 If it's shootouts you want, it's shootouts you shall get in week three for daily fantasy football. We have got three games that they total of 54 and a half or higher. We've got a couple of games that I think could potentially be interesting as well. So we're gonna have some fun games to discuss. Let's break those down, talk about key injuries, break down what we are looking at and our favorite play is on FanDuel for week number three. Welcome on into the Heat Check Fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire. That's right here on the FanDuel podcast network in NumberFire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for NumberFire.com. Joined here as always by Brandon Gedula. He is the managing editor for NumberFire.com. Brandon, week number three, coming in hot. How you doing today? I'm good. I've been doing a lot of prep for the Ryder Cup but that's all done and over with. So I just get to dig back into NFL. I get to enjoy the Ryder Cup Friday, Saturday as I'm prepping, digging in even more for the NFL slate but still overcoming the what could have been with the Dallas and Chargers game last week but that is not going to prevent me from stacking up the games with the high totals this week. Don't let it do that to you either. Were you able to watch that game or were you on Red Zone on Sunday? I'm Red Zone but I always just watch Red Zone. Okay, because I was watching that game, like watching it pretty intently because I had a lot in that game. It was one of the most frustrating games I've watched in a very long time just because it was so close to being amazing so many times and just like penalties, weird stuff happening. That was frustrating and we do have similar situations to this week and with the potential shootouts for week number three, you can see paths to them being disappointing for sure but I think the odds that those paths hit are fairly low and I think that if you play out that Chargers and Cowboys game 16 times, I don't think it hits that the way it did very often. So we're certainly talking stacks, racking them up and breaking down the way we always want to stack those games, talking about overall process, still some of that in the trends discussion for this week, talking about some usage trends we've seen as well and breaking down. Key injuries which are a focal point for this week. Before we talk about the slate overview for week number three though, want to remind you that the Listener League is back. It is a $5 entry, three entries max with no rake. So if you want to get entered, go to fandual.com slash league slash Listener League. I'm gonna cheat and tell you that that's gonna be the link every week. So you don't have to tune in every week, you should. You should tune in every week. But like, if you just want to get in on the contest before our weekly preview podcast, fandual.com slash league slash Listener League. Again, $5 entry, three entries max, no rake. Go get yourselves some cash via the Listener League for this week. Also, quick heads up that if you are looking to bet on the Monday night football game, Fandual has a good offer for you making it even bigger by giving customers a new customers 30 to one odds on either team to win between the Cowboys and the Eagles. Simply download the Fandals Sports Book app today and bet on the most anticipated matchup of the week. I guess, see for yourself why Fandual is America's number one sports book must be 21 plus and present Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia or West Virginia, new users only $10 first deposit require must wager and designated offer market max bonus $150 see full terms at sportsbook.fandual.com restrictions apply gambling problem call 1-800-GAMBER or visit fandual.com slash RG in Indiana, 1-800-9 with it. In Tennessee, call the red line at 1-800-8, 9, 9, 7, 8, 9 in West Virginia, 1-800-GAMBER.net and in Arizona call 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXT-STEP to 533-4-2. Let's start things off here by taking a broad look at week number three, Brandon, and talking about the key things standing out to you for this late. When you look at this slate and look at the way things break down what is standing out to you? Just those big games and it has to be and it has to be you try to figure out how you're going to navigate through those games and that is just something that I think everyone is gonna be dealing with and then it's also going to be how you kind of include those maybe second tier games which kind of more specifically just jumping out to me is Arizona and Jacksonville and then Baltimore and Detroit to some degree obviously we expected probably a lot of people expected Detroit not to be very relevant at all but they have Deandre Swift, they have T.G. Hawkins and they have some bring backs and with Baltimore actually focusing on a receiver that game has a lot of appeal. So obviously we're looking at those top three games but there are some other fun games too. And with that, what is that? I'm sorry, it's a dog. It's a Rosa. Yeah, she's very mad about something. She says don't play the Lions. Yeah, she's not into it. Either that or she was like, why aren't you using Jared Goff with T.G. Hawkins instead of Marquise Brown? Yeah, but kind of the thing that jumped out to me and I know it's supposed to be like a one sentence over you, but the one sentence would be there are like three great games, two other good games and then once we get that many games just cross off the games thing. Yeah, I mean, I think that's pretty easy to do this week and like the ones, I think the ones you're crossing off I think the bookmakers have this pretty correct. A lot of the ones with the lowest totals are the ones that I had the least interest