. This

42
00:02:21,919 --> 00:02:24,600
Speaker 1: woman doesn't follow me on Twitter or anything. I have

43
00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:29,200
Speaker 1: zero idea how she tagged late Round QB before going

44
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: to an Imagined Dragons concert. And it gets worse. The

45
00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:35,880
Speaker 1: two girls that she was with also have Twitter accounts,

46
00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:38,240
Speaker 1: and they were tweeting to one another where they were

47
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:42,399
Speaker 1: a pre concert with my handle tagged in the tweets.

48
00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:44,640
Speaker 1: So I learned that one girl was sitting at a

49
00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:48,639
Speaker 1: restaurant across the street eating mazzarella sticks, that Iggy, their friend,

50
00:02:48,800 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 1: wasn't in line yet, and that Iggy had some issues

51
00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:55,840
Speaker 1: with her taxi driver before getting to the concert itself. Like, people,

52
00:02:55,919 --> 00:02:59,040
Speaker 1: how are you so bad at social media? It's seriously

53
00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:02,360
Speaker 1: mind blowing starf Fortunately, though, not everyone is that bad.

54
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:04,799
Speaker 1: I got some great questions on Twitter this week for

55
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:09,040
Speaker 1: this week's Mailbag episode, so let's dig in. This first

56
00:03:09,080 --> 00:03:11,400
Speaker 1: question is from Twitter, and it wasn't from someone calling

57
00:03:11,440 --> 00:03:14,160
Speaker 1: me a peasant, which I greatly appreciate. This is from

58
00:03:14,280 --> 00:03:17,640
Speaker 1: Cameron nine Underscore Webb, who asked the question before my

59
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:21,560
Speaker 1: Handcuffing podcast that was released on Tuesday, and I asked

60
00:03:21,600 --> 00:03:23,560
Speaker 1: if I can answer this on the mail bag, to

61
00:03:23,600 --> 00:03:25,240
Speaker 1: which he gave me the go ahead. He asked, what

62
00:03:25,280 --> 00:03:28,040
Speaker 1: about handcuffing and Best Ball Leagues? So I think I

63
00:03:28,040 --> 00:03:30,720
Speaker 1: can answer a couple of handcuff related questions that people

64
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:35,160
Speaker 1: asked after Tuesday's episode on handcuffs. One was this and

65
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:39,120
Speaker 1: the other was handcuffing and dynasty. Handcuffing in a dynasty league,

66
00:03:39,160 --> 00:03:42,120
Speaker 1: to me, is much much different, especially if you have

67
00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:45,760
Speaker 1: a La'veon Bell James Connor situation where that handcuff is

68
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:49,640
Speaker 1: young and decent enough real draft equity was spent on him.

69
00:03:50,040 --> 00:03:52,880
Speaker 1: If something happens to Le'Veon Bell, you have a potential

70
00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:55,800
Speaker 1: usable running back. But if Bell ever leaves or something

71
00:03:55,840 --> 00:04:00,480
Speaker 1: catastrophically bad happens, you still have that usable back. Larger

72
00:04:00,560 --> 00:04:04,200
Speaker 1: roster sizes make it much more acceptable to handcuff those

73
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:07,000
Speaker 1: studs in my opinion, in dynasty leagues. But here's my

74
00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:09,640
Speaker 1: take on the best ball league question. And best Ball

75
00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:12,760
Speaker 1: leagues or MFL tens, which I'm assuming this is geared towards.

76
00:04:13,080 --> 00:04:17,440
Speaker 1: Your goal is to get first place, you need upside handcuffing,

77
00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:21,040
Speaker 1: like I said on Tuesday show, is a floor strategy.

78
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:24,520
Speaker 1: It's a safe one. It doesn't provide upside. What does

79
00:04:24,640 --> 00:04:27,240
Speaker 1: provide upside if you want to handcuff if you like

80
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:31,720
Speaker 1: a handcuff situation is handcuffing another team's running back. Meaning,

81
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:34,520
Speaker 1: if you own Le'Veon Bell and you want a late

82
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,680
Speaker 1: round dart throw, draft Aaron mcfatten. If you own Ezekiel Elliott,

83
00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:41,360
Speaker 1: draft Jonathan Williams. I'm not saying this is the best

84
00:04:41,400 --> 00:04:43,719
Speaker 1: way to draft an MFL ten team. As I mentioned

85
00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:46,120
Speaker 1: on the Handcuff show, a lot of these supposed handcuffs

86
00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:49,200
Speaker 1: don't even pan out. But you have slightly deeper rosters

87
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:51,119
Speaker 1: in these things, so it makes a little bit more sense.

88
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:54,919
Speaker 1: But drafting another team's handcuff, if that stud player goes down,

89
00:04:55,240 --> 00:04:57,839
Speaker 1: you now have multiple usable running backs rather than just

90
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: the one you're trying to capture by drafting the stud

91
00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 1: player and his handcuff. Moreover, some of those backup running

92
00:05:04,680 --> 00:05:07,279
Speaker 1: backs can still give you usable weeks you're not playing

93
00:05:07,320 --> 00:05:10,120
Speaker 1: the guessing game. Jonathan Williams could still have eighty to

94
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:12,760
Speaker 1: one hundred carries this year, meaning he won't be completely

95
00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 1: worthless if an injury doesn't happen to Lashawn McCoy but overall,

96
00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:19,000
Speaker 1: the strategy of handcuffing is better in best ball leagues.

97
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:22,480
Speaker 1: Just don't do it for your own players. Shoot for upside.

