1
00:00:02,400 --> 00:00:06,000
Speaker 1: This is the Labor Podcast with your host JJ Zacheratha

2
00:00:06,160 --> 00:00:14,080
Speaker 1: j J zacherrefon. What's up everyone. It's JJ Zacharyesen in

3
00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:17,040
Speaker 1: this episode ten eighty five of the Late Round Fantasy

4
00:00:17,079 --> 00:00:25,040
Speaker 1: Football Podcast. Thanks for tuning in. Before I get to

5
00:00:25,040 --> 00:00:26,920
Speaker 1: the mailbag questions today, I just want to send to

6
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:29,480
Speaker 1: the reminder that the Late Round Prospect Guide is currently

7
00:00:29,560 --> 00:00:32,559
Speaker 1: available for pre order and it's better than ever. This

8
00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:35,000
Speaker 1: year's guide includes an outline of what goes into the models,

9
00:00:35,240 --> 00:00:38,320
Speaker 1: prospect profiles for every running back, wide receiver, and tight

10
00:00:38,440 --> 00:00:41,400
Speaker 1: end who went to the combine over thirty year two

11
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:45,240
Speaker 1: profile write ups. There's rankings and more. It'll launch in

12
00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:48,040
Speaker 1: mid March, so pre order it now at fourteen ninety

13
00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:50,440
Speaker 1: nine that's going to rise to nineteen ninety nine in

14
00:00:50,560 --> 00:00:53,960
Speaker 1: less than two weeks when it launches. You can find

15
00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:59,680
Speaker 1: out more over on Lateround dot com. The first mailbag

16
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:02,360
Speaker 1: question this week says, Hey, JJ, thanks for all the

17
00:01:02,360 --> 00:01:05,720
Speaker 1: great work you do. Thanks this draft cycle, I've heard

18
00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:08,600
Speaker 1: several fantasy analysts say something to the effect of Malachi

19
00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:11,360
Speaker 1: Fields is my wide receiver X, but he'll probably get

20
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:14,640
Speaker 1: moved up after the draft. Basically, no one likes him.

21
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:17,520
Speaker 1: Analytically as a prospect, but everyone agrees that the NFL

22
00:01:17,560 --> 00:01:19,959
Speaker 1: will probably draft him highly, so we'll have to get

23
00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:23,960
Speaker 1: moved up prospect boards. What I'm wondering is, at what

24
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:27,360
Speaker 1: point do we just ignore outlier draft capital? Is there

25
00:01:27,360 --> 00:01:29,680
Speaker 1: a point when a player is so overdrafted compared to

26
00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:33,200
Speaker 1: their analytical profile that it's just more misleading to consider

27
00:01:33,240 --> 00:01:36,759
Speaker 1: that draft capital. Anecdotally, it feels there are some types

28
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:39,759
Speaker 1: of players we always get burned by, especially at wide receiver.

29
00:01:39,880 --> 00:01:44,199
Speaker 1: Michel Hardman, Jalen Rager, et cetera. Wondering if you've looked

30
00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:46,680
Speaker 1: into this before or have any data that would be

31
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:51,600
Speaker 1: interesting to share. Thanks Eric, Well, first off, clearly we're

32
00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:54,600
Speaker 1: going to be burned by bad profiles more than good profiles,

33
00:01:54,720 --> 00:01:57,680
Speaker 1: because bad profiles they're bad for a reason. When a

34
00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:01,080
Speaker 1: player doesn't have good age justin production, he's less likely

35
00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:04,520
Speaker 1: to succeed in the NFL. But I think what's difficult

36
00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:07,120
Speaker 1: with a question like this is that not every player

37
00:02:07,360 --> 00:02:10,880
Speaker 1: has the same expectation right Like you're talking about Malachi

38
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:13,880
Speaker 1: Fields and fading him. I have no problem with that

39
00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:16,880
Speaker 1: general idea. I think Fields has a lot of glaring

40
00:02:16,960 --> 00:02:20,440
Speaker 1: red flags to his profile, but we're not drafting fields

41
00:02:20,600 --> 00:02:23,800
Speaker 1: and the same spot as Jordan Tyson. We're drafting fields

42
00:02:23,919 --> 00:02:27,840
Speaker 1: amongst other players with red flags to their profiles. Like

43
00:02:27,919 --> 00:02:30,040
Speaker 1: right now, over on keep Trade Cut, you have Zach

44
00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:32,520
Speaker 1: Branch going ahead of fields. At wide receiver, you have

45
00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:36,200
Speaker 1: Chris Brazzle and Chris Bell going right after him, which

46
00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:38,359
Speaker 1: all three of those guys have something that you can

47
00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:40,800
Speaker 1: point out as being negative to their profile. Like a

48
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:44,720
Speaker 1: lot of things, it's a second round rookie pick. Now

49
00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:46,840
Speaker 1: to your question of is there a point when a

50
00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:50,360
Speaker 1: player is so overdrafted compared to their analytical profile that

51
00:02:50,440 --> 00:02:53,919
Speaker 1: it's just more misleading to consider that draft capital, I

52
00:02:53,919 --> 00:02:55,640
Speaker 1: don't know if there's a point which that's the case.

53
00:02:55,880 --> 00:02:58,360
Speaker 1: But this is exactly why having a model can be

54
00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:01,440
Speaker 1: so helpful. It allows you to know how to balance

55
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:03,920
Speaker 1: all this. Now, I'm not trying to say that you

56
00:03:03,919 --> 00:03:05,720
Speaker 1: have to go buy the guide or you have to

57
00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:08,440
Speaker 1: build a model on your own. I'm just being truthful.