in. The one with a lower total that I think is semi interesting is Washington Buffalo. We'll talk about that one in the trend section talking about some pace there. But like, can you name a single dude you wanna use in St. Patriots like Camara's fine, but like, do you actively wanna use him over some other dudes? They're pretty easy cross-offs on this slate. I think my overview, if I'm deviating from yours is the thinness of running back this week because the number of running backs I wanna use is not a long list, especially because we don't know Darrell Henderson status. We don't know if I can use Jonathan Taylor because it might be Jacob Eason or it might be Brett Hunley starting for the Colts. Probably will be one of those guys for this week. Can't really feel great about that. Joe Mixon's facing a really tough defense. I still like him. I like David Montgomery enough, but like the guys I feel great about, the list is small. Henry, Dalvin, Eckler, Saquon. It's that list that is there is no one else who I feel great about for this week, which may mean a couple of things. It may mean that's a very tight core running back, which I'd be ecstatic about. I love that. But it also could mean, might use a receiver in the flex a bit this week, which I don't typically do on FanDuel, given that running backs tend to be under salad relative to their performance. So I don't tend to use receivers there, but I think it's at least in play this week because I don't wanna get overexposed to running back plays I'm not fully convinced on this week. Yeah. That would have been the secondary story for me for the week. So I'm glad that you shouted that out at the top of the show. I think the receiver at the flex is a little bit justifiable this week. We don't really do that. And again, in this house, we spend up for our running backs when it comes to our FanDuel salaries, but who can we spend? Like, who do we have? There's no Aaron Jones. There is no Christian McCaffrey. There's no Mark Ingram on this slate. Like, come on, like how are we supposed to handle that? Like, we lose a lot of key guys and that makes that second tier running back awful this week. So I mean, it's Derek Henry at 9,700 and Dalvin Cook at 9,500. And then, I mean, literally there's nobody else that we can allocate that much salary to because third is Alvin Kimera at 8,000. So we have some pass catchers in those shootouts, specifically Tyree Kill at 8,700 and Travis Kelsey at 8,500. Playing a receiver in the 5,000 range at your flex or always play your later guys in the flex. So just kind of, if your fourth receiver is a lower salary guy, getting back up to them or to back up to Kyler, there's a lot of viability doing that. So I think that's a great call for you. Yeah, and it's gonna be a pretty tight week, which is good. Again, I wanna keep my core tights. This is a positive, but doesn't it be a little nervous for sure? Let's take a look at some key injuries this week and a lot of them are a quarterback starting off with the Dolphins. No to a tongue of Iloa this week. He's got some cracked ribs, which doesn't sound fun. Jacobi Berset will start in his place. Any interest in the Dolphins here with Berset starting? And how does this impact your view of the Raiders' offense here if the Dolphins might not be as able to keep pace? No Dolphins and has to lower me on the Raiders. I still would have some interest in Darren Waller just because he's coming off of a down game. And again, I mean, if we expect that one team runs away with a football game, they have to kind of put up points. And that's going to come through Darren Waller for the Raiders or Henry Ruggs. I don't know if I wanna get too involved with Henry Ruggs in a game where it might not be competitive just cause those downfield shots may not need to be very prevalent. I'm just confused and I don't know like I'm obviously missing something but why is this spread three and a half here? I mean, let me see here. Well, I don't have these games in chronological order and it's nothing in my brain. Okay, it's actually four and a half now. Okay. I have it at three, which is a little scary. That's after an adjustment. I think it adjusted down without two. Let me double check that though. I mean, so it could stay in. So I've got their passing offense projected to be pretty bad but because of their defense is so good I think that having it be a relatively tight spread makes sense. Okay. And defense is a pretty small factor in my stuff but like their defense is, I mean, I know they're 35 to the bills but that was not in the defense. That was all offense letting up that 35. So I think it's fair to have a tight spread does not mean that I think it's gonna be a hyper competitive fun game. Yeah. So, I don't know. We'll see on that when I agree with you where dolphins don't really interest me too much per set look terrible in that game. That offensive line is hideous. Waller's fine. Yeah. It's just one of those games where you ask yourself can I envision myself at, you know, what's this a one as a four o'clock game? So can I envision myself at seven PM Eastern tilting that I didn't stack this game? Nope. Nope. No FOMO. Carson Wentz didn't practice Wednesday with two sprained ankles, which I've done by the way. You bring that up a lot. Yeah. Like often enough. It was great. It was great. Great times. If you can't go, it sounds like Jacob Easton or Brent Hundley might start. Like Hundley might actually be the dude. So what's your outlook for the Colts if Wentz is not able to go here? We're assuming that he's not gonna go. How are you viewing them if it is either recent or Hundley starting this game for the Colts? I already am historically down on the Colts pass catchers just because they