98
00:05:22,520 --> 00:05:24,480
Speaker 1: It's one of the biggest mistakes I see folks making

99
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:28,880
Speaker 1: in these things. This next one's from Chandler Wagner. It

100
00:05:28,920 --> 00:05:32,080
Speaker 1: came via email. He says, last pod, you talked about

101
00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:34,960
Speaker 1: handcuffs and opportunity costs, and it got me thinking. When

102
00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:37,760
Speaker 1: you take Doug Martin, Kenneth Dixon, those types of backs,

103
00:05:37,839 --> 00:05:41,040
Speaker 1: or a potential breakout player with massive upside who you

104
00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:43,520
Speaker 1: hold until week five or six at a minimum because

105
00:05:43,520 --> 00:05:47,039
Speaker 1: of excitement. Think about the opposite of that. Would you

106
00:05:47,080 --> 00:05:51,040
Speaker 1: give slight boosts and draft value to a Woodhead Charles Simms,

107
00:05:51,120 --> 00:05:54,480
Speaker 1: Jeremy McNichols type because you can squeeze their theoretical peak

108
00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:56,919
Speaker 1: value out through the first few weeks, then have the

109
00:05:56,960 --> 00:06:00,159
Speaker 1: ideal player to drop by weeks three to six to

110
00:06:00,200 --> 00:06:03,280
Speaker 1: pick up someone who actually is breaking out, like a

111
00:06:03,400 --> 00:06:06,320
Speaker 1: Jordan Howard a JII type, for example. So I think

112
00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:09,360
Speaker 1: this question is basically saying, should we not look at

113
00:06:09,480 --> 00:06:13,640
Speaker 1: cumulative year long numbers for these backups when you know

114
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:16,159
Speaker 1: they're going to see larger workloads for a chunk of

115
00:06:16,160 --> 00:06:18,839
Speaker 1: the season, and the answer is yes, the players you

116
00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:21,440
Speaker 1: mentioned may not be the best examples, though I'd be

117
00:06:21,480 --> 00:06:24,200
Speaker 1: more interested in Terrence West to start the year than

118
00:06:24,279 --> 00:06:27,560
Speaker 1: Woodhead since West will see more early down work for

119
00:06:27,800 --> 00:06:30,799
Speaker 1: Kenneth Dixon, and I think ja Quiz Rogers will carry

120
00:06:30,839 --> 00:06:33,200
Speaker 1: most of the load on early downs without Doug Martin.

121
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:35,280
Speaker 1: But that whole Tampa Bay backfield has a lot of

122
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:37,680
Speaker 1: ambiguity at this point in the offseason regardless of those

123
00:06:37,680 --> 00:06:41,800
Speaker 1: specific examples. Though, yes, you shouldn't be looking at cumulative

124
00:06:42,200 --> 00:06:45,680
Speaker 1: season long numbers for those players. You know. I mentioned

125
00:06:45,680 --> 00:06:48,920
Speaker 1: DeAngelo Williams on The Handcuffing Show because he was essentially

126
00:06:49,040 --> 00:06:51,560
Speaker 1: one of the best handcuffs we've seen in recent history.

127
00:06:51,880 --> 00:06:53,960
Speaker 1: The funny thing is, though, and people talked about this

128
00:06:54,080 --> 00:06:56,880
Speaker 1: on Twitter. The funny thing is he started the season

129
00:06:56,920 --> 00:06:59,840
Speaker 1: for Pittsburgh because Le'Veon Bell was suspended. So if you

130
00:06:59,880 --> 00:07:02,080
Speaker 1: go back to that year, you knew you were getting

131
00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:04,960
Speaker 1: a couple of RB one performances or hopefully getting a

132
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:08,120
Speaker 1: couple of RB one performances from d will and that

133
00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:10,720
Speaker 1: pushed him to the single digit rounds of fantasy drafts

134
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:14,520
Speaker 1: because people knew that immediately he would help their fantasy

135
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:19,240
Speaker 1: football team. They weren't looking at D'Angelo Williams' season long projections,

136
00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:23,040
Speaker 1: which would have made him look borderline useless in fantasy football.

137
00:07:23,080 --> 00:07:25,960
Speaker 1: Of course, those people then drop D'Angelo Williams before Bell's

138
00:07:25,960 --> 00:07:29,080
Speaker 1: season ending injury like I mentioned last week. But the

139
00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 1: same process is at play here. You're looking at weekly

140
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:38,240
Speaker 1: performances for these guys, not season long performances. This next

141
00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:41,560
Speaker 1: one's from Chad Marksons via an email. He says, Hi, jj,

142
00:07:41,680 --> 00:07:44,000
Speaker 1: I love listening to your podcast as a philosopher. I

143
00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:46,920
Speaker 1: can really appreciate your ability to reason well and desire

144
00:07:46,960 --> 00:07:48,920
Speaker 1: to do so. Keep up the great work. Thanks Chad.

145
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:51,200
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. I love how I throw in those

146
00:07:51,760 --> 00:07:54,800
Speaker 1: compliments at the beginning of these emails, like you guys

147
00:07:54,920 --> 00:07:57,040
Speaker 1: care that people were saying these things to me. I

148
00:07:57,120 --> 00:07:59,720
Speaker 1: just want to show appreciation. I really really appreciate comments

149
00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:03,200
Speaker 1: like that. Thank you, Ched. Here's my question. Here's Chad's question.

150
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:06,400
Speaker 1: I should say I'm going to ten team standard scoring league.

151
00:08:06,440 --> 00:08:09,320
Speaker 1: Two running backs, two wide receivers, one normal flex, et cetera.

152
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:11,679
Speaker 1: We do two hundred dollars auction drafts where each owner

153
00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:14,520
Speaker 1: can keep at most two players for most two years

154
00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:18,000
Speaker 1: for the price originally paid for the player in the auction.

