1 00:00:02,400 --> 00:00:06,080 Speaker 1: This is the Late Podcast with your host, JJ Zacherthis 2 00:00:06,160 --> 00:00:14,280 Speaker 1: JJ zacherfon. What's up everyone. It's JJ Zachariesen in this 3 00:00:14,360 --> 00:00:18,119 Speaker 1: episode ten eighty two of the Late Round Fantasy Football podcast. 4 00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:23,439 Speaker 1: Thanks for tuning in. Before getting to the mailbag questions today, 5 00:00:23,520 --> 00:00:25,239 Speaker 1: I just want to send another reminder that the Late 6 00:00:25,320 --> 00:00:28,560 Speaker 1: Round Prospect Guide is currently available for pre order. This 7 00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:30,760 Speaker 1: year's guide lets you know everything that goes in the 8 00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:34,000 Speaker 1: ZAP model. It's got profiles for every running back, wide receiver, 9 00:00:34,200 --> 00:00:36,720 Speaker 1: and tight end going to the NFL combine. And there's 10 00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:39,560 Speaker 1: also the Year two profiles. I have my Year two 11 00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:42,360 Speaker 1: model for second year NFL players. I've got a little 12 00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:45,040 Speaker 1: over thirty profiles for running backs and wide receivers in 13 00:00:45,040 --> 00:00:48,680 Speaker 1: this guide too. Basically, there's a ton in this guide 14 00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:51,000 Speaker 1: and you can pre order it right now for fourteen 15 00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:54,480 Speaker 1: ninety nine over on Lateround dot com. That's gonna go 16 00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:57,160 Speaker 1: up to nineteen ninety nine when the guide launches in 17 00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:01,000 Speaker 1: mid March. Again, just head a Late Round and you 18 00:01:01,040 --> 00:01:05,440 Speaker 1: can learn more there. The first question this week is 19 00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:09,319 Speaker 1: from Twitter. It's from at SF Underscore David Geo. It says, 20 00:01:09,640 --> 00:01:12,160 Speaker 1: as you dig into the prospects, have you noticed any 21 00:01:12,240 --> 00:01:15,000 Speaker 1: more impact of this transfer era now that there's a 22 00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:18,880 Speaker 1: larger sample, or does teammates score account for it enough. 23 00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:22,920 Speaker 1: So modeling was definitely a little bit more straightforward before 24 00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:26,240 Speaker 1: players started transferring the way they are right now, mostly 25 00:01:26,280 --> 00:01:28,160 Speaker 1: in that things were a little bit more contained and 26 00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:31,200 Speaker 1: a little bit more controlled. You could more easily do 27 00:01:31,319 --> 00:01:34,760 Speaker 1: things like account for teammate competition. Teammates score, though, is 28 00:01:34,760 --> 00:01:38,280 Speaker 1: a complicated thing to really nail down from a statistical perspective. 29 00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:40,880 Speaker 1: I've been thinking about this a lot with Judaian Price 30 00:01:40,920 --> 00:01:44,240 Speaker 1: in particular this year, with him having played behind Jeremiah Love. 31 00:01:44,760 --> 00:01:47,480 Speaker 1: On one hand, you're gonna hear people say, of course, 32 00:01:47,520 --> 00:01:52,400 Speaker 1: his production profiles sucked he played behind Jeremiah Love. I 33 00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:55,480 Speaker 1: actually got an email about that this week, and it's 34 00:01:55,520 --> 00:01:59,960 Speaker 1: an incredibly valid thing to say for the record Tuesday show, 35 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:03,320 Speaker 1: So we'll just me talking about production only. But on 36 00:02:03,360 --> 00:02:05,560 Speaker 1: the other hand, yeah, we may not have many instances 37 00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:08,000 Speaker 1: where legit running back played behind a stud like this, 38 00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:10,720 Speaker 1: but it's not like we haven't seen split backfields in 39 00:02:10,720 --> 00:02:14,799 Speaker 1: college in the past with multiple NFL backs. You can 40 00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:18,400 Speaker 1: look at Ohio State just last year, and we can 41 00:02:18,440 --> 00:02:21,000 Speaker 1: give those players a little bit of a boost, it's 42 00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:23,960 Speaker 1: just a question of how much, and that's where you 43 