58
00:03:08,919 --> 00:03:11,480
Speaker 1: It weighs draft capital, but then also weighs in the

59
00:03:11,520 --> 00:03:15,320
Speaker 1: crappy production profile, and if it's crappy enough, it'll say, hey,

60
00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:19,920
Speaker 1: don't draft this guy. This guy's probably overvalued. But you

61
00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:23,160
Speaker 1: also have to remember that there's still subjectivity involved in

62
00:03:23,200 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 1: what you consider to be a bad production profile and

63
00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:27,679
Speaker 1: what someone else might consider to be a bad one,

64
00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:31,519
Speaker 1: even if you're both looking at things analytically, I measure

65
00:03:31,560 --> 00:03:35,240
Speaker 1: things differently than someone else does. There's not just one

66
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:38,440
Speaker 1: way to do this, So my overall stance here is

67
00:03:38,480 --> 00:03:42,120
Speaker 1: the following, Just to be super straightforward. Number One, if

68
00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:44,160
Speaker 1: people are saying that, if they're saying they're going to

69
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 1: rank him high post draft, I get it to a

70
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:50,080
Speaker 1: degree because you have to keep an open mind. But

71
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:53,920
Speaker 1: if you're anchoring a projected draft capital, things shouldn't change

72
00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 1: that much, especially because the difference between certain spots on

73
00:03:57,280 --> 00:04:01,400
Speaker 1: day two isn't as significant as people think. Number Two,

74
00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:05,440
Speaker 1: you can't ignore costs in these situations. I'll draft bad

75
00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:08,200
Speaker 1: players in rookie drafts if the cost is right, or

76
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:11,520
Speaker 1: players where I question how good they are, although admittedly

77
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:13,360
Speaker 1: I do that a lot more at running back than

78
00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: I do wide receiver. Number Three, and probably the most

79
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:21,359
Speaker 1: important one. If you feel off about a player, don't

80
00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:26,120
Speaker 1: draft that player. Seriously. Rookie drafts are not some exact science.

81
00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:29,919
Speaker 1: Get your guys. You don't need to play the ADP

82
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:31,960
Speaker 1: game like you do in best Ball or even a

83
00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:36,200
Speaker 1: regular redraft league. If there's something that really concerns you

84
00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:41,120
Speaker 1: about a player, don't draft that player. You have my permission.

85
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:44,240
Speaker 1: I play enough dynasty leagues where I can keep an

86
00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:47,000
Speaker 1: open mind. But when you hear me say I'm going

87
00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:48,880
Speaker 1: to be lower than the market on this player, it

88
00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:52,040
Speaker 1: generally means that if you're in one league, chances are

89
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:56,159
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be targeting that player in most leagues unless

90
00:04:56,200 --> 00:05:00,839
Speaker 1: the cost is undeniable. So don't overthink this. Yes, but

91
00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:02,919
Speaker 1: if you need me to say this, I will because

92
00:05:02,920 --> 00:05:07,320
Speaker 1: I firmly believe it. Don't let draft capital dictate everything.

93
00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:13,440
Speaker 1: This as question from Patreon is from Dino miz. It says, hey, JJ,

94
00:05:13,560 --> 00:05:16,520
Speaker 1: love your work. Thanks. With the departure of Aaron Jones,

95
00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:19,000
Speaker 1: do you think Jordan Mason can run away with the job.

96
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:21,159
Speaker 1: He has shown in the past he can be great,

97
00:05:21,360 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 1: and the Vikings have limited cap space and limited talent

98
00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:26,680
Speaker 1: options for running back in free agency and in the

99
00:05:26,760 --> 00:05:31,560
Speaker 1: upcoming draft. I think the thought behind this it's right Situationally,

100
00:05:32,240 --> 00:05:35,240
Speaker 1: the Vikings currently have by far the worst cap situation

101
00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:38,040
Speaker 1: in football, so them landing a huge free agent it's

102
00:05:38,120 --> 00:05:40,840
Speaker 1: not likely. But I don't think the free agent poll

103
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:43,640
Speaker 1: is that bad. There could be a player out there

104
00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:46,919
Speaker 1: for added competition. That player is likely going to be

105
00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:49,920
Speaker 1: a pass catcher too. That's the biggest issue with Jordan Mason.

106
00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:53,200
Speaker 1: I talked about it all last summer. He ended up

107
00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:55,560
Speaker 1: with a three and a half percent target share last year.

108
00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:58,720
Speaker 1: His yards per route run was point three to two.

109
00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:03,320
Speaker 1: I mean, he's just proven now over multiple seasons, over

110
00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:07,760
Speaker 1: multiple offenses. He's not a pass catcher. And we have

111
00:06:07,839 --> 00:06:12,320
Speaker 1: a sample of Mason without Aaron Jones. Jones miss weeks

112
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:16,120
Speaker 1: three through seven last year. Mason snapshare was sixty seven

113
00:06:16,160 --> 00:06:20,320
Speaker 1: percent during that timeframe, his route share fifty percent. Those

114
00:06:20,400 --> 00:06:23,720
Speaker 1: numbers are fine. They're not elite, but they're fine. They

115
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:25,839
Speaker 1: weren't better, though, because he was losing some work to

116
00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:29,360
Speaker 1: Xavier Scott and Mason was still only seeing a five

117
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:34,200
Speaker 1: percent target share without Aaron Jones. My stance on Mason

118
00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:36,640
Speaker 1: is that he's one of those players who can beat ADP.

119
00:06:37,000 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 1: He can beat his current market value pretty easily, but

120
00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:42,160
Speaker 1: I don't think he's someone that's going to far exceeded.