155
00:08:18,320 --> 00:08:20,160
Speaker 1: This sounds a lot like my home league. By the way,

156
00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:23,480
Speaker 1: which two do I keep Crowell for possible two years

157
00:08:23,520 --> 00:08:26,640
Speaker 1: at five dollars per year, Stefan Diggs for possible two

158
00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:29,640
Speaker 1: years at three dollars per year, or Spencer Ware for

159
00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:32,600
Speaker 1: possible two years at six dollars per year. I'm sold

160
00:08:32,640 --> 00:08:34,720
Speaker 1: on Crowell, but not sure what to do for the

161
00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:37,240
Speaker 1: second keeper. I think it's a good question in situations

162
00:08:37,280 --> 00:08:39,800
Speaker 1: like this. A very quick way to look at it

163
00:08:39,840 --> 00:08:42,920
Speaker 1: is my analyzing average draft position. Not to say that's

164
00:08:42,960 --> 00:08:46,200
Speaker 1: the end answer, because ADP sometimes makes very very little sense,

165
00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:49,560
Speaker 1: but let's start there. According to Fantasy Football Calculator dot

166
00:08:49,559 --> 00:08:53,640
Speaker 1: com in standard leagues, Isaiah Crowell is a mid third rounder,

167
00:08:53,960 --> 00:08:56,880
Speaker 1: Spencer Ware is also a mid third rounder, and Stefan

168
00:08:56,880 --> 00:08:59,920
Speaker 1: Diggs is an eighth rounder. Now I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

169
00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:03,760
Speaker 1: The fantasy community generally under sells Stefan Diggs, but that

170
00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:06,160
Speaker 1: ADP data at least tells you that if you're really

171
00:09:06,200 --> 00:09:09,200
Speaker 1: looking to get Stefan Diggs in the actual draft, you

172
00:09:09,200 --> 00:09:11,160
Speaker 1: probably wouldn't have to spend a lot of money on him.

173
00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:13,800
Speaker 1: Spencer Ware and Isaiah Crowell, in other words, are going

174
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:17,360
Speaker 1: to be more expensive buys in your draft. Now let's

175
00:09:17,400 --> 00:09:20,720
Speaker 1: look at personal evaluation. I agree with you that Crowell

176
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:23,000
Speaker 1: is the guy to keep for sure. He's a low

177
00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:25,240
Speaker 1: end RB one, according to my projections, will get goal

178
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:29,040
Speaker 1: line work. The Browns just enhanced their offensive line. He's

179
00:09:29,080 --> 00:09:31,199
Speaker 1: not a terrible spot this year despite being in a

180
00:09:31,320 --> 00:09:33,559
Speaker 1: men offense. So it comes down to Stephan Diggs or

181
00:09:33,559 --> 00:09:36,000
Speaker 1: Spencer Ware. As you said, I don't love Spencer Ware.

182
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:38,680
Speaker 1: I mentioned this before on the show. I think Kareem

183
00:09:38,760 --> 00:09:41,880
Speaker 1: Hunt gets involved in this offense this season, especially as

184
00:09:41,920 --> 00:09:44,360
Speaker 1: the year goes on. I've mentioned this before, but Spencer

185
00:09:44,400 --> 00:09:47,800
Speaker 1: Ware has only seen two hundred or more carries once

186
00:09:48,240 --> 00:09:51,760
Speaker 1: in his college and professional career, and it came last season.

187
00:09:52,160 --> 00:09:55,280
Speaker 1: And then right after that season, the Chiefs went out

188
00:09:55,320 --> 00:09:57,680
Speaker 1: and traded up for Hunt in the third round, which

189
00:09:57,720 --> 00:09:59,720
Speaker 1: shows me they not only like Hunt, but they know

190
00:09:59,840 --> 00:10:02,880
Speaker 1: this about spencer Ware. They know that he might not

191
00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:07,640
Speaker 1: be an uber reliable asset. So where as a player,

192
00:10:07,760 --> 00:10:10,280
Speaker 1: as a keeper, I don't love I'm not in love

193
00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:12,920
Speaker 1: with him. But in this case, given it's a standard

194
00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:15,520
Speaker 1: league where running backs become a lot more valuable given

195
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:17,439
Speaker 1: that flex spot will go to a running back or

196
00:10:17,440 --> 00:10:19,800
Speaker 1: should go to a running back. I'm fine with keeping

197
00:10:19,840 --> 00:10:24,320
Speaker 1: war along with Crowell and potentially trying to trade Spencerware

198
00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:28,120
Speaker 1: away selling the fact that he's a cheap keeper, because

199
00:10:28,160 --> 00:10:31,440
Speaker 1: there are spencer Ware truthers out there. People love them

200
00:10:31,520 --> 00:10:34,000
Speaker 1: from spencer Ware. What you're doing here is you're essentially

201
00:10:34,040 --> 00:10:36,079
Speaker 1: playing the market as opposed to picking the player you

202
00:10:36,160 --> 00:10:38,440
Speaker 1: might like a little bit more since it might be

203
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:41,840
Speaker 1: close in your eyes, let the market be the tiebreaker.

204
00:10:42,040 --> 00:10:44,560
Speaker 1: That means spencer Ware would be your keeper, and then

205
00:10:44,600 --> 00:10:48,080
Speaker 1: if you really like Stefan Diggs, just buy him during

206
00:10:48,120 --> 00:10:52,760
Speaker 1: the draft. We've got another keeper question from Kevin Lewis.