00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:26,880 Speaker 1: can really get yourself into trouble. I mean, think about 44 00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:31,080 Speaker 1: Roshan Johnson. He plays behind Bijon Robinson in college and 45 00:02:31,120 --> 00:02:33,520 Speaker 1: so we excuse away some of his lack of production, 46 00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:37,160 Speaker 1: but he hasn't been usable in the NFL. So if 47 00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:40,400 Speaker 1: we make too many excuses, it can lead to misses 48 00:02:40,400 --> 00:02:43,560 Speaker 1: in our evaluation. Now, I think I've built a reasonable 49 00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:46,360 Speaker 1: teammate scoer that can properly boost a player like Price. 50 00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:49,600 Speaker 1: He'll be right there from a Zapp score perspective, with 51 00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:53,080 Speaker 1: Jonah Coleman and Emmitt Johnson more than likely, which I 52 00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:56,200 Speaker 1: think is fair right now here in February. But what 53 00:02:56,320 --> 00:02:58,760 Speaker 1: does make teammates score a little difficult is at number 54 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:00,720 Speaker 1: one what I just talked to, which is knowing the 55 00:03:00,760 --> 00:03:03,840 Speaker 1: degree in which you should boost a player's profile. But 56 00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:08,440 Speaker 1: then there's number two, which is underclassmen. For my teammate score, 57 00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:10,680 Speaker 1: I'm essentially looking at the final two years of a 58 00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:13,040 Speaker 1: player's career to see if he played with anyone good 59 00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:17,560 Speaker 1: and I helped define good by draft capital, so Generian Price, 60 00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:20,120 Speaker 1: he gets a boost for playing with a guy who's 61 00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:22,720 Speaker 1: likely going to be a top ten, top fifteen pick, 62 00:03:23,680 --> 00:03:26,480 Speaker 1: but think Jackson Smith and Jigba on the wide receiver side. 63 00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:29,920 Speaker 1: He played alongside some really good wide receivers in college. 64 00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:34,120 Speaker 1: His sophomore season was insane, and he was playing with 65 00:03:34,160 --> 00:03:36,960 Speaker 1: Garrett Wilson and Chris A. Lave who were early first 66 00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:40,800 Speaker 1: round picks. So the model can recognize that because they 67 00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:44,240 Speaker 1: came out a year before he did. But Chris Olave 68 00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:47,040 Speaker 1: and Garrett Wilson their teammates scores it was boosted because 69 00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:49,119 Speaker 1: they played with each other. Yes, and they were coming 70 00:03:49,160 --> 00:03:52,080 Speaker 1: out in the same draft class, but their teammates score 71 00:03:52,560 --> 00:03:56,080 Speaker 1: didn't recognize how good Jackson Smith and Jigbo was because 72 00:03:56,160 --> 00:03:59,800 Speaker 1: JSN came out a year later. Like look at Carnell 73 00:03:59,840 --> 00:04:03,240 Speaker 1: Tis this year. Tate has a good production profile, but 74 00:04:03,280 --> 00:04:07,040 Speaker 1: he's playing alongside Jeremiah Smith. Now we know that Smith 75 00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:09,320 Speaker 1: is going to be looked at favorably when he eventually 76 00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:11,760 Speaker 1: comes out, But you can probably start to see where 77 00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:14,280 Speaker 1: things become kind of an issue from a modeling perspective, 78 00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:18,760 Speaker 1: I can make that claim pretty confidently for Smith, But 79 00:04:18,839 --> 00:04:21,520 Speaker 1: where do you draw the line? All of a sudden, 80 00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:25,159 Speaker 1: if you're projecting the underclassmen, you're injecting a lot of 81 00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:28,279 Speaker 1: subjectivity that can easily do more harm than good with 82 00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:31,280 Speaker 1: a model, So teammate score is not perfect to begin 83 00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:34,719 Speaker 