haven't ever recently given anyone like significant target share. Michael Pittman has been kind of carving out a little bit of an outlier role relative to what this team typically does. But I don't want to tie that up with presumably inefficient passing not that we're big Carson Wentz guys anyway. I think the real thing is it takes me off of Jonathan Taylor and it would lower my interest in the Titans pass catchers but I don't think I'm gonna talk myself out of Derek Henry. Yeah, I think that Taylor is the big person who gets dinged here. Taylor and then Julio A.J. Brown are the ones who get most dinged as a result of this because if you had Carson Wentz in this game it could be one of those second tier pretend to shoot as you were talking about where, okay I could see this one actually being kind of fun. That's less likely to happen now with Easton slash Hunley starting. So I think to me it's kind of a, not Henry only but it's very, very close to that. I would need, I need a lot of honesty to get to Taylor. Like if I have, like let's say we're doing like a 20 max contest. I'm not getting to Taylor there I don't think. I think I would just stay constant in the others. Like you're doing 150 max, like he's talented. I think they'll probably run the ball quite a bit. You could see it there. But like for most of you who are not 150 maxing out there I don't think Taylor is a dude I wanna get to there. And it does impact Tana Hill, A.J. Brown and Julio. Andy Dalton gonna miss week three due to his knee injury which stinks because I feel bad for him at this point which means that Justin Fields though will start for the Bears. That's the one consolation here. Fields is $6,500 facing the Browns in Ohio. Little coming back home narrative with Justin Fields who played at Ohio State. We can twist this any way we want. What are your thoughts on Fields at $6,500 this week? So I historically would have been all over this situation because of the 10 rushing attempts last week and the low salary. But the elite passers have very similar rushing ability but also can throw the ball more than what we saw from Justin Fields. I'm very high on Justin Fields long term. But I think the question you have to ask yourself this week is let's say you roster Fields at $6,500. What is it really getting you? Unless it's either a double Henry Dalvin lineup which is awesome or getting the ability to play Travis Kelsey more easily. And so if you're not gonna allocate that savings to get to Dalvin and Henry just be careful even if you're building 20 lineups that not every single one of your Justin Fields lineups is tied to Travis Kelsey. That's just something that I would point out. So I think I would have more appeal in Fields if I had more running backs to want to get to. I think that because Kelsey is so desirable I does increase my interest in Fields just because I think it's very similar to the Jalen Hurth situation against Arizona last year where the rushing is good which gives him a solid floor but also increases the ceiling. And then I have a good prior on his passing abilities especially if you give him a full week of practice to prepare for this game the Browns defense has been susceptible. We saw it to Rod Taylor, ripped them up before he got hurt. We saw the Chiefs be able to come back pretty easily against them. I feel like this game I'm not betting the over at 45 and a half although honestly, maybe I should. I'm looking at my like projected offensive efficiency numbers and it's actually not that bad. Maybe I should bet the over game. It went down so maybe I can wait and bet it. Like, that's kind of interesting. Yeah, like I'm going to use Justin Fields but I'm not quite as high on him as I would be if the slate was shaping up a little bit differently. And I mean, we still have these elite passers like Kyler could put up 40 on the Jaguars like. Yeah. And if you, yeah, I know it's a difference of what, 2,500 in salary, I guess. But at some point you need points. So yeah, you can't replace those points always unless Travis Kelsey's putting up like 15 more points than any other tight end, which is possible. But like, I mean, his ceiling is only so high as the tight ends though. I think with, if I'm like tearing out quarterbacks, I think that Mahomes and Wilson are in a tier of their own. I think Kyler is in that second tier just because the sour is a bit higher. So second tier, well, actually no, Kyler's top tier. Russell Mahomes, Kyler in the top tier and then fields to me is in that second tier with Lamar, Josh Allen, Justin Herbert. I think that fields in that second tier. And then the question is how much do I use that second tier? I think he's near the top of that second tier considering the salary, but I don't want to get too spread out a quarterback and that's my concern here. So I do still want, I want to get to him, but I want to make sure I'm not doing it at the expense of Mahomes, Wilson, Kyler, et cetera. On the other side of that game, the Browns will not have Jarvis Landry, but Odell Beckham may be good to go. He was a full participant in Wednesday's practice the first time this year. So how are you viewing the Browns offense if we assume Odell plays against this Bears defense? Obviously higher, I know. Oh boy. 6,500 for Odell is, it could be, he's going to be game stacks only. I think honestly all exposure to this game might be game stacks only. At least many, like if I want some Darnell Mooney, just kind of running back with Odell, I don't think I'm going to play Darnell Mooney by himself or Allen Robinson by himself. Cole Comet's a little bit interesting, but for this offense overall, it's going to elevate me, but we talked about them on the recap show on Monday and they kind of