207
00:10:52,800 --> 00:10:54,640
Speaker 1: This is an email. He says, this is a PPR

208
00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:57,520
Speaker 1: league with two hundred and ten dollars cap, two running backs,

209
00:10:57,520 --> 00:11:00,520
Speaker 1: two wide receivers, and a flex. I'm currently keeping Mike

210
00:11:00,559 --> 00:11:03,000
Speaker 1: Evans for twenty two dollars, Treell Prior for three dollars,

211
00:11:03,040 --> 00:11:05,320
Speaker 1: and I'm debating on a third keeper. Would you keep

212
00:11:05,360 --> 00:11:09,600
Speaker 1: Sammy Watkins for sixteen or Time Montgomery for fifteen? Thanks JJ,

213
00:11:09,640 --> 00:11:13,120
Speaker 1: I enjoy your work. Thank you Kevin. First off, I

214
00:11:13,160 --> 00:11:15,440
Speaker 1: love Mike Evans and Terrell Prior for those costs. So

215
00:11:15,480 --> 00:11:17,120
Speaker 1: good on you, man, But in this case, I think

216
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:19,520
Speaker 1: I'd go with Sammy. Just like I talked about, He's

217
00:11:19,520 --> 00:11:22,640
Speaker 1: got the stronger average draft costs. You know, his market

218
00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:25,920
Speaker 1: value is greater than what you'll see from Time Montgomery.

219
00:11:25,960 --> 00:11:28,800
Speaker 1: The other thing here is general team construction. Two. You're

220
00:11:28,840 --> 00:11:30,800
Speaker 1: going to be starting three wide receivers each week in

221
00:11:30,840 --> 00:11:33,440
Speaker 1: this league. Since it's a full PPR league, wide receivers

222
00:11:34,040 --> 00:11:36,440
Speaker 1: roll the flex in that case, and I love the

223
00:11:36,480 --> 00:11:38,880
Speaker 1: idea of having Sammy as a wide receiver three. Also,

224
00:11:39,160 --> 00:11:41,400
Speaker 1: his upside is pretty immense. He's been heard, of course,

225
00:11:41,679 --> 00:11:44,200
Speaker 1: but throw him in any projections model and he comes

226
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:45,880
Speaker 1: out as a low end wide receiver one or a

227
00:11:45,920 --> 00:11:49,520
Speaker 1: high end wide receiver two. Because models, generally speaking, don't

228
00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:52,120
Speaker 1: care that much about injuries. The whole point of them

229
00:11:52,160 --> 00:11:54,079
Speaker 1: is to be objective. And here's a quick and dirty

230
00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:56,320
Speaker 1: way of looking at Watkins. Over the last two years,

231
00:11:56,360 --> 00:11:58,600
Speaker 1: Sammy has seen four or more targets in a game

232
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:02,360
Speaker 1: sixteen times, excluding Week seventeen. I'm looking at things this

233
00:12:02,400 --> 00:12:04,760
Speaker 1: way because he's played games hurt, and when healthy, we

234
00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:07,559
Speaker 1: can probably assume he'll see that number as a general baseline,

235
00:12:07,640 --> 00:12:10,640
Speaker 1: each week he's given you a wide receiver two performance

236
00:12:10,679 --> 00:12:14,240
Speaker 1: in ten of those sixteen games. That's wide receiver one esque.

237
00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:16,800
Speaker 1: That type of performance is right in line with Julio

238
00:12:16,920 --> 00:12:19,079
Speaker 1: Jones and t Y Hilton and Mike Evans. Again, that's

239
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:20,920
Speaker 1: a quick and dirty way of looking at his production.

240
00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:23,800
Speaker 1: But what it shows us is that Watkins has a

241
00:12:23,840 --> 00:12:26,680
Speaker 1: crazy good ceiling and I like Time Montgomery a lot.

242
00:12:26,679 --> 00:12:29,200
Speaker 1: I talked about that on last week's Mailbag show. But

243
00:12:29,240 --> 00:12:32,640
Speaker 1: you've got the potential for three wide receiver ones realistically

244
00:12:33,160 --> 00:12:35,320
Speaker 1: with your group in a full PPR league where you

245
00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:39,720
Speaker 1: can start three wide receivers. That to me is huge.

246
00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:42,560
Speaker 1: This next one from Twitter, I figured I would get

247
00:12:42,559 --> 00:12:45,640
Speaker 1: this question. It's at DP football one, giving your lack

248
00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:48,199
Speaker 1: of interest in handcuffs. Who are your favorite targets for

249
00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:50,559
Speaker 1: late round running backs? Thanks so, Like I said, it's

250
00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:52,520
Speaker 1: a good question. As I said on that show, I'm

251
00:12:52,559 --> 00:12:56,840
Speaker 1: looking for strictly upside combined with ambiguous starter situations with

252
00:12:57,000 --> 00:12:59,240
Speaker 1: those picks, and a lot of those guys end up

253
00:12:59,280 --> 00:13:02,760
Speaker 1: being rookies. Kareem Hunt is running back fifty on Fantasy

254
00:13:02,760 --> 00:13:06,520
Speaker 1: Football Calculator dot com. He qualifies technically as a late

255
00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:09,040
Speaker 1: round guy that I would target digging deeper, though both

256
00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:11,960
Speaker 1: Jamal and Joe Williams are viable players who could see

257
00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:14,760
Speaker 1: playing time this year. No one is handcuffing Carlos hide

258
00:13:14,760 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 1: in time Montgomery. They are not handcuffs. And I have

259
00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,480
Speaker 1: to mention Aaron Jones when I mentioned Jamal Williams, because

260
00:13:20,480 --> 00:13:22,440
Speaker 1: I think Aaron Jones is the better prospect and he

261
00:13:22,520 --> 00:13:26,320
Speaker 1: was only drafted one round later than Jamal Williams, So

262
00:13:26,440 --> 00:13:28,960
Speaker 1: Aaron Jones in deeper leagues is definitely a great grab.