121
00:06:43,000 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 1: Those types of players are usually ones in a more

122
00:06:45,560 --> 00:06:48,960
Speaker 1: interested in deep formats than shallower ones. Like he's fine

123
00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:52,800
Speaker 1: in best ball, he's fine in deep dynasty formats. But

124
00:06:52,839 --> 00:06:54,840
Speaker 1: if you're only starting seven or eight players in your

125
00:06:54,880 --> 00:07:00,320
Speaker 1: starting lineup, Mason's a way tougher bet. To make this

126
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:03,200
Speaker 1: last question from Kobe, it says, hey, JJ, why does

127
00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:05,760
Speaker 1: it feel the sentiment is cooled? On Roma doonsday heading

128
00:07:05,760 --> 00:07:08,200
Speaker 1: into year three. He entered the league as a highly

129
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:11,520
Speaker 1: touted prospect with elite draft capital and flashed clear wide

130
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:14,239
Speaker 1: receiver one upside in the first four weeks before injuries

131
00:07:14,320 --> 00:07:17,480
Speaker 1: slowed his momentum. He rarely leaves the field because of

132
00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:19,480
Speaker 1: his blocking. He has shown he can beat man in

133
00:07:19,520 --> 00:07:22,640
Speaker 1: press coverage and drops her not typically a persistent issue

134
00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:25,440
Speaker 1: even if he settles in as a true X receiver

135
00:07:25,520 --> 00:07:28,960
Speaker 1: in Ben Johnson's offense. What is realistically preventing him from

136
00:07:28,960 --> 00:07:34,240
Speaker 1: developing along a trajectory similar to DeVante Adams. I mean, look,

137
00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:36,600
Speaker 1: I was with you until you said developing along a

138
00:07:36,600 --> 00:07:40,840
Speaker 1: trajectory similar to DeVante Adams. Adams went down a very

139
00:07:40,960 --> 00:07:44,440
Speaker 1: rare path. At one point people were totally over him

140
00:07:44,680 --> 00:07:47,480
Speaker 1: early on in his career. They were done. I don't

141
00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:50,800
Speaker 1: think we should compare anyone to DeVante Adams, even if

142
00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 1: that is in his range of outcomes. Now, before I

143
00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:56,480
Speaker 1: get into this analysis, I know that the Bears just

144
00:07:56,560 --> 00:08:00,119
Speaker 1: traded DJ Moore, but that trade really doesn't have that

145
00:08:00,240 --> 00:08:03,120
Speaker 1: much to do with the Dunzay's long term outlook as

146
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:05,960
Speaker 1: a player. His market value might change. We're going to

147
00:08:06,000 --> 00:08:09,040
Speaker 1: see where all that settles. But I really approach this answer,

148
00:08:09,040 --> 00:08:11,840
Speaker 1: which I did put together before that trade went down.

149
00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:15,679
Speaker 1: I answered it with a Dunzay's individual outlook in mind,

150
00:08:15,920 --> 00:08:18,560
Speaker 1: without DJ more involved. So I just want to throw

151
00:08:18,560 --> 00:08:21,160
Speaker 1: that out there before I really dig in. I think

152
00:08:21,200 --> 00:08:23,800
Speaker 1: there's a very easy narrative to tell yourself about Roman

153
00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:26,840
Speaker 1: Dunsay that could get you excited, that injury being a

154
00:08:26,920 --> 00:08:30,080
Speaker 1: key thing. Even with that nagging injury, he finished last

155
00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:32,400
Speaker 1: year with a solid enough one point sixty one yards

156
00:08:32,400 --> 00:08:35,040
Speaker 1: perut run rate. He saw a target on twenty two

157
00:08:35,120 --> 00:08:38,280
Speaker 1: percent of his routes run all while playing inside out.

158
00:08:39,400 --> 00:08:41,520
Speaker 1: You know, forty and a half percent of his routes

159
00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:44,520
Speaker 1: came from the slot last year. According to PFF. That

160
00:08:44,640 --> 00:08:47,640
Speaker 1: was more than what I remembered. He was pretty ineffective

161
00:08:47,679 --> 00:08:48,960
Speaker 1: from that area of the field, though he had a

162
00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:51,120
Speaker 1: yards per run rate out of the slot of just

163
00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:55,560
Speaker 1: one point zero one. He's definitely an outside receiver. No

164
00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:59,720
Speaker 1: shock there. My pushback on the overall question here, though,

165
00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:03,120
Speaker 1: is has the sentiment actually cooled. He's had a very

166
00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:06,960
Speaker 1: similar startup ADP since early December, and he's playing on

167
00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:09,560
Speaker 1: a team that has two up and coming studs or

168
00:09:09,559 --> 00:09:13,320
Speaker 1: potential studs in Colston Lovelin and Luther Burden, all while

169
00:09:13,400 --> 00:09:16,720
Speaker 1: not showing yet through two seasons that he's a stud himself.

170
00:09:17,440 --> 00:09:19,920
Speaker 1: Let's look at this from a ceiling perspective, because that's

171
00:09:19,960 --> 00:09:22,320
Speaker 1: really what we should care about with the Dounza. Is

172
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:26,360
Speaker 1: he capable of being more than a wide receiver? Two? Well,

173
00:09:26,400 --> 00:09:29,240
Speaker 1: since twenty thirteen, there have been fifty different wide receivers

174
00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:31,200
Speaker 1: to scored sixteen or more PPR points per game in

175
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:33,600
Speaker 1: a season, with a caveat that they started their NFL

176
00:09:33,640 --> 00:09:36,120
Speaker 1: career in twenty eleven or later. That way, I have

177
00:09:36,160 --> 00:09:39,160
Speaker 1: all of their data, so these are the wide receivers

178
00:09:39,320 --> 00:09:41,800
Speaker 1: that have scored sixteen or more PPR points per game.