have some market share concerns. Yeah, they do. And like heading into week one, I was high on Odell because I was like, okay. He said the full off season, he's been running well in practice at Seampike. Getting good reports. My optimism around him has gotten a lot lower because he sat out those two games. So I'm going to use Odell. I think that in my field's lineups, I think that he is the most logical piece to use as a bring back. I don't need a bring back here because I think that a lot of the appealing fields revolves around his rushing. So like I run it back every time with quarterback, maybe an exception of fields this week though, but Odell will be the top guy to go to there because a chub, I mean, whatever, like, you know, he's a great football player. Just the DFS role is leave something to be desired at that salary, don't want to use hunt, can't use Don People's Jones, Anthony Schwartz with Odell back, the tight ends rotate. So it's kind of Odell or bust and I'm okay with the bust half of that at times, even in my field's lineups. Before the big matchup with the Rams, the Bucks plays Antonio Brown on the COVID-19 list. The Bucks have a 100% vaccination rate, which means that Brown, his vaccine, which means that if he has two negative tests, 24 hours apart, he could play still on Sunday. So we can't talk about definitive here with Antonio Brown, he could still play. We'll talk about the Bucks and the bookmakers section. Darrell Henderson didn't practice Wednesday due to a rib injury. It sounds like he'll try it out Friday to see how we can go, but that doesn't sound the most optimistic, I would say. Sony Michelle be a next man up, he's $5,700. Would you use Michelle against the Bucks if Henderson can't go on Sunday? Very doubtful. I think all my numbers here are right. He played 16 of 19 snaps after the Henderson injury. He had 10 carries and I think he did run around on those other six snaps that he played. So he was very involved. I probably should be higher on Michelle than I am, but I hate that matchup and I don't anticipate any real rushing workload and we love receiving for running backs, but if it's only receiving, that's a difference, even at a $5,700 salary. Yeah, I'm like, they weren't using, like I wouldn't be shocked if they just don't throw it to their backs because Henderson had three targets per game in the first two games where he got hurt. So like, and Michelle's, I don't think he's gonna have a pass catcher as Henderson. I know they just didn't use him maybe in New England, he played well last year, but more as a runner than as a receiver. And the very fact that he didn't play until Henderson with her is they can't speak volumes of confidence into how much he'll play in week three. Agreed. Deontay Johnson, this practice Wednesday due to a knee injury. They said it's not serious, but it's still noteworthy that he missed practice. How are you viewing the Steelers entering this matchup with the Bengals? So I don't really like this game. I don't have a whole lot of overall interest in it. None of the quarterbacks for shorts. If anything, it'd be some mini stacks with either Joe Mixon, T. Higgins, Jim R. Chase, and then Chase Claypool, most likely. That's kind of the way that I'm viewing it. I have this one, one of the four worst in pace on the week. We should see a lot of pass attempts, but I mean, the Pittsburgh offense hasn't been that inspiring. So no, they ranked 14th for me in projected efficiency this week. Cincinnati is 29th. So it's not a great game. I think that like Chase Claypool is interesting at $5,800, but interesting does not mean I will necessarily use him. It's more so he fits the checklist of a downfield pass catcher in a spot where his team should be decently affin because they're slight favorites at home. So Claypool, I'm okay with. Najee, I might have very limited exposure to but he's over-salaryed at $7,500. So I think that they're not as interesting for me. Yeah, I mean, with Najee, we were just like hoping for a touchdown last week. You have to love the snaps. You have to love the workload, but you don't have to love the offense. And then wherever you put that at $7,500, that's. Yeah, he's at 65 yards from scrimmage per game, 21 adjust opportunities. He doesn't get a lot of red zone work, which is good, but that's the one kind of saving grace there. As for the Bengals, T Higgins didn't practice Wednesday. He's considered day to day. T currently leads the team with 28% of the overall targets are two games. So what would you do with them against Pittsburgh if Higgins can't go? Are we getting to Jamar Chase in that situation or are we still muted because of the lack of enthusiasm around that team as a whole? Yeah, I mean, again, I've said this before, but the NFL is not the NBA. And just because Jamar Chase might get a few more targets and Tyler Boyd might get a few, actually speaking of Tyler Boyd going home, playing in Pittsburgh here. Oh yeah, you're right. There we go. Hail to Pitt. Yeah. If you take T Higgins off the field, they're gonna be at least a less efficient offense. And that is definitely a concern for me. So I mean, I could see myself in particular lineups, especially maybe if I'm really considering receiver at flex, like a Jamar Chase-Chase Claypool stacks. The Jamar Chase Claypool, there we go. The Jamar Claypool, like a mini stack. Realistically, I think that's gonna be kind of my max exposure to this one. Yeah, I think that Chase would work, both Chases would work in this game, but it's not something I wanna get overexposed because the game is not super enticing. Just gonna note here that Dalvin Cook didn't practice Wednesday. He should be good to go. No concern for me there. They asked Mike Zimmer about his