263
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:31,480
Speaker 1: I like DeAndre Washington. I think that he's really really

264
00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:34,240
Speaker 1: interesting in Oakland. He could have standalone value, but if

265
00:13:34,240 --> 00:13:37,640
Speaker 1: something happens to an aged Marshawn Lynch, then there's upside.

266
00:13:37,720 --> 00:13:39,719
Speaker 1: And this is what I mean with the handcuffing thing.

267
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:42,920
Speaker 1: Sure he's a Marshawn Lynch handcuff, but at times this

268
00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:48,520
Speaker 1: season DeAndre Washington might be a flex viable player, especially

269
00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:51,160
Speaker 1: in deeper leagues, but he still has that upside if

270
00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:53,520
Speaker 1: Marshawn Lynch were to go down. This is a good

271
00:13:53,559 --> 00:13:55,400
Speaker 1: example of what I said on The Handcuff Show of

272
00:13:55,440 --> 00:13:59,839
Speaker 1: finding running backs who possess standalone ability using the hand

273
00:14:00,040 --> 00:14:03,280
Speaker 1: cuffing aspect as an added bonus. I think Alvin Kamara

274
00:14:03,360 --> 00:14:05,240
Speaker 1: is another one. I don't like him as a prospect,

275
00:14:05,400 --> 00:14:08,240
Speaker 1: but he landed in the perfect spot for fantasy production.

276
00:14:08,440 --> 00:14:11,199
Speaker 1: He could be a potential flex in PPR formats. He's

277
00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:13,520
Speaker 1: certainly not a handcuff considering he didn't even hit twenty

278
00:14:13,520 --> 00:14:16,080
Speaker 1: percent rushing attempt market share his final season in college,

279
00:14:16,120 --> 00:14:17,960
Speaker 1: but he's a great pass catcher who could do work

280
00:14:18,000 --> 00:14:20,520
Speaker 1: in that offense. I'm fine with throwing a dart at

281
00:14:20,560 --> 00:14:23,480
Speaker 1: Rex Burkhead too. I like Mike Gillisley a lot, and

282
00:14:23,520 --> 00:14:26,160
Speaker 1: I think that he'll be the dude in New England.

283
00:14:26,240 --> 00:14:28,720
Speaker 1: But it's New England we're talking about, and Burkehead has

284
00:14:28,760 --> 00:14:32,160
Speaker 1: been efficient in his limited sample. Plus you're associating your

285
00:14:32,240 --> 00:14:35,160
Speaker 1: running back with probably the best offense in the NFL

286
00:14:35,200 --> 00:14:36,720
Speaker 1: this season. So those are just some of the guys

287
00:14:36,760 --> 00:14:39,720
Speaker 1: that'd rather take than a Jonathan Williams or a James

288
00:14:39,720 --> 00:14:42,640
Speaker 1: Connor type. Obviously, ADP in the late rounds will fluctuate

289
00:14:42,720 --> 00:14:44,680
Speaker 1: a lot, but I think the general line of thinking

290
00:14:44,720 --> 00:14:47,800
Speaker 1: here is to get rookie backs in situations with questionable starters.

291
00:14:49,560 --> 00:14:51,880
Speaker 1: This next one's an email from Brian Witten, Hey JJ,

292
00:14:51,960 --> 00:14:54,360
Speaker 1: I own Gronk and a keeper auction league for hefty

293
00:14:54,360 --> 00:14:57,440
Speaker 1: price of forty five dollars to keep. With a three

294
00:14:57,520 --> 00:15:00,440
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty dollars budget to roster thirty players, I

295
00:15:00,520 --> 00:15:03,160
Speaker 1: doubt I'll be able to trade him pre auction. Do

296
00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:06,160
Speaker 1: you expect one thousand plus yards and twelve plus touchdowns

297
00:15:06,200 --> 00:15:09,600
Speaker 1: this year? Assuming no new injuries. I'm leaning towards throwing

298
00:15:09,680 --> 00:15:12,280
Speaker 1: him back. If Rob Gronkowski is healthy, I think he

299
00:15:12,280 --> 00:15:14,400
Speaker 1: can hit those marks. And if those marks are what

300
00:15:14,440 --> 00:15:16,680
Speaker 1: you need in order to keep him, then it sounds

301
00:15:16,680 --> 00:15:18,240
Speaker 1: like you're going to keep him. You all know that

302
00:15:18,280 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 1: I'm not an early round tight end drafter, but there's

303
00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:22,640
Speaker 1: a chance I make an exception for Gronk at some

304
00:15:22,760 --> 00:15:24,880
Speaker 1: drafts this year, with him sometimes falling to the super

305
00:15:24,960 --> 00:15:27,200
Speaker 1: late second round or maybe even into the third round.

306
00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:29,080
Speaker 1: Part of it is because my model really likes him

307
00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:32,360
Speaker 1: this year and what should be a potent Patriots offense.

308
00:15:32,680 --> 00:15:35,000
Speaker 1: I have him pegged for over eleven hundred yards in

309
00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:38,160
Speaker 1: about twelve touchdowns, which of course is assuming he plays

310
00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:40,800
Speaker 1: every game this year, and that's not a given as

311
00:15:40,840 --> 00:15:43,240
Speaker 1: we know with Rob Gronkowski, as he's missed eight one,

312
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:45,800
Speaker 1: one nine to five games over the last five years.

313
00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:48,320
Speaker 1: But I will say this, it's hard to answer specifically

314
00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:51,360
Speaker 1: about your league, Brian, because I don't know how many

315
00:15:51,360 --> 00:15:54,040
Speaker 1: players are being kept and how many teams there are

316
00:15:54,080 --> 00:15:56,920
Speaker 1: in your league. If it's a hefty price tag and

317
00:15:56,960 --> 00:15:59,040
Speaker 1: you don't feel comfortable keeping him, I get it. I

318
00:15:59,080 --> 00:16:01,320
Speaker 1: won't fault you for that, especially if you can get

319
00:16:01,400 --> 00:16:03,840
Speaker 1: him for cheaper. And that's the thing with these keepers.