179
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:45,719
Speaker 1: Of those fifty wide receivers, only two of them had

180
00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:48,199
Speaker 1: a first season yards per out run rate as low

181
00:09:48,240 --> 00:09:51,640
Speaker 1: as a Doonza's. One of them was Mike Williams, who

182
00:09:51,720 --> 00:09:55,400
Speaker 1: barely played and he's arguably the weakest player in this

183
00:09:55,559 --> 00:09:59,200
Speaker 1: sample objectively, and that's largely because I forgot to change

184
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:02,160
Speaker 1: the minimum games threshold. Mike Williams shouldn't even be in

185
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:06,080
Speaker 1: the sample. And then the other one is hilariously Davonte Adams,

186
00:10:06,520 --> 00:10:10,480
Speaker 1: which again that's why we shouldn't compare anyone to Devonte Adams.

187
00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:13,920
Speaker 1: When looking at their year two yards per out run rates,

188
00:10:14,160 --> 00:10:17,800
Speaker 1: Adams was still below. He was below Romadunzes, as were

189
00:10:17,880 --> 00:10:21,000
Speaker 1: six other wide receivers, but each of them had way

190
00:10:21,080 --> 00:10:24,680
Speaker 1: higher yards per OUH run rates as rookies, aside from

191
00:10:24,679 --> 00:10:28,640
Speaker 1: Will Fuller. What I'm getting at is that analytically, and yes,

192
00:10:28,679 --> 00:10:31,120
Speaker 1: this is only one metric, albeit it is a pretty

193
00:10:31,120 --> 00:10:35,199
Speaker 1: predicted metric, but it's only one metric. But analytically, a

194
00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:38,160
Speaker 1: DUNDE doesn't necessarily profile at this point as someone with

195
00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:42,040
Speaker 1: a crazy, crazy ceiling. I think he's good. I think

196
00:10:42,040 --> 00:10:45,240
Speaker 1: he's priced correctly. I just think we're getting a little

197
00:10:45,240 --> 00:10:48,600
Speaker 1: carried away if we're buying into him for that outcome,

198
00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:51,959
Speaker 1: for that high end outcome. To me, we're more than

199
00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:54,439
Speaker 1: likely looking at a wide receiver two in fantasy football,

200
00:10:54,520 --> 00:10:59,240
Speaker 1: not a wide receiver one. This next question is another

201
00:10:59,240 --> 00:11:01,679
Speaker 1: one about the bear, and it's an email from Tony.

202
00:11:01,880 --> 00:11:04,839
Speaker 1: It says, hi, JJ love the show. Going over the

203
00:11:04,880 --> 00:11:07,360
Speaker 1: late round prospect guide from last year. How did the

204
00:11:07,480 --> 00:11:11,240
Speaker 1: ZAP model miss so badly on Kyle Manungu. We knew

205
00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:14,319
Speaker 1: he had a relatively slow forty, but had good size

206
00:11:14,360 --> 00:11:17,880
Speaker 1: and landed in Chicago. Was it his lack of receiving production?

207
00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:23,000
Speaker 1: What lessons were learned from this profile? If any? Okay? So,

208
00:11:23,240 --> 00:11:25,480
Speaker 1: First off, I think the top thing to remember with

209
00:11:25,520 --> 00:11:27,400
Speaker 1: the ZAP model is that it has nothing to do

210
00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:31,319
Speaker 1: with landing spot him landing in Chicago doesn't impact the

211
00:11:31,400 --> 00:11:36,400
Speaker 1: ZAP score whatsoever. We can more subjectively add to that. Second,

212
00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:39,560
Speaker 1: depending on your source, my rankings were actually higher on

213
00:11:39,640 --> 00:11:44,239
Speaker 1: Kyle Manungui than ADP. Now, some ADP sources might disagree,

214
00:11:44,559 --> 00:11:47,680
Speaker 1: others won't. That's just the way that ADP works. But

215
00:11:47,800 --> 00:11:50,680
Speaker 1: considering I acquired Benungai in a lot of dynasty leagues,

216
00:11:50,720 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 1: my guess is that others were able to do the

217
00:11:52,920 --> 00:11:55,960
Speaker 1: same if they followed the rankings. The way this question

218
00:11:56,080 --> 00:11:58,720
Speaker 1: is framed makes it seem like there was no cost

219
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:02,520
Speaker 1: benefit involved with Kyle Manungui last summer. There was. He

220
00:12:02,640 --> 00:12:05,160
Speaker 1: was even one of my highest rostered best ball players.

221
00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:08,160
Speaker 1: But let's dig in a little bit. Yes, his receiving

222
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:11,680
Speaker 1: profile was not very good. His numbers across the board,

223
00:12:11,720 --> 00:12:14,680
Speaker 1: even with the new ZAP model iterations, they don't look

224
00:12:14,720 --> 00:12:17,520
Speaker 1: great now regarding landing spot, and this is something I'll

225
00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:20,280
Speaker 1: be putting more emphasis on this year. I've discovered with

226
00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:22,480
Speaker 1: Day three running back picks, and it shouldn't be that

227
00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:26,240
Speaker 1: surprising when they land in an ambiguous backfield, they have

228
00:12:26,280 --> 00:12:29,000
Speaker 1: a much higher likelihood of giving us a year one production.