workload and he's like, we need to win games. He's the reason we win games. So no, we're not gonna lower the workload. Pretty sure that means he's gonna play. So let's take a look at those three potential shootouts. Three games here with a total of 54 and a half are higher, so let's run through those now. First one is the Chase and the Chargers. Chase are favored by six and a half. They open at seven, so there has been some slight movement towards the Chargers. Salars and the Chargers are super nice. I will say the total has gone down a point and there is some potential wind in this game. Not super concerned about it right now, but just noting that. What is your optimal stack for the Chiefs versus the Chargers? Yes. I think that's basically it. It's just a game where we can play a lot of different options. If I had to pick one stack, I think it would just have to include Patrick Mahomes over Justin Herbert, although I love Herbert, just from a sheer upside standpoint with obviously either Tyree Kill or Travis Kelsey because there's only two other Chiefs we're considering aside from some shares of Miko Hardman, but for a primary stack it's gonna be, I'd probably say Mahomes Hill and if I go Mahomes Hill and Allen, that's a higher salaried stack that's probably gonna be less common than throwing in Mike William. So I'm trying to think of it from that perspective here, but I really don't think there's too many wrong answers with how you stack up this game, but I would try to be making sure that I don't just take value stacks here and make sure that I'm having some of those high end stacks. So I think that for me the good thing is, or the tough part is trying to, like you said, avoid just like the lowest salary dudes because that's the way, the chalky way to do it. I can do that though, like I can avoid using the lower salary guys while still giving myself flexibility by going Mahomes Kelsey Eckler because if you do that, you're giving yourself the flexibility to use some lower salaried wide receivers and those guys are available this week and Eckler tremendous relative to his salary at his position. Kelsey tremendous at his salary relative to his position. I think that that's my favorite. Mahomes, Kelsey, Eckler. I think that is my favorite stack for this game just because of the way those players grade out relative to their specific positions. I do think that within this one though, Mike Williams, like you said, $6,000. He'll be a staple. He'll be a core play. Keenan Allen 69, same thing. I wanna talk to you at Michael Hardman. He is 50 something, 54 I think. Yeah, $54. Hardman got a lot of work last week. However, that was because the Ravens seemed to be like, we're gonna put six dudes on Tyree Kill and you do whatever you want. That's why Pringle score. That's why Demarcus Robinson at his touchdown. That's why Hardman was fine. And I don't know what the attack will be from the Chargers defense in this spot. So Hardman in the first two games, 17% target share. He does have 33% of the deep targets. He had four last week, none in week one. How can you feel about Michael Hardman? Like $54, I think he's very risky. I don't wanna think that last week was something that we'll see again. I wouldn't be shocked. That's his highest target total of the year at eight targets. I want to be cautious and not overreact to that. So I think to me, limited exposure and making him very much a secondary part of game stacks and a limited option as a one-off is the way I wanna play things here. Yeah, I probably wouldn't even use him as a one-off. I think I'd rather find a few extra hundred to get up to some receivers with a little bit more of a secure role. I think the one thing I would say there is I may have misspoken. I'm not gonna have a lot of one-offs here because I'll be stacking this game in most lineups. Cause like Aclo being a lot of lineups, Mike Will will be so like, he's gonna naturally be part of like mini game stacks at the least just because I'll have so many Chargers. Yeah, I got you. Yeah. But yeah, I mean, I did some research this off-season about like how often wide receiver threes, and I know he's technically a wide receiver two, but in this instance, Kelsey, is there a wide receiver two or one depending on how you view it? But if we want literal points and not just like points per dollar of salary. Which is the correct way of view things, I think. Yeah, I mean, his path to like literal slate changing upside isn't that high because the volume we shouldn't project to be as high as eight targets again. It's gonna be closer to that like five mark. And I know he can get downfield work. I know he's fast, but that's not, that's kind of a flawed way to view things. I've been guilty of that in the past, but it's not really just one long catch is enough if you're trying to put up 20 fandal points. So I think for me with Hardman, he'll be kind of an afterthought in my stacks here. He'll be part of them, but not something, someone I'm like trying to prioritize compared to a Mike Williams. So I think I'll probably be lower on Hardman than you are. I think he's like a 15% guy for me. Like I think that's fair. I can see that, yeah. Yeah, I think that's fine. This can be a yes or no answer. Clyde Edwards, E-Layer? Yes or no? No. Leaning no. Leaning no, for sure. Yeah. If I can only pick one, yeah. The Chargers Rush Defense is very susceptible. I think they're fine with that. Like, I don't think they care. Personally, about like if they get gash in the ground. So like it could be fine, but also like we don't know if his role will get decreased because of the late fumble. I know he doesn't fumble, but like it did happen in a high impact situation. He's had a good role so far from a SNAPs