320
00:16:04,280 --> 00:16:06,880
Speaker 1: I've already said this, but it's so important. If you

321
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:08,920
Speaker 1: can get a guy for a couple bucks more than

322
00:16:08,920 --> 00:16:11,640
Speaker 1: you keep him for, throw him back in the poll.

323
00:16:12,200 --> 00:16:16,240
Speaker 1: That's opportunity cost because you are foregoing the opportunity to

324
00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:20,440
Speaker 1: keep super huge value players instead. So if there's another

325
00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:22,800
Speaker 1: guy in your roster, that's good and you can keep

326
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:26,520
Speaker 1: him for cheap, all while drafting Rob Gronkowski for not

327
00:16:26,640 --> 00:16:29,880
Speaker 1: that much more money in your actual draft. Do that.

328
00:16:30,080 --> 00:16:32,080
Speaker 1: So overall, I can't give you a direct answer other

329
00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:34,240
Speaker 1: than the fact that my model likes Gronk this year,

330
00:16:34,240 --> 00:16:38,040
Speaker 1: and I, someone who never takes tight ends early, actually

331
00:16:38,120 --> 00:16:41,560
Speaker 1: like him a lot too. This next one is from

332
00:16:41,560 --> 00:16:45,480
Speaker 1: Twitter at jj pacfan. How can net expected points account

333
00:16:45,520 --> 00:16:48,640
Speaker 1: for successive play call and surrounding talent when looking at

334
00:16:48,680 --> 00:16:52,960
Speaker 1: successive individual player on a given play. Example, Ezekiel Elliott

335
00:16:52,960 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 1: gains ten on a run because the line gave him

336
00:16:55,320 --> 00:16:59,600
Speaker 1: eight yards untouched. Gurley gains four on a run because

337
00:16:59,600 --> 00:17:03,840
Speaker 1: the line gave one yard untouched. Comparing NEP unfair. This

338
00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:06,919
Speaker 1: is an excellent, excellent question. I thank you for asking it.

339
00:17:07,440 --> 00:17:09,320
Speaker 1: The short answer is that it doesn't account for that

340
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:12,640
Speaker 1: Todd Gurley is going to naturally have worse numbers than

341
00:17:12,680 --> 00:17:17,000
Speaker 1: Ezekiel Elliott because he's running behind a worse offensive line

342
00:17:17,119 --> 00:17:19,639
Speaker 1: and he doesn't have efficient quarterback play on his team.

343
00:17:19,720 --> 00:17:21,800
Speaker 1: Some of you are now sitting there saying man net

344
00:17:21,800 --> 00:17:24,879
Speaker 1: expected points really sucks, then, but hear me out. If

345
00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:27,119
Speaker 1: we're trying to determine if a player is good or not,

346
00:17:27,280 --> 00:17:31,600
Speaker 1: strictly comparing his ANYP totals to me is not enough.

347
00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:35,400
Speaker 1: Just like strictly comparing a quarterback's adjusted netyards per attempt

348
00:17:35,640 --> 00:17:38,560
Speaker 1: isn't necessarily enough either, Or someone looking at a wide

349
00:17:38,600 --> 00:17:41,119
Speaker 1: receiver's yards per target rate that's not enough. This is

350
00:17:41,119 --> 00:17:44,399
Speaker 1: why I love football so much. There's no one metric

351
00:17:44,520 --> 00:17:47,560
Speaker 1: that captures everything about a player, and there's no one

352
00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:50,520
Speaker 1: metric that will tell you if one player is better

353
00:17:50,560 --> 00:17:53,359
Speaker 1: than another, and that's why content exists on Number Fire

354
00:17:53,440 --> 00:17:56,720
Speaker 1: and why this podcast exists too. If I see Todd

355
00:17:56,760 --> 00:18:00,680
Speaker 1: Gurley's rushing ANEP as god awful, I'm not automatic relating

356
00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:03,479
Speaker 1: his performance to that of Ezekiel Elliott, because, as you noted,

357
00:18:04,040 --> 00:18:06,840
Speaker 1: that's not fair. What I might do is see how

358
00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:10,520
Speaker 1: his teammates performed in similar circumstances behind the same offensive line.

359
00:18:10,800 --> 00:18:14,320
Speaker 1: If there are glaring differences, then it's time to investigate further.

360
00:18:14,440 --> 00:18:16,199
Speaker 1: But the other point to make with this is that

361
00:18:16,240 --> 00:18:19,439
Speaker 1: fantasy football isn't just about the player. It's about the

362
00:18:19,480 --> 00:18:22,920
Speaker 1: situation too. I know people hate to hear that because

363
00:18:22,960 --> 00:18:26,520
Speaker 1: they want player evaluation to mean so much, but situations

364
00:18:26,560 --> 00:18:29,800
Speaker 1: matter just as much as the player itself. Ezekiel Elliott

365
00:18:29,800 --> 00:18:31,760
Speaker 1: plays behind a good offensive line and is in a

366
00:18:31,800 --> 00:18:35,439
Speaker 1: good offense. His net expected points totals reflect that, aside

367
00:18:35,440 --> 00:18:37,640
Speaker 1: from the fact that he's also good, and we can

368
00:18:37,760 --> 00:18:40,640
Speaker 1: use that fact because fantasy points are accumulated that way too.