229
00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:32,360
Speaker 1: So you can look at a teammates redraft adp to

230
00:12:32,360 --> 00:12:35,800
Speaker 1: see how ambiguous that backfield really is. I'm going to

231
00:12:35,840 --> 00:12:38,240
Speaker 1: try to lean in on that as I do post

232
00:12:38,360 --> 00:12:43,000
Speaker 1: draft writeups, and that year one production, if it's there,

233
00:12:43,320 --> 00:12:45,800
Speaker 1: it can allow us to gain year over year value

234
00:12:46,400 --> 00:12:49,960
Speaker 1: like we're seeing with Kyle Mnunguy. But saying the ZAP

235
00:12:50,040 --> 00:12:53,160
Speaker 1: model missed so badly on manung Guy makes it sound

236
00:12:53,240 --> 00:12:56,400
Speaker 1: like he had this incredible rookie season. He had a

237
00:12:56,440 --> 00:12:59,680
Speaker 1: five point seven percent target share and point seventy five

238
00:12:59,720 --> 00:13:03,160
Speaker 1: yards per route run. I think the analysis of him

239
00:13:03,160 --> 00:13:05,960
Speaker 1: not being that great of a pass catcher it translated

240
00:13:05,960 --> 00:13:09,000
Speaker 1: to the NFL, and look, he was definitely fun to

241
00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:11,760
Speaker 1: watch as a rusher, but his efficiency wasn't as good

242
00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:14,679
Speaker 1: as you probably think. I'm gonna read something straight from

243
00:13:14,679 --> 00:13:17,680
Speaker 1: his year two profile that's in the Prospect Guide. It

244
00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:22,280
Speaker 1: says PFF graded him below average and mistackles force per attempt,

245
00:13:22,440 --> 00:13:25,360
Speaker 1: and next Gen stats had his rushing yards over expected

246
00:13:25,360 --> 00:13:29,320
Speaker 1: per attempt hovering around the league average. Where he did

247
00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:33,760
Speaker 1: stand out is inconsistency. Among forty eight qualified backs, Manunguy

248
00:13:33,880 --> 00:13:37,439
Speaker 1: ranked fifth in success rate, but even that deserves context.

249
00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:42,120
Speaker 1: Teammate DeAndre Swift ranked just below him, and Chicago's offensive

250
00:13:42,160 --> 00:13:46,240
Speaker 1: line finished fifth, and run blocking grade per PFF, the

251
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:50,760
Speaker 1: environment was doing some of the lifting. Manungai was just

252
00:13:50,800 --> 00:13:53,360
Speaker 1: a fourth player in the zapmodel database to hit one

253
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:56,240
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty rush attempts after being picked outside the

254
00:13:56,240 --> 00:13:59,640
Speaker 1: top two hundred as a rookie. That kind of outcome

255
00:13:59,800 --> 00:14:02,280
Speaker 1: is not something that you really change a model over

256
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:07,240
Speaker 1: or severely change your process over. To me, Manunga was

257
00:14:07,280 --> 00:14:10,320
Speaker 1: better than I expected. Sure, I didn't think he'd be

258
00:14:10,400 --> 00:14:13,360
Speaker 1: one of those four running backs. But I also don't

259
00:14:13,360 --> 00:14:16,120
Speaker 1: think that we're looking at some undeniably really great running

260
00:14:16,160 --> 00:14:19,600
Speaker 1: back from a talent perspective. I think he's in a

261
00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:22,840
Speaker 1: great environment. He works in that environment, and he can

262
00:14:22,880 --> 00:14:26,680
Speaker 1: give us spiked weeks, especially when injuries occur around him.

263
00:14:26,920 --> 00:14:29,520
Speaker 1: But it's really not uncommon for there to be crazy

264
00:14:29,600 --> 00:14:31,640
Speaker 1: variants with Day three running backs as a beginning of

265
00:14:31,640 --> 00:14:35,160
Speaker 1: the year two, year three, and year four. As I've

266
00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:38,600
Speaker 1: said a lot this offseason ZAP model scores, they correlate

267
00:14:38,640 --> 00:14:41,320
Speaker 1: to that year two to year four production better than

268
00:14:41,400 --> 00:14:44,880
Speaker 1: year one PPR points per game. We're already seeing that

269
00:14:44,920 --> 00:14:48,640
Speaker 1: in action with Woody Marks. They added David Montgomery to

270
00:14:48,640 --> 00:14:52,680
Speaker 1: that backfield, he already has more competition. I'm not saying

271
00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:55,160
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen with Kyle Mnungai. Don't get me wrong

272
00:14:55,640 --> 00:14:59,160
Speaker 1: when I am saying I don't think Manunguy has a crazy,

273
00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:02,640
Speaker 1: insane sea. Will we see this a lot with Day

274
00:15:02,680 --> 00:15:06,240
Speaker 1: three running backs and nless they're undeniably good, And in

275
00:15:06,280 --> 00:15:09,840
Speaker 1: my opinion, I don't think Kyle Manungai was undeniably good

276
00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:13,760
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five. He was a solid player. I

277
00:15:13,800 --> 00:15:16,280
Speaker 1: wish I had more of him. I wish I leaned

278
00:15:16,280 --> 00:15:19,840
Speaker 1: into that landing spot analysis harder. But this isn't a

279
00:15:19,880 --> 00:15:23,080
Speaker 1: Bucky Irving situation where I just missed on him completely

280
00:15:23,120 --> 00:15:25,520
Speaker 1: when he came out, because to me, that's more of

281
00:15:25,560 --> 00:15:29,040
Speaker 1: a talent thing. This, to me, is a pretty standard

282
00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:31,920
Speaker 1: case of landing spot being really good for a particular

283
00:15:32,000 --> 00:15:35,320
Speaker 1: running back, and that's not what the ZAP model analyzes.

284
00:15:37,920 --> 00:15:40,800
Speaker 1: This test questions from Twitter is from at ff Hound seven.

285
00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:44,320
Speaker 1: It says, for z scores, I believe you removed forty

286
00:15:44,400 --> 00:15:47,720
Speaker 1: yard dash times since it was largely captured in draft capital.