1: with the transfer stuff. It's not as big of a 84 00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:37,400 Speaker 1: deal though, because I can model things to recognize teammates 85 00:04:37,400 --> 00:04:40,960 Speaker 1: at different schools. The bigger problem for teammate scorer is 86 00:04:40,960 --> 00:04:43,920 Speaker 1: that it's just hard to capture properly. It does get 87 00:04:44,040 --> 00:04:46,320 Speaker 1: signal in the model, but I try to find the 88 00:04:46,360 --> 00:04:50,320 Speaker 1: right balance. What the transfer era has done the bigger 89 00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:53,560 Speaker 1: impact that has nothing to do with teammate score. It's 90 00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:57,880 Speaker 1: made classes generally older and we have fewer early declares too. 91 00:04:59,000 --> 00:05:00,359 Speaker 1: Not to be clear, I don't think if this is 92 00:05:00,440 --> 00:05:03,440 Speaker 1: only transfer related. It's just a piece of the pie. 93 00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:05,960 Speaker 1: Something that I think is playing a huge role as 94 00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:09,359 Speaker 1: the COVID season that shifted eligibility and kept players in 95 00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:12,720 Speaker 1: school a lot longer. So the short term data it's 96 00:05:12,720 --> 00:05:14,920 Speaker 1: going to be skewed higher than what we'll probably see 97 00:05:14,920 --> 00:05:17,680 Speaker 1: in twenty twenty seven, twenty twenty eight and beyond. So 98 00:05:17,720 --> 00:05:21,000 Speaker 1: it's the transfer era, it's the COVID era, and there's 99 00:05:21,040 --> 00:05:24,719 Speaker 1: also nil At least some players are going to stick 100 00:05:24,720 --> 00:05:27,599 Speaker 1: around school longer because they can still make money doing so, 101 00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:31,360 Speaker 1: all while hoping to improve their draft stock. Well, let's 102 00:05:31,360 --> 00:05:34,560 Speaker 1: focus on the transfer stuff. Transferring comes into play with 103 00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:38,440 Speaker 1: age because it gives players an out. Rather than having 104 00:05:38,480 --> 00:05:40,600 Speaker 1: to sit out a year, they can now immediately go 105 00:05:40,720 --> 00:05:44,200 Speaker 1: somewhere else and play, Which means if a player's contemplating 106 00:05:44,279 --> 00:05:46,600 Speaker 1: going to the NFL, where he might be looked at 107 00:05:46,680 --> 00:05:49,680 Speaker 1: slightly unfavorably, maybe as like a fringe day two to 108 00:05:49,760 --> 00:05:52,600 Speaker 1: Day three pick, he might say, screw it. I want 109 00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:55,000 Speaker 1: to find a better situation somewhere else in college, and 110 00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:57,560 Speaker 1: I want to improve my draft stock. I'm going to 111 00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:00,440 Speaker 1: stay in college, I tweeted to the other But just 112 00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:03,160 Speaker 1: look at recent running back draft classes. If you hit 113 00:06:03,200 --> 00:06:05,720 Speaker 1: the last three draft classes at running back twenty twenty four, 114 00:06:05,839 --> 00:06:07,840 Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, and then this year twenty twenty six, 115 00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:10,000 Speaker 1: when we look at running backs who were in the 116 00:06:10,080 --> 00:06:12,880 Speaker 1: ZAP model, which is every back who was either drafted 117 00:06:13,200 --> 00:06:16,520 Speaker 1: or at the NFL combine since twenty eleven. From twenty 118 00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:19,680 Speaker 1: eleven through twenty twenty three, we had eleven running backs 119 00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:21,800 Speaker 1: who were twenty four years or older by the time 120 00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:25,800 Speaker 1: they're drafted. Over the last three years twenty twenty four, 121 00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:29,760 Speaker 1: twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six, just three draft classes. 122 00:06:30,320 --> 00:06:34,120 Speaker 1: We've had fifteen of those backs, so we far surpassed 123 00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:39,040 Speaker 1: that mark of twenty four years old and just three seasons. Meanwhile, 124 00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:42,599 Speaker 1: early declares are dropping now I care more about declare 125 00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:45,919 Speaker 1: status at wide receivers. Let's just look there. From twenty 126 00:06:45,960 --> 00:06:49,400 Speaker 1: eleven through twenty twenty three, we frequently saw ten or 127 00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:53,240 Speaker 1: more early declare wide receivers with each draft class. Over 128 00:06:53,279 --> 00:06:56,479 Speaker 1: the last three years, we've had fewer than twenty total. 