perspective, but like from a usage perspective, he hasn't. Like he got no targets in week two. He did run a lot of routes, which is good, but if I do use him, it'll be very limited. Very, very limited. Just too many, very obvious. Like I talked about paths to failure, his paths to failure are likely to hit. And I think that's why I'm okay, potentially just missing out there. Tied with that game at the top of my offensive efficiency projections this week is the Vikings versus the Seahawks. Seahawks, one and a half point favorites. So tight spread there. This game is indoors. We love both those things. Pace here is not ideal. The Vikings 30th in situation neutral pace and the Seahawks are 13th, according to football outsiders. But from a concerned perspective, that's literally the only thing I can come up with is pace. What's your view of this game between the Vikings and the Seahawks? So I have this one rating out better in my pace numbers with pre-SNAP win probability between 20 and 80%. I have this one actually fourth on the main slate because Philly and Dallas is not. So I'm not concerned about that. And these are really two teams where they tell us where the ball's going. And there might be the Freddie Swain touchdown. I get that, but that's kind of the outlier for these teams. So there is immense value in knowing where the ball is going for offenses. One offense I'm high on this week that doesn't really have that. The Cardinals is someone I'll talk about. I'll talk about that team more in detail, but we don't have that issue in this game. So I love it. My primary stack is gonna be a little bit chalky, but just Russ, DK Metcalf and Dalvin Cook. Yeah, I think that, I think this game is my favorite to stack this week, all things considered. Given the tight spread, given that it is indoors, we know where the ball's going. Like, and there are guys in this game I can cross off. Like I don't wanna use Chris Carson. So like I can be like, you know, this is logical. I can go, Russ, let's go, let's do this now. Russ, Metcalf, Alv, I can do that very easily. So I think to me it's the best stack on the slate. I think Russell Wilson might be my number one quarterback of the week, question mark. I just love, I love everything about this game. I do, again, I want to acknowledge the concerns, but given that it's the Seahawks facing an offense that will score some points. We know where the ball's going. I kind of think it's number one for me. Honestly, I wouldn't have a whole lot to say against that. The more I look at this one, you know, last night I was trying to figure out my favorite stacks for another piece of content that I do. And I was like, it has to be in that Chief Chargers game, but I kept coming back to like Russ and Metcalf. And so I think maybe that's telling me something here. So I mean, it's a lot more salary friendly as well. Yeah, I would have no issues putting this one first. Okay, KJ Osborn, he is $5,100. He has 19% of the team's overall targets through the first two games. Only two deep targets, but that is 25%. He's been productive in that volume. If his salary were like 57, I'd be like, no, no interest. But like 51 in a great game where he's actually getting good usage. I kind of feel like that's enticing to me. He's like Harbin where he's not a core play, but I would like to use some KJ Osborn this week. What are your thoughts on him specifically? Yeah, I mean, we talked about him last week and he had that long catch. But the reason that I was drawing to him was just that he's running a lot of routes. He put that in an offense that's capable. There's appeal in that. Now, I know that I just said, we got to watch out that we don't do like the Miko Harbin thing where he's probably not going to get us 20, but a 5,100 within game stacks, like it's these guys are justifiable if we like the game. If we don't like the game, we shouldn't be playing guys down in this salary where their roles are shakier. With Osborn, I would have probably anticipated he has a higher target share than Miko Harbin. I'd feel safer in that just because they probably won't go to Harbin as much. But yeah, I'm cool with Osborn at 5,100 if I'm stacking this one up. Yeah, we're talking about like actual points in terms of making perfect lineups. Like the cutoff from me at receiver is they need 85 yards or two touchdowns to make a perfect lineup. He had 91 last week and a touchdown, 76 yards in week one. They're going to have to score to keep up here. So I think Osborn not a core play, but he'll be one of the lower salary receivers I turned to a decent amount. If you want pace, you can check out Bucks Rams. The Bucks are one and a half point favorites here. Open with the Rams is one and a half point favorites. It did flip though. Defenses are good, but the offenses are sick and they'll operate pretty quickly. So where does this game rank for you among the big three and how are you stacking it? So speaking of teams that are just kind of harder to stack and we might get some clarity with Antonio Brown out but the Buccaneers are always kind of hard for me to stack just because they will share the ball. Rob Grunkowski is the biggest over performer from an expected receiving Fandall points mark compared to his actual. That could continue if they just keep throwing him touchdown passes at the goal line, but this one's a little bit harder for me to stack. I do not envision myself playing Tom Brady just because he doesn't have rushing same for Matthew Stafford. The best part about this game though, I think is expected pass volume. We should probably anticipate that the Rams just aired out and don't try to run the ball at all. I have this one fourth on the main slate in combined situation dependent