287
00:15:48,160 --> 00:15:52,800
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that same logic apply to competition. Sure, players at

288
00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:56,800
Speaker 1: lesser schools play against less talent, but they also have

289
00:15:57,000 --> 00:16:00,960
Speaker 1: less talent on their side of the ball, So I

290
00:16:01,000 --> 00:16:02,960
Speaker 1: still have speed score in the running back model just

291
00:16:02,960 --> 00:16:05,720
Speaker 1: for the record. But let's focus more on wide receivers here,

292
00:16:05,880 --> 00:16:07,480
Speaker 1: because I think that's what this question is. Kind of

293
00:16:07,480 --> 00:16:11,640
Speaker 1: focused on players who play at smaller schools. They're often

294
00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:15,680
Speaker 1: drafted later. Yes, so draft capital captures that to some degree,

295
00:16:16,640 --> 00:16:19,760
Speaker 1: but strength of schedule adjustments objectively help the ZAP model

296
00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:23,360
Speaker 1: become more helpful. I know that because I've tested it.

297
00:16:24,080 --> 00:16:25,880
Speaker 1: I actually got this question a couple of times this

298
00:16:25,880 --> 00:16:27,960
Speaker 1: week after making a thread on Twitter about things to

299
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:31,880
Speaker 1: note when prospecting via data. But it's this idea that

300
00:16:31,960 --> 00:16:34,560
Speaker 1: players are playing with worst talent as well, not just

301
00:16:34,600 --> 00:16:37,800
Speaker 1: against inferior talent, and therefore it's tough for them to

302
00:16:37,800 --> 00:16:40,520
Speaker 1: put up numbers because it's not just the defense that

303
00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:43,480
Speaker 1: they're facing that's bad. It's also the quarterback that's throwing

304
00:16:43,520 --> 00:16:47,560
Speaker 1: them the ball, the offensive line that's blocking for them. Unfortunately,

305
00:16:48,120 --> 00:16:50,160
Speaker 1: none of that shows up in the data at all.

306
00:16:51,000 --> 00:16:53,280
Speaker 1: You can look at a ton of combine invited running

307
00:16:53,320 --> 00:16:55,320
Speaker 1: backs who went to a smaller school right out of

308
00:16:55,400 --> 00:16:57,960
Speaker 1: high school, and you can see crazy numbers for them

309
00:16:58,000 --> 00:17:00,840
Speaker 1: immediately as a freshman. They're not going to do that

310
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:04,159
Speaker 1: at Ohio State, not just because the competition they're facing

311
00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:06,600
Speaker 1: is going to be more difficult where they can't break

312
00:17:06,640 --> 00:17:09,000
Speaker 1: as many tackles, they can't do as much on their own,

313
00:17:09,480 --> 00:17:12,880
Speaker 1: but the competition on their team is more intense. They

314
00:17:12,920 --> 00:17:16,760
Speaker 1: share a backfield with other high star recruits. If a

315
00:17:16,840 --> 00:17:19,000
Speaker 1: dude's going to play at Ohio University out of high

316
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:21,960
Speaker 1: school instead of Ohio State, he should give us better

317
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:25,760
Speaker 1: production because we're looking at that production within the context

318
00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:29,080
Speaker 1: of his own team. That's what market share statistics are

319
00:17:29,119 --> 00:17:33,120
Speaker 1: all about. Like, imagine Carnell Tate not going to Ohio State.

320
00:17:33,160 --> 00:17:36,159
Speaker 1: Imagine he went to OHIOU and shout out to all

321
00:17:36,200 --> 00:17:37,720
Speaker 1: the Bobcats out there. I have a lot of friends

322
00:17:37,720 --> 00:17:40,200
Speaker 1: who went to OU. Two. You don't think that Tate

323
00:17:40,240 --> 00:17:43,720
Speaker 1: would see infinitely better receiving share numbers at Ohio versus

324
00:17:43,800 --> 00:17:47,199
Speaker 1: Ohio State as a freshman. He would dominate at OU.

325
00:17:47,720 --> 00:17:50,760
Speaker 1: He's not competing with a Mecca Buca and Marvin Harrison

326
00:17:50,840 --> 00:17:56,520
Speaker 1: junior at Ohio University. The volume would be crazy. You

327
00:17:56,560 --> 00:17:59,639
Speaker 1: still have to be careful about how you're adjusting those numbers. Yes,

328
00:18:00,280 --> 00:18:03,360
Speaker 1: oftentimes draft capital is gonna capture this. Small school players,

329
00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:07,040
Speaker 1: like I said, generally get drafted later. But guys, there

330
00:18:07,040 --> 00:18:09,520
Speaker 1: really aren't a ton of small school players who make

331
00:18:09,600 --> 00:18:12,520
Speaker 1: it big in the NFL. Like, I'm not gonna waste

332
00:18:12,520 --> 00:18:15,359
Speaker 1: people's times and name all of the small school wide

333
00:18:15,359 --> 00:18:17,760
Speaker 1: receivers who've been drafted on Day one and two over

334
00:18:17,800 --> 00:18:21,359
Speaker 1: the last ten years. But do yourself a favor. Go

335
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:25,280
Speaker 1: to Wikipedia. Just look at previous drafts. Some of the

336
00:18:25,320 --> 00:18:28,560
Speaker 1: biggest Day two draft busts in particular have come from

337
00:18:28,560 --> 00:18:32,159
Speaker 1: players who are from smaller programs, which means if you

338
00:18:32,280 --> 00:18:35,680
Speaker 1: don't adjust their production, you're gonna think they're really, really

339
00:18:35,680 --> 00:18:39,480
Speaker 1: good and really really underrated, and I didn't do that

340
00:18:39,640 --> 00:18:43,120
Speaker 1: nearly enough early on with my prospecting work. That led

341
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:45,960
Speaker 1: me to liking players like Andy Isabella more than I

342
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:48,800
Speaker 1: should have, or even Sky Moore, though he got steamed

343
00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:52,360
Speaker 1: up draft boards because of his landing spot. That's why

344
00:18:52,359 --> 00:18:57,920
Speaker 1: those numbers are adjusted. Though. This last one also references

345
00:18:57,960 --> 00:19:01,240
Speaker 1: forty times, but it's completely specific to those forty times.