129 00:06:57,240 --> 00:06:59,840 Speaker 1: What's happening is typically only the best wide receivers are 130 00:06:59,839 --> 00:07:03,880 Speaker 1: not declaring early because, like I said, college players now 131 00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:07,920 Speaker 1: have more outs. It's not only due to transferring, but 132 00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,080 Speaker 1: that's definitely playing a role. Now. I know the common 133 00:07:11,120 --> 00:07:13,440 Speaker 1: response in this type of thing is, well, your model 134 00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:16,880 Speaker 1: isn't capturing those things properly now because the models tested 135 00:07:16,960 --> 00:07:19,280 Speaker 1: off of data that goes back to twenty eleven and 136 00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:24,080 Speaker 1: the landscape has changed. Yes, that's true, the landscape is different. 137 00:07:24,600 --> 00:07:27,640 Speaker 1: With that being said, younger players are still generally better 138 00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:30,960 Speaker 1: bets than older players are, and you can still look 139 00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:34,000 Speaker 1: at this through the lens of age adjusted production. That 140 00:07:34,080 --> 00:07:37,200 Speaker 1: hasn't really changed. Maybe it's a little bit more difficult 141 00:07:37,200 --> 00:07:39,840 Speaker 1: for players to break out early because now there are older, 142 00:07:40,280 --> 00:07:43,640 Speaker 1: more capable guys that are sticking around college. But let's 143 00:07:43,680 --> 00:07:46,600 Speaker 1: not pretend to that sample is massive. We only have 144 00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:48,720 Speaker 1: twenty running backs of the combine this year. There are 145 00:07:48,720 --> 00:07:51,640 Speaker 1: fewer than fifty wide receivers, and a lot of them 146 00:07:51,680 --> 00:07:54,840 Speaker 1: they won't be relevant in the NFL. We're just talking 147 00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:57,760 Speaker 1: about a handful of cases for the most part in 148 00:07:57,800 --> 00:08:01,640 Speaker 1: the grand scheme of college football. And as usual, guys, 149 00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:05,400 Speaker 1: the model isn't there to just give you answers. It's 150 00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:08,600 Speaker 1: to keep you level headed and to guide you to 151 00:08:08,640 --> 00:08:11,280 Speaker 1: help you know when to deviate from draft capital. And 152 00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:13,119 Speaker 1: I think it still does a great job of doing 153 00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:18,680 Speaker 1: that despite the changes across college football. This has question 154 00:08:18,680 --> 00:08:21,520 Speaker 1: is from Joey from Patreon. It says, Hey, JJ, wanted 155 00:08:21,520 --> 00:08:23,880 Speaker 1: to pick your brain on Luther Burden. I know you 156 00:08:23,920 --> 00:08:26,600 Speaker 1: mentioned him as a bye and the general fantasy community 157 00:08:26,760 --> 00:08:29,520 Speaker 1: is projecting a breakout. What's your guess as to why 158 00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:32,640 Speaker 1: he isn't getting on the field the injury in training camp, 159 00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:36,040 Speaker 1: limited deployment a lah Jaden Reid. I have him on 160 00:08:36,040 --> 00:08:38,760 Speaker 1: a bad dynasty team and wondering if trading him for 161 00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:43,480 Speaker 1: a player within your tears makes sense. Thanks. I will 162 00:08:43,520 --> 00:08:47,080 Speaker 1: say if consensus becomes very, very very bullish on Burden, 163 00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:50,360 Speaker 1: then there's a chance I'd be out on him. Remember 164 00:08:50,400 --> 00:08:53,280 Speaker 1: this is all related to cost. I think Burden is 165 00:08:53,320 --> 00:08:57,360 Speaker 1: an awesome player for many reasons, but as you're noting here, 166 00:08:57,760 --> 00:09:02,880 Speaker 1: there are still some red flags being overall usage. Burden 167 00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:05,160 Speaker 1: didn't have a seventy percent rout share in any game 168 00:09:05,280 --> 00:09:08,439 Speaker 1: last year. DJ Moore was at an eighty six percent 169 00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:12,720 