369
00:18:41,040 --> 00:18:43,960
Speaker 1: Ezekiel Elliott didn't get dinged last year in fantasy football

370
00:18:43,960 --> 00:18:46,600
Speaker 1: because his offensive line was good. What I use net

371
00:18:46,640 --> 00:18:49,320
Speaker 1: expected points for aside from What I noted in comparing

372
00:18:49,359 --> 00:18:52,639
Speaker 1: teammates is to find trends and regression without comparing to

373
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:54,919
Speaker 1: other players. If a running back has a low success

374
00:18:55,040 --> 00:18:57,880
Speaker 1: rate or the percentage of positive runs that he makes

375
00:18:57,920 --> 00:19:01,240
Speaker 1: with each carry, and a high per rush efficiency, that

376
00:19:01,400 --> 00:19:03,840
Speaker 1: tells me that regression is coming for that player. He's

377
00:19:03,880 --> 00:19:06,760
Speaker 1: being very, very efficient with his runs, but they're probably

378
00:19:06,760 --> 00:19:09,200
Speaker 1: coming on big plays because his success rate is really

379
00:19:09,200 --> 00:19:12,080
Speaker 1: really low. He's not doing it consistently. That was Todd

380
00:19:12,080 --> 00:19:14,440
Speaker 1: Gurley his rookie season. I also use it a ton

381
00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:17,840
Speaker 1: for matchup purposes because team defense numbers can be skewed

382
00:19:17,840 --> 00:19:20,920
Speaker 1: by things like gamescript our schedule. Adjusted net expected points

383
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:23,720
Speaker 1: numbers for pass defense and rush defense give you a

384
00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:26,320
Speaker 1: different angle than the typical fantasy points allowed through the

385
00:19:26,359 --> 00:19:29,880
Speaker 1: air or number of yards allowed by a particular defense.

386
00:19:30,080 --> 00:19:31,879
Speaker 1: I could go on with this forever, but the bottom

387
00:19:31,960 --> 00:19:35,720
Speaker 1: line is net expected points won't account for teammate personnel.

388
00:19:36,280 --> 00:19:39,040
Speaker 1: It's up to me to analyze what the data is

389
00:19:39,080 --> 00:19:41,080
Speaker 1: saying and make sense of it for you. And I

390
00:19:41,080 --> 00:19:44,119
Speaker 1: think that's totally normal and healthy because there are no

391
00:19:44,320 --> 00:19:48,320
Speaker 1: single metrics that capture everything in such a complex sport.

392
00:19:50,040 --> 00:19:53,159
Speaker 1: This next one is from at Tyler Boloski. Would you

393
00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:55,560
Speaker 1: draft the two to three running backs out of New

394
00:19:55,640 --> 00:19:58,520
Speaker 1: Orleans handcuff or not Ingram and Ap will get hurt

395
00:19:58,560 --> 00:20:01,400
Speaker 1: this year, or would you completely stay away from them.

396
00:20:01,480 --> 00:20:03,199
Speaker 1: I'm really not a fan of owning a backfield in

397
00:20:03,200 --> 00:20:05,800
Speaker 1: fantasy football, but if you're in multiple leagues, I'm totally

398
00:20:05,840 --> 00:20:08,000
Speaker 1: a fan of getting some equity in the backfield by

399
00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:11,040
Speaker 1: getting Ap in one league, Ingram in another league, and

400
00:20:11,080 --> 00:20:13,879
Speaker 1: so on. But owning multiple guys from the same backfield

401
00:20:13,960 --> 00:20:16,640
Speaker 1: really doesn't yield a ton of upside. And please don't

402
00:20:16,640 --> 00:20:20,720
Speaker 1: point to the outlier Devonte Freeman Tevin Coleman situation like handcuffs.

403
00:20:20,760 --> 00:20:24,000
Speaker 1: You're still playing for a floor in that scenario. Or

404
00:20:24,520 --> 00:20:27,080
Speaker 1: to put this another way, you're admitting defeat with a

405
00:20:27,080 --> 00:20:29,840
Speaker 1: potential early to mid round pick by saying one of

406
00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:32,320
Speaker 1: these guys isn't going to pan out. I just don't

407
00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:34,680
Speaker 1: think that's the right way to approach fantasy football because

408
00:20:34,680 --> 00:20:37,399
Speaker 1: there's an opportunity cost involved in that. And I'm also

409
00:20:37,480 --> 00:20:40,679
Speaker 1: not one to really play the injury predicting game. So

410
00:20:40,680 --> 00:20:43,240
Speaker 1: I'm going to go into a season assuming no one

411
00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:46,440
Speaker 1: is getting hurt and maybe just subjectively ding some guys

412
00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:48,600
Speaker 1: who get hurt a lot. If that's the case, it's

413
00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:51,160
Speaker 1: hard to really justify having multiple backs in the same

414
00:20:51,200 --> 00:20:54,360
Speaker 1: backfield because you're either a playing the guessing game each

415
00:20:54,400 --> 00:20:57,160
Speaker 1: week or B starting both of them and not getting

416
00:20:57,240 --> 00:20:59,800
Speaker 1: enough upside. In most cases like this, I just go

417
00:20:59,840 --> 00:21:02,560
Speaker 1: for the cheaper back in sharper leagues. It looks like

418
00:21:02,600 --> 00:21:06,879
Speaker 1: Adrian Peterson often falls, but on Fantasy Football Calculator dot Com,

419
00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:08,840
Speaker 1: which is more of an indicator of how the public

420
00:21:08,840 --> 00:21:11,840
Speaker 1: world draft, AP is a fourth rounder and Ingram is

421
00:21:11,880 --> 00:21:14,439
Speaker 1: a fifth rounder, so Ingram would be the one that

422
00:21:14,480 --> 00:21:17,480
Speaker 1: I would take on that site. Overall, though, I fear

423
00:21:17,560 --> 00:21:20,040
Speaker 1: that the backfield could be an unpredictable mess week to week.