pass rate, which I like that, but Cooper Cup salaries up there. I don't ever feel comfortable with the Buccaneers. I love Mike Evans, but he is like a 20 or a zero waiting to happen. So outside of like, I mean, I feel best honestly with Robert Woods in this game. So maybe I'm too low on it, but what do you see in here? I like it a lot. I think the under is probably the best bet for this game, but I do think that Stafford is in place $7,600 because we talk about how you, I mean Brady is too, we talk about how you need to go bananas as a passer to be in the perfect line up without rushing, but both those guys can do that in this specific script. So I do think they're both very much in play. I prefer Stafford by a hair personally, just because I don't think they're going to run the ball at all in this game, which is really nice. So I do think Stafford $7,600 works on the Bucs. I have a heavy, heavy preference for Chris Godwin. Godwin, the first two games leads with 23% of the overall targets. He is at, I didn't get a lot of deep work in week two, but he had three targets there in week number one and he has 29% of the red zone target. That's not bad. So I think that Godwin is the V guy to go to here. The gap to him in Evans is $200. And I think that Godwin has both a better floor and similar upside to Mike Evans. Cooper Cup, amazing relative to his role, or relative to Sower at 79. I know it's a high salary, but like still works, but I agree that Woods at 61, like let's say I am not stacking this game. Let's say I'm doing a Kyler lineup or doing a Russ lineup and I want exposure to this game as a one-off. I think that Woods is probably the best route for doing so. And I say that while acknowledging that Woods has run fewer routes than Van Jefferson acknowledges, I'm not generally a Robert Woods guy. I think he tends to be a bit overrated in fantasy spheres, but 24% of the overall targets are two games. He's been getting some deep work. He has 30% of the red zone targets too. I think it's a good spot to get back in on him, even if, again, I'm not a huge Woods guy in general. I mean, he played 98% of the snaps last week, 88% on the season. That first week, he didn't really play a whole, I think it was like a 73% snap rate. 83% of the routes on the season, one and a half red zone targets per game, two end zone targets per game, one and a half downfield per game. His expected receiving fandal points per game is a 12 even. He's averaged 10.2. Cooper Cup, with all that extra volume, is it a 17 in terms of expected? Yeah, it's five points, I'm not saying that's nothing, but it's a tighter gap than I think a lot of people would realize. Cup has overperformed easily. He's not gonna score three touchdowns or one and a half touchdowns per game the rest of the season, but... Are you sure? Would you like to make a bet? No. But yeah, I think, yeah, there may be some slight concerns with Robert Woods, but they're not enough. I didn't misspeak. I said that Woods might be my favorite one-off exposure to this game. That's actually Tyler Higbee at $5,500. I know last week was trash, but like tight end is trash. I think that if you're not going to Kelsey or Waller, like Bronx, fine. I know he's overperformed, but like he's getting good work and he's $6,500 that you expect them to pass a lot. Pitts is fine, Hawkinson's fine. I like Mark Andrews' decent amount this week, but if you're looking for a salary-saving tight end who has a good role, I know that the targets were not there, but from a snap's perspective, he has not missed a snap this year. Higbee is $5,500. So I kind of feel like he's gonna be my preferred route. I have a lot of Woods and a lot of Higbee as one-offs, but I do think this game is pretty fun for stacking, focusing on Godwin on the Buccaneers and focusing on a combo of Cup, Woods and Higbee for the Rams. Yeah, I mean, this one's just more of a mini-stack game for me. I know you said Stafford and Brady are some of the few kind of outliers for us at this point where we can consider them from a sheer passing volume standpoint, but some of the research I've done just suggests that guys who are projected for a lot of fantasy points strictly through passing kind of underperform. Yeah. And that's my big concern here. Okay, rank these games. Let's put Arizona and Jacksonville in there. I know we're talking about that later on, but rank those four games for stacking. Go. Okay, so Seattle, Minnesota, Chiefs, Chargers, Cardinals, Jags, Bucks, Rams last. Only thing I might do is flip the final two there. I figured, but... Worried about the Jags offense. If I felt better about the Jags offense, I think I'd go higher, but I think for me, I think that's the only flip is those two. I agree, Seattle one, Kansas City two. Let's move now to our trend discussion for week number three, focusing on some process-based stuff once again, because it's still early on this year. We'll get to some more specific stuff in the later trends, but let's start things off here with you. And you're talking about running back in defensive correlations and looking at the way those two positions tie together, what did you see when diving into the data there? Yeah, it's turned into a deeper dive and I wanted to talk about like an hour and a half to get all the stuff I wanted lined up in my spreadsheets, but I mentioned last week, I need to do a better job with my defensive research, but I figured I could at least pair it up with some RB defense correlations, which are a pretty prominent in DFS analysis and it feels like the right move often. I have game logs since 2012 for RB ones and the way that I'm defining an RB one here is the highest projected back in a backfield based on number fires pre-game projections, then