346
00:19:01,520 --> 00:19:04,359
Speaker 1: It's from Kirk Havia on Bluesky, and it says the

347
00:19:04,520 --> 00:19:08,000
Speaker 1: NFL seems to love speedy wide receivers. Does the fastest

348
00:19:08,040 --> 00:19:11,000
Speaker 1: guy at the combine have more or less NFL success

349
00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:14,320
Speaker 1: than the wide receiver drafted after them? I e would

350
00:19:14,320 --> 00:19:17,320
Speaker 1: teams be better served avoiding the speedster and instead draft

351
00:19:17,320 --> 00:19:20,960
Speaker 1: the next best available wide receiver. So I think going

352
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:23,840
Speaker 1: with that approach doesn't make that much sense because you're

353
00:19:23,880 --> 00:19:27,119
Speaker 1: just going off of what one specific team did. Instead,

354
00:19:27,119 --> 00:19:29,600
Speaker 1: I have another approach that's gonna really capture what you're asking.

355
00:19:30,640 --> 00:19:32,919
Speaker 1: I've talked about this on the show plenty and we

356
00:19:33,000 --> 00:19:35,680
Speaker 1: had a great newsletter from Brandon Godoulah last week about

357
00:19:35,720 --> 00:19:38,520
Speaker 1: what matters and what doesn't matter at the NFL combine

358
00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:40,880
Speaker 1: for each position. But let me just give you some

359
00:19:40,920 --> 00:19:43,680
Speaker 1: hard data on this topic because I do think it's

360
00:19:43,760 --> 00:19:47,720
Speaker 1: really interesting and it's really important. Does that models analyze

361
00:19:47,720 --> 00:19:49,880
Speaker 1: what I call B two s. It's the best two

362
00:19:49,880 --> 00:19:52,360
Speaker 1: seasons average in PPR points per game across their first

363
00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:55,520
Speaker 1: three years in the league. Minimum seven games played, only

364
00:19:55,560 --> 00:19:57,480
Speaker 1: relevant week, so I removed the final week of the

365
00:19:57,480 --> 00:20:01,880
Speaker 1: regular season when teams rest players and such essentially imaginal

366
00:20:01,920 --> 00:20:04,000
Speaker 1: player played each game. Over his first three years in

367
00:20:04,040 --> 00:20:06,960
Speaker 1: the NFL, he scored ten, eleven and thirteen p puero

368
00:20:07,080 --> 00:20:10,520
Speaker 1: points per game in those three seasons. B two S

369
00:20:10,520 --> 00:20:13,040
Speaker 1: would throw out that ten number and simply keep that

370
00:20:13,119 --> 00:20:15,919
Speaker 1: eleven and thirteen, so we had a B two S

371
00:20:16,400 --> 00:20:21,040
Speaker 1: of twelve his best two seasons average. That's what the

372
00:20:21,160 --> 00:20:24,480
Speaker 1: ZAP model is trying to solve. It's trying to forecast

373
00:20:24,520 --> 00:20:29,040
Speaker 1: which prospects will perform best in B two s. If

374
00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:32,040
Speaker 1: we look at top one hundred wide receiver since twenty eleven,

375
00:20:32,280 --> 00:20:35,240
Speaker 1: so wide receivers drafted in the top one hundred, the

376
00:20:35,240 --> 00:20:39,240
Speaker 1: correlation between forty time and B two s is almost nonexistent.

377
00:20:39,840 --> 00:20:42,200
Speaker 1: It actually leans more in the direction that you wouldn't

378
00:20:42,200 --> 00:20:46,440
Speaker 1: expect that actually faster forty times lead the worst outcomes.

379
00:20:47,440 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 1: But the R square. It is literally zero point zero,

380
00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:53,800
Speaker 1: meaning forty time isn't explaining any of the B two

381
00:20:53,880 --> 00:20:57,760
Speaker 1: S variants of top one hundred wide receiver prospects. You

382
00:20:57,760 --> 00:20:59,600
Speaker 1: can look at this through the lens of expected B

383
00:20:59,640 --> 00:21:03,760
Speaker 1: two S two expected B two S factors in draft capital.

384
00:21:03,880 --> 00:21:07,440
Speaker 1: It says, hey, based on history, here's how wide receivers

385
00:21:07,440 --> 00:21:10,640
Speaker 1: have performed in B two S at this particular draft slot.