424
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:22,000
Speaker 1: As much as I like the situation for running backs

425
00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:25,120
Speaker 1: in that offense, I really didn't expect both of their

426
00:21:25,160 --> 00:21:27,320
Speaker 1: average draft costs to be as high as they are

427
00:21:27,359 --> 00:21:29,920
Speaker 1: in more casual leagues. But we'll just see how things

428
00:21:30,040 --> 00:21:34,280
Speaker 1: change closer to August. This last one is from at

429
00:21:34,400 --> 00:21:37,240
Speaker 1: rich Lutchen on Twitter. With the plethora of options for

430
00:21:37,359 --> 00:21:40,320
Speaker 1: mister Winston, does he equate to a breakout quarterback? Does

431
00:21:40,400 --> 00:21:43,240
Speaker 1: Evans have more upside? Now? Thanks love this new pod.

432
00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:47,320
Speaker 1: Thank you Rich I appreciate the question. So obviously, Winston

433
00:21:47,400 --> 00:21:50,280
Speaker 1: has really really incredible upside this season with all these

434
00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:52,880
Speaker 1: new weapons. It's really exciting. But if there's one thing

435
00:21:52,920 --> 00:21:55,439
Speaker 1: to worry about with Jamis, it's that when the Bucks

436
00:21:55,440 --> 00:21:58,359
Speaker 1: started winning games last year, he became less of a

437
00:21:58,400 --> 00:22:01,240
Speaker 1: fantasy asset. Last season, the Bucks started three to five.

438
00:22:01,760 --> 00:22:05,720
Speaker 1: After Week nine, Jameis Winston had an average weekly ranking

439
00:22:05,720 --> 00:22:10,040
Speaker 1: of thirteen point seventy five with four top ten fantasy performances.

440
00:22:10,240 --> 00:22:13,320
Speaker 1: He was averaging over thirty eight attempts per game and

441
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:16,480
Speaker 1: seventeen point nine fantasy points per game. Jameis Winston was

442
00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:18,840
Speaker 1: really really good to start the year from a fantasy perspective.

443
00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:22,040
Speaker 1: Over the final seven fantasy relevant games, games were the

444
00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:24,439
Speaker 1: Bucks won, they were five and two. Over the stretch,

445
00:22:24,640 --> 00:22:27,520
Speaker 1: Jameis Winston averaged fourteen point seven three points per game,

446
00:22:27,560 --> 00:22:30,040
Speaker 1: which was over three points fewer per game than that

447
00:22:30,119 --> 00:22:32,040
Speaker 1: first half of the season. He had thirty two point

448
00:22:32,080 --> 00:22:35,040
Speaker 1: two eight attempts per game, so six fewer attempts per game,

449
00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:38,439
Speaker 1: and he played New Orleans twice over those final seven games.

450
00:22:38,520 --> 00:22:40,640
Speaker 1: I bring this up because the team's defense went from

451
00:22:40,640 --> 00:22:42,720
Speaker 1: being one of the worst in football to start the year,

452
00:22:43,080 --> 00:22:46,520
Speaker 1: according to Number five Metrics to a pretty decent one

453
00:22:46,880 --> 00:22:49,920
Speaker 1: over the second half of the season, and when that happened,

454
00:22:50,359 --> 00:22:53,840
Speaker 1: their drop back to run ratio went from one point

455
00:22:53,880 --> 00:22:57,159
Speaker 1: five to two, which was fairly pass friendly, down to

456
00:22:57,200 --> 00:22:59,760
Speaker 1: one point two zero. Now, last year it made sense

457
00:22:59,800 --> 00:23:02,560
Speaker 1: for the Bucks to not be super pass heavy. They

458
00:23:02,560 --> 00:23:05,560
Speaker 1: had very few pass catchers there and their offense wasn't

459
00:23:05,560 --> 00:23:08,440
Speaker 1: overly efficient as a result. So now they have Deshaun Jackson,

460
00:23:08,520 --> 00:23:11,400
Speaker 1: they drafted Chris Godwin, O. J. Howard, and they even

461
00:23:11,440 --> 00:23:13,119
Speaker 1: added depth at running back with the guy that I

462
00:23:13,240 --> 00:23:15,760
Speaker 1: liked a lot pre draft and Jeremy McNichols. Things are

463
00:23:15,800 --> 00:23:18,600
Speaker 1: different this year, but if there's a negative to Winston,

464
00:23:18,600 --> 00:23:21,360
Speaker 1: it's probably the game script thing and also the fact

465
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:23,960
Speaker 1: that quarterbacks don't matter a whole lot in fantasy football,

466
00:23:24,160 --> 00:23:26,199
Speaker 1: so there's no need to really reach for someone like

467
00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:29,919
Speaker 1: Winston when other passers like Andy Dalton or Marcus Mariota

468
00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:33,280
Speaker 1: and so on are available late and in that area.

469
00:23:33,400 --> 00:23:35,240
Speaker 1: That'll do it for me this week. Guys, hope you

470
00:23:35,280 --> 00:23:37,520
Speaker 1: all enjoyed the Little Q and A. As always, you

471
00:23:37,560 --> 00:23:39,919
Speaker 1: can subscribe to the Late Round podcast by searching for

472
00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:42,919
Speaker 1: the show anywhere you can subscribe for podcasts, and if

473
00:23:42,960 --> 00:23:46,119
Speaker 1: you have questions for future Mailbag episodes, feel free to

474
00:23:46,200 --> 00:23:49,040
Speaker 1: hit me up on Twitter at late round QB or

475
00:23:49,080 --> 00:24:01,760
Speaker 1: email me at jjat number fire dot com. Take care, guys,