combine that with their team defensive output. The correlation between the Fandall scores between again, those RB ones and the defenses is a 0.09, which is quite minimal. It's not nothing, but it's small. And if you actually look at games in which that RB one put up at least 30 Fandall points, the correlation between the defensive score and the running back score is a negative 0.11, which implies that you kind of don't really get those huge games from running backs paired with great games from their team defenses. And among that subset, again, 30 point running backs, the defense is averaged 8.1 Fandall points. For context, overall defenses average about 7.3 Fandall points. So that's a 0.8 points, that's not nothing. But if we lower that threshold to 20 point games from running backs, defenses average 7.5 Fandall points. So again, a little bit above average, but not substantially so. And here's the thing to keep in mind. If you're stacking a running back in his defense, it is almost assuredly because the team is at home, they're a favorite, things like that that you're really looking for from that correlation where the running back's gonna like milk the clock and the defense is gonna shut down the opposing offense. Odds are in those situations, defenses are coming at higher salaries and they historically have. If you looked at the sample of running back ones who were at home in favor by at least six points, their defenses averaged 8.7 Fandall points per game. So again, 1.4 points higher than the full subset of Fandall defenses, but those defenses, again, with those home favored running backs, they had an average salary of 47.50 on Fandall and I'm not really about like a 46, 47, $4,800 defense very often. Historically 12 Fandall points has been about like an 80th percentile outcome for a Fandall defense. The split between defenses that actually score 12 Fandall points, it's about 50-50 between defenses with a salary of 4,600 and higher or 4,500 and lower. I'm sure overall the sample is much larger for just defenses that are salaried at 4,500 or below but we also can kind of cross off some of those defenses we would not consider. So I mean, like, yeah, maybe there's some merit to stacking your running back with your defense just because on average they score a few more points but it's really not worth it long term to be spending up at defense even in some of these spots where we're gonna get home favorites later on in the year. So I don't see a whole lot of reason to do this and again, defensive, like figuring out what defense I wanna use is typically a flaw in my process but looking at this, I don't think stacking is kind of all it's made out to be. So any thoughts here on what I said, any thoughts on just kind of how you stack your defenses, if at all? I think the key thing is something that you said pretty early on that trend and you probably agree this is the key takeaway but getting blowups from your running back and blowups from the defense at the same time is pretty rare. And I think that that is very easy to explain because how do you get a blowup defensive game? You get a defensive touchdown. If you get a defensive touchdown that gets the opposing team the ball back which means your running back has less volume to work with. So I think that is very easy to figure this out. I think if you want the best example possible go back to last year, week two Colts Vikings. The Colts defense I think had two defensive touchdowns. There were a lot of people who stacked the Colts defense with Jonathan Taylor but because the defense scored twice they never had the ball. So if you're looking to win a tournament you need to give yourself the chance for blowups at each position and it can happen. There were times last year where a running back was stacked with their defense in the perfect lineup last year but I think it is less prevalent than I'd assume. So I'm not saying actively avoid a running back defense stack but I would agree with you where I'm not actively seeking it out either. I'm not, actively avoid might actually be an okay term to use for it because I don't want that overlap if I can avoid it. I think that's, and it is a big deviation from what I used to do previously. So if we're thinking about ceiling, thinking about upside, thinking about taking down tournaments I agree it's not my preferred way to do things if I could avoid it. Yeah, I did some analysis too on how frequently running backs get to 20 Fando points and defenses get to 12 Fando points again like kind of 80th percentile outcomes numbers you kind of need to win like the Sunday million like a big tournament there. The odds that the teammates in this sense I'm just gonna call the defense a teammate but the odds that they have those big games in the same game is about 4.9% and if you pair up to a random defense with a random running back it's about 4.4%. So maybe a little bit higher but not substantially so and especially not worth again you're not really stacking like road underdog running backs with road underdog defense as we're looking at higher salary guys I'm on both of these positions. So it just isn't something that I think needs to be discussed as much as it usually is. I would agree with that for sure. So it's not where you need to avoid it but like maybe lower your enthusiasm around doing it. I think it's the way I would say that. Let's move now talk about some bookmaker info once again because last week we talked about the scary nature of non competitive games teams that are heavily favored. We want to avoid players in games that are not supposed to be tight not supposed to be competitive but what about the mid-range spreads? You know, what's the value in players not in hyper competitive games