386
00:21:10,880 --> 00:21:13,680
Speaker 1: If you're fifty six though, overall, here's what you're expected

387
00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:16,840
Speaker 1: B two S is. And from there we can see

388
00:21:16,840 --> 00:21:21,360
Speaker 1: if a player over or underperformed versus that expectation. When

389
00:21:21,400 --> 00:21:24,000
Speaker 1: you look at the correlation between outperforming B two S

390
00:21:24,040 --> 00:21:26,639
Speaker 1: expectation and forty times, you get the exact same result,

391
00:21:27,400 --> 00:21:32,119
Speaker 1: absolutely no correlation at all. And here's what's really interesting

392
00:21:32,400 --> 00:21:35,560
Speaker 1: with expected B two s. If you start to segment

393
00:21:35,640 --> 00:21:38,439
Speaker 1: players and look at the really fast guys, the players

394
00:21:38,440 --> 00:21:41,640
Speaker 1: who ran sub four four forties as an example, if

395
00:21:41,680 --> 00:21:45,600
Speaker 1: you group those players up, they on average have underperformed

396
00:21:45,640 --> 00:21:49,000
Speaker 1: versus expectation by point six PPR points per game in

397
00:21:49,080 --> 00:21:52,359
Speaker 1: B two S. So if they're expected B two S

398
00:21:52,359 --> 00:21:54,560
Speaker 1: said that they would score twelve PPR points per game,

399
00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:58,760
Speaker 1: the fast players typically have scored eleven point four PPR

400
00:21:58,800 --> 00:22:01,960
Speaker 1: points per game. When looking at all other wide receivers,

401
00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:05,199
Speaker 1: the ones who ran slower than four to four, that

402
00:22:05,320 --> 00:22:09,000
Speaker 1: number is plus point six. To put that another way,

403
00:22:09,160 --> 00:22:12,719
Speaker 1: when we're controlling for draft capital, the super fast players,

404
00:22:12,720 --> 00:22:15,840
Speaker 1: the super fast wide receivers have actually done worse versus

405
00:22:15,880 --> 00:22:20,520
Speaker 1: expectation than the not super fast wide receivers. What this

406
00:22:20,680 --> 00:22:24,040
Speaker 1: tells us is that teams are almost definitely inflating these

407
00:22:24,119 --> 00:22:27,520
Speaker 1: numbers when they're really really high, when they run really

408
00:22:27,520 --> 00:22:30,440
Speaker 1: really fast forties at least among day one and day

409
00:22:30,440 --> 00:22:33,520
Speaker 1: two picks. I didn't go into day three because we

410
00:22:33,640 --> 00:22:36,719
Speaker 1: rarely get hits at wide receiver on day three, so

411
00:22:36,760 --> 00:22:40,000
Speaker 1: the sample itself is just kind of uninteresting. Now, this

412
00:22:40,000 --> 00:22:42,199
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that you should just fade wide receivers with

413
00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:45,240
Speaker 1: sub four four forties. I think dumbing all this down

414
00:22:45,280 --> 00:22:47,840
Speaker 1: to a forty time is really harmful with this kind

415
00:22:47,840 --> 00:22:51,199
Speaker 1: of analysis. Like, we have some size speed freaks who

416
00:22:51,280 --> 00:22:53,480
Speaker 1: ended up giving us a surplus and value post draft,

417
00:22:53,560 --> 00:22:57,200
Speaker 1: DK Metcalf, Brian Thomas, Julio Jones, Garrett Wilson, Chris Alave.

418
00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:00,440
Speaker 1: They were all sub four to four players. The list

419
00:23:00,480 --> 00:23:02,960
Speaker 1: goes on and on. What I do think you should

420
00:23:02,960 --> 00:23:06,360
Speaker 1: be careful of, though, is super fast players who don't

421
00:23:06,400 --> 00:23:10,120
Speaker 1: necessarily have the best production profiles, because that age adjustin

422
00:23:10,160 --> 00:23:13,560
Speaker 1: production is so much more important. And if we know

423
00:23:13,640 --> 00:23:16,159
Speaker 1: a team might inflate a player's draft capital because of

424
00:23:16,200 --> 00:23:20,199
Speaker 1: his forty time, you're then inflating a bad profile in

425
00:23:20,240 --> 00:23:24,359
Speaker 1: doing that, like Matthew Golden last year, or Taekwan Thornton,

426
00:23:24,400 --> 00:23:27,320
Speaker 1: or Henry Ruggs or Paris Campbell. The list goes on

427
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:30,680
Speaker 1: and on. A fast forty yard dashtime does not mean

428
00:23:30,720 --> 00:23:33,520
Speaker 1: a player is doomed. That's not what this data says.

429
00:23:34,080 --> 00:23:36,000
Speaker 1: It just so happens that a lot of the guys

430
00:23:36,000 --> 00:23:39,440
Speaker 1: who run super fast forties they have really bad age

431
00:23:39,440 --> 00:23:44,160
Speaker 1: adjustin production profiles. So a fast forty yard dashtime means

432
00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:46,640
Speaker 1: that we should be aware that he might be overdrafted

433
00:23:46,640 --> 00:23:50,080
Speaker 1: in the actual NFL draft, and if that draft capital

434
00:23:50,160 --> 00:23:53,719
Speaker 1: follows that player into the dynasty market his rookie draft ADP,

435
00:23:54,440 --> 00:23:56,840
Speaker 1: then we should be making sure that there's substance to

436
00:23:56,880 --> 00:24:02,040
Speaker 1: his profile because if there isn't, chances are he's overrated.

437
00:24:03,240 --> 00:24:04,840
Speaker 1: That's it for today's show, though, thanks to all of

438
00:24:04,880 --> 00:24:06,880
Speaker 1: you for listening. If you had subscribe to the Late

439
00:24:06,920 --> 00:24:09,720
Speaker 1: Round Fantasy Football podcast. Make sure you are bus rooting

440
00:24:09,760 --> 00:24:12,240
Speaker 1: for it pretty much anywhere podcasts can be found, and

441
00:24:12,320 --> 00:24:14,880
Speaker 1: don't follow me on Twitter and on Blue Sky at

442
00:24:14,960 --> 00:24:18,640
Speaker 1: Late Round QB. Thanks for listening everyone. Greatly appreciate all

443
00:24:18,640 --> 00:24:21,360
Speaker 1: of you. Enjoy your weekend. I'll talk to you next

444
00:24:21,400 --> 00:24:21,640
Speaker 1: week