Speaker 1: routeshair all season long. Roma duneesday eighty eight percent. Burden, 170 00:09:12,840 --> 00:09:14,920 Speaker 1: even when he started to get more run was still 171 00:09:14,920 --> 00:09:18,160 Speaker 1: in that like sixty to seventy percent range. That's why 172 00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:21,000 Speaker 1: anything we do with Burden is based on projection, not 173 00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:25,000 Speaker 1: something that we've consistently seen. Now, I will say I 174 00:09:25,000 --> 00:09:27,160 Speaker 1: don't think this is a Jayden Reid situation at all 175 00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:30,280 Speaker 1: for a couple of reasons. First, their deployment wasn't the 176 00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:33,319 Speaker 1: same as rookies. Reid ran seventy six percent of his 177 00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:35,360 Speaker 1: routes out of the slot as a first year player. 178 00:09:36,200 --> 00:09:38,440 Speaker 1: Burden gets pegged as a slot guy, and he definitely 179 00:09:38,480 --> 00:09:40,960 Speaker 1: profiles as someone who can do that given what he 180 00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:43,800 Speaker 1: did in college. But in twenty twenty five, he ran 181 00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:45,840 Speaker 1: out of the slot on just forty five percent of 182 00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:49,880 Speaker 1: his routes run. He played plenty on the outside. Burden 183 00:09:49,960 --> 00:09:51,600 Speaker 1: also had one of the best yards per route run 184 00:09:51,679 --> 00:09:53,560 Speaker 1: rates that we've ever seen from a rookie wide receiver, 185 00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:56,240 Speaker 1: at least over the last fifteen years. And he even 186 00:09:56,280 --> 00:09:58,760 Speaker 1: had a better targets per route run rate than Jayden 187 00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:02,319 Speaker 1: Reid did as a rookie. And Burden was a better 188 00:10:02,360 --> 00:10:06,319 Speaker 1: prospect by a wide margin. That's not a hindsight take either. 189 00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:09,160 Speaker 1: And look, another thing to remember when we point out 190 00:10:09,200 --> 00:10:12,680 Speaker 1: these singular outcomes is that circumstances just won't be the 191 00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:16,160 Speaker 1: same from one team to the next. Reid has been good, 192 00:10:16,559 --> 00:10:20,160 Speaker 1: not great, at least as a fantasy asset. But in 193 00:10:20,240 --> 00:10:23,319 Speaker 1: saying that, we're also assuming the Packers are using him optimally, 194 00:10:23,800 --> 00:10:26,120 Speaker 1: which in my opinion, they should allow him to do 195 00:10:26,160 --> 00:10:29,480 Speaker 1: more on the perimeter. We can't assume the Bears are 196 00:10:29,480 --> 00:10:32,960 Speaker 1: gonna do that exact same thing with Luther Burden. But 197 00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:36,400 Speaker 1: here's what I'll say about Burden. The raw volume was 198 00:10:36,480 --> 00:10:40,400 Speaker 1: not there. That's the red flag to this profile, Like 199 00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:43,199 Speaker 1: we didn't see him as a full time player. Why 200 00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:46,160 Speaker 1: that didn't happen, which is what your questions asking. We're 201 00:10:46,160 --> 00:10:49,360 Speaker 1: never gonna know for sure. We're not in that front office, 202 00:10:49,400 --> 00:10:51,480 Speaker 1: we're not in that locker room, we're not in the 203 00:10:51,520 --> 00:10:54,559 Speaker 1: coaches meetings. My guest though, is that he was a 204 00:10:54,559 --> 00:10:56,920 Speaker 1: little bit raw coming out as a prospect. He was 205 00:10:57,040 --> 00:11:00,640 Speaker 1: injured early on. It's something easy offense, just immediate learn 206 00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:05,079 Speaker 1: and there's decent competition within that offense. So I think 207 00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:08,520 Speaker 1: it's a multitude of factors. That doesn't mean that things 208 00:11:08,559 --> 00:11:12,400 Speaker 1: will definitely change. The reason to be bullish on Burden 209 00:11:12,679 --> 00:11:14,920 Speaker 1: is because based on him seeing the work that he saw, 210 00:11:15,240 --> 00:11:18,559 Speaker 1: he was great what he was asked to do. He 211 00:11:18,640 --> 00:11:21,720 Speaker 1: looked the part. You can visually see that when you 212 00:11:21,760 --> 00:11:24,040 Speaker 1: watch him play, and you can look at the data too. 213 00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:27,880 Speaker 1: We're trying to project that trajectory. It wouldn't be the 214 00:11:27,880 --> 00:11:30,040 Speaker 1: first time that a player took a step forward after 215 00:11:30,080 --> 00:11:32,160 Speaker 1: having good peripherals and not a ton of volume in 216 00:11:32,200 --> 00:11:35,880 Speaker 1: year one. But that lack of volume is also why 217 00:11:35,920 --> 00:11:38,240 Speaker 1: we're not ranking him close to like a Tetoroh McMillan. 218 00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:42,360 Speaker 1: There's more downside risk. I think the upside is not 219 00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:45,600 Speaker 1: that far off from someone like TMAC, especially when you 220 00:11:45,600 --> 00:11:49,840 Speaker 1: consider team environment. But what's different is the downside. What 221 00:11:49,880 --> 00:11:53,120 Speaker 1: if Luther Burden's route share doesn't grow? What if this 222 00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:57,160 Speaker 1: is all small sample sized noise. So when we evaluate, 223 00:11:57,440 --> 00:11:59,280 Speaker 1: we don't need to say that this is definitely gonna 224 00:11:59,280 --> 00:12:02,680 Speaker 1: happen or definitely won't happen. That's not the way that 225 00:12:02,720 --> 00:12:04,440 Speaker 1: I look at this stuff. That's not the way that 226 00:12:04,520 --> 00:12:08,160 Speaker 1: anyone should look at this stuff. Don't think in absolutes, 227 00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:11,800 Speaker 1: and when I do that, when I weigh the upside 228 00:12:11,840 --> 00:12:14,600 Speaker 1: with the downside, I think that Luthor Burden is a 229 00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:17,600 Speaker 1: little bit undervalued by the Dynasty market. I don't think 230 00:12:17,600 --> 00:12:20,520 Speaker 1: it's like super egregious, but I have him ranked higher 231 00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:23,720 Speaker 1: than the market does, And admittedly I think a lot 232 00:12:23,720 --> 00:12:25,000 Speaker 1: of that has to do with the fact that I 233 00:12:25,120 --> 00:12:27,240 Speaker 1: liked him a lot as a prospect. His ZAP score 234 00:12:27,320 --> 00:12:29,920 Speaker 1: was amazing. It'd be one thing if he did this 235 00:12:30,120 --> 00:12:33,600 Speaker 1: while the model didn't like him coming out. Instead, it's 236 00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:37,199 Speaker 1: showing that he's been really effective at every stop so far. 237 00:12:37,840 --> 00:12:40,280 Speaker 1: His year two score it's not that much different from 238 00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:44,520 Speaker 1: a Mecca. Abukas and Abukahs ranked significantly higher within the 239 00:12:44,600 --> 00:12:48,720 Speaker 1: Dynasty market. That's not a knock in Abuka either, that's 240 00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:51,280 Speaker 1: just me noting that Luthor Burden looks like a great 241 00:12:51,360 --> 00:12:54,040 Speaker 1: upside play, but when you're looking to trade for him, 242 00:12:54,400 --> 00:12:58,280 Speaker 1: just make sure you're not ignoring that downside risk because yes, 243 00:12:58,720 --> 00:13:02,560 Speaker 1: the volume, the U usage, the route share, that's still 244 00:13:02,600 --> 00:13:08,320 Speaker 1: definitely a red flag for Luther Burden. This s's questions 245 00:13:08,320 --> 00:13:12,360 Speaker 1: from Fat gold Chain on Patreon. It says looking good today, JJ. Thanks. 246 00:13:12,840 --> 00:13:15,360 Speaker 1: In a recent episode, you mentioned that a rookie running 247 00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:18,120 Speaker 1: backs year one ZAP score was actually more predictive than 248 00:13:18,200 --> 00:13:21,160 Speaker 1: year one fantasy points per game. With that in mind, 249 00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:24,760 Speaker 1: what do we do about Caleb Johnson? Yeah, I talked 250 00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:26,719 Speaker 1: through that on the Late Round Fantasy Football show on 251 00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:30,080 Speaker 1: Wednesday too, about how a player's ZAP score is more 252 00:13:30,080 --> 00:13:33,080 Speaker 1: predictive for year two through four fantasy production than is 253 00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:35,880 Speaker 1: year one pp your points per game rate, or I 254 00:13:35,880 --> 00:13:39,680 Speaker 1: should say it helps explain that production more. Now, when 255 00:13:39,679 --> 00:13:41,920 Speaker 1: I say things like that, I don't want anyone to 256 00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:45,880 Speaker 1: think that it just completely overrides everything else. I just 257 00:13:45,920 --> 00:13:48,520 Speaker 1: mean that if you were to isolate those specific metrics, 258 00:13:48,760 --> 00:13:51,520 Speaker 1: you'd be better off using a player's prospect scorer. Competitor 259 00:13:51,640 --> 00:13:54,240 Speaker 1: was year one pp your point per game production? With 260 00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:57,000 Speaker 1: Caleb Johnson. Unfortunately, even with the updates that I made 261 00:13:57,040 --> 00:13:59,520 Speaker 1: to the Zapp model this offseason, it still thinks that 262 00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:02,080 Speaker 1: he was a good prospect. It's just the model miss. 263 00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:05,320 Speaker 1: But I've written up Caleb Johnson's Year two profile on 264 00:14:05,360 --> 00:14:07,959 Speaker 1: the Prospect Guide, and when I was doing the research, 265 00:14:07,960 --> 00:14:10,240 Speaker 1: I looked at running backs picked on Day two who 266 00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:12,600 Speaker 1: failed to reach fifty rushing attempts as a rookie since 267 00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:16,200 Speaker 1: twenty eleven. There actually had been some spike seasons for 268 00:14:16,240 --> 00:14:19,480 Speaker 1: those players in that group in years two through four. 269 00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:22,720 Speaker 1: The problem is that that group is not very inspiring. 270 00:14:23,280 --> 00:14:26,640 Speaker 1: Just hear the names Shane Vereen, Kenyan Drake, Ronald Jones, 271 00:14:26,720 --> 00:14:30,440 Speaker 1: Damien Harris, Darryl Henderson. Johnson lands in the flex play 272 00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:33,200 Speaker 1: category in that year two model with a bunch of 273 00:14:33,240 --> 00:14:36,040 Speaker 1: other guys from last year's draft class. But I don't 274 00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:38,400 Speaker 1: see how we can be very bowlish year. It feels 275 00:14:38,440 --> 00:14:41,200 Speaker 1: like the Jalen Polk situation last year. But at running back. 276 00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:44,320 Speaker 1: Fortunately we can anchor a little bit more to that 277 00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:48,040 Speaker 1: running back Prospect score. But I'd be pretty surprised if 278 00:14:48,120 --> 00:14:51,200 Speaker 1: Caleb Johnson ends up being something that were desperately wanting 279 00:14:51,240 --> 00:14:55,280 Speaker 1: on our fantasy rosters. It's a model miss though. I'm 280 00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:57,480 Speaker 1: just glad I avoided him in redraft this past year. 281 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:02,520 Speaker 1: The siness questions from at bricks forty two, It says 282 00:15:02,800 --> 00:15:05,960 Speaker 1: you mentioned using only rate stats yards per team pass attempt, 283 00:15:06,080 --> 00:15:09,160 Speaker 1: rather than raw stats total receiving yards. Have you ever 284 00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:12,880 Speaker 1: tried any kind of blend of both, So I'm assuming 285 00:15:12,920 --> 00:15:15,400 Speaker 1: you're referring to the prospecting work since you're referencing yards 286 00:15:15,400 --> 00:15:19,160 Speaker 1: per team pass attempt. I've tested a ton of statistics 287 00:15:19,160 --> 00:15:22,120 Speaker 1: through the years. What you guys hear me talk about 288 00:15:22,360 --> 00:15:24,880 Speaker 1: is the best combination of factors that I've found to 289 00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:28,160 Speaker 1: go along with things like draft capital size, teammate score, 290 00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:30,520 Speaker 1: and so on. But I wanted to talk about this 291 00:15:30,560 --> 00:15:32,960 Speaker 1: because I think it's really important. When you hear the 292 00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:36,040 Speaker 1: word per as in per attempt, or per rush or 293 00:15:36,080 --> 00:15:39,480 Speaker 1: per route run, it's very easy to automatically think of 294 00:15:39,520 --> 00:15:43,760 Speaker 1: a rate stat that those metrics are rate stats. Most 295 00:15:43,760 --> 00:15:47,680 Speaker 1: of them are rushing yards per rush. That's a rate stat. 296 00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:51,880 Speaker 1: It tells you nothing about volume, just about what happens 297 00:15:52,200 --> 00:15:56,440 Speaker 1: per individual rush. But some of these metrics disguise themselves 298 00:15:56,520 --> 00:16:00,440 Speaker 1: as volume based metrics. Receiving yards per team pass attempt 299 00:16:00,480 --> 00:16:04,360 Speaker 1: is actually capturing volume. Think about it. It's total receiving 300 00:16:04,440 --> 00:16:06,800 Speaker 1: yards gained divided by the number of pass attempts a 301 00:16:06,800 --> 00:16:10,000 Speaker 1: team has. When we refer to volume, we're often talking 302 00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:12,360 Speaker 1: about a player being on the field so snaps and 303 00:16:12,360 --> 00:16:16,119 Speaker 1: then running routes, routes run, and then seeing targets targets 304 00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:19,800 Speaker 1: and then getting yards. The more of those things that 305 00:16:19,840 --> 00:16:23,400 Speaker 1: a player has, the better he is. Generally in fantasy football, 306 00:16:24,360 --> 00:16:29,280 Speaker 1: that's volume. Receiving yards is a volume based number. A 307 00:16:29,320 --> 00:16:31,880 Speaker 1: player could see zero yards in a game, which we'd 308 00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:35,600 Speaker 1: assume meant that he didn't see that much volume, and 309 00:16:35,640 --> 00:16:38,000 Speaker 1: then team pass attempts is just a way to sort 310 00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:40,120 Speaker 1: of smooth things out for the type of offense that 311 00:16:40,120 --> 00:16:42,640 Speaker 1: that player might be playing in. So in order for 312 00:16:42,680 --> 00:16:44,480 Speaker 1: a player to be really good in receiving yards per 313 00:16:44,520 --> 00:16:46,880 Speaker 1: team pass attempt, he's going to probably need to be 314 00:16:46,920 --> 00:16:50,920 Speaker 1: seeing a good bit of volume or he's just insanely efficient. 315 00:16:51,680 --> 00:16:55,760 Speaker 1: But over a larger sample that ends up normalizing unless 316 00:16:55,760 --> 00:16:57,920 Speaker 1: you're in an offense like navies or something where you 317 00:16:58,000 --> 00:17:01,600 Speaker 1: just need more context. The same is true with total 318 00:17:01,720 --> 00:17:06,000 Speaker 1: yards per team play. Total yards is capturing both rushing 319 00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:09,240 Speaker 1: and receiving, and then we're just normalizing for the amount 320 00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:12,800 Speaker 1: of plays run by an offense. But a player who's 321 00:17:12,880 --> 00:17:15,840 Speaker 1: ranking high there within that metric, he can get there 322 00:17:15,960 --> 00:17:17,760 Speaker 1: by either being a volume hog on the ground or 323 00:17:17,760 --> 00:17:20,800 Speaker 1: through the air. But it's capturing a lot of things 324 00:17:20,800 --> 00:17:23,840 Speaker 1: that we inherently want to capture. Volume means a team 325 00:17:23,880 --> 00:17:26,200 Speaker 1: is intending to use a player in a certain way, 326 00:17:27,000 --> 00:17:29,920 Speaker 1: or that the player is probably pretty talented in a 327 00:17:29,960 --> 00:17:33,160 Speaker 1: metric like receiving yards per team pass attempt, it's capturing 328 00:17:33,160 --> 00:17:35,919 Speaker 1: that to some degree. But then also it's still going 329 00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:39,600 Speaker 1: to capture some efficiency, because players can still rank high 330 00:17:39,720 --> 00:17:44,080 Speaker 1: enough if they're insanely efficient, and then it's equalizing things 331 00:17:44,280 --> 00:17:48,040 Speaker 1: by dividing that by some team total. So yes, I've 332 00:17:48,080 --> 00:17:50,760 Speaker 1: tested all sorts of metrics, but I do think it's 333 00:17:50,760 --> 00:17:52,920 Speaker 1: common for people to view some of these numbers as 334 00:17:53,080 --> 00:17:57,400 Speaker 1: rate stats when they're actually capturing volume. When you look 335 00:17:57,400 --> 00:18:01,119 Speaker 1: at per rush or per reception, you're only looking at 336 00:18:01,119 --> 00:18:05,080 Speaker 1: a player's volume itself plays when the player is involved. 337 00:18:05,760 --> 00:18:09,560 Speaker 1: When you change that denominator to be the entire team environment, 338 00:18:10,119 --> 00:18:12,479 Speaker 1: you're all of a sudden shifting the meaning of that metric, 339 00:18:13,280 --> 00:18:16,520 Speaker 1: which is why those numbers can actually be pretty powerful 340 00:18:17,200 --> 00:18:21,920 Speaker 1: both in college and NFL analysis. That's it for today's show, 341 00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:23,600 Speaker 1: though thanks to all of you for listening. If you 342 00:18:23,680 --> 00:18:26,320 Speaker 1: had subscribed to the Late Round Fantasy Football podcast, make 343 00:18:26,359 --> 00:18:28,719 Speaker 1: sure you are bestworting for it pretty much anywhere podcast 344 00:18:28,760 --> 00:18:31,040 Speaker 1: can be found in effort to follow me on Twitter 345 00:18:31,080 --> 00:18:34,520 Speaker 1: and on Blue Sky at Late Round QB. Thanks for 346 00:18:34,560 --> 00:18:38,400 Speaker 1: listening this week. Everyone greatly appreciate you. Have a great weekend, 347 00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:39,840 Speaker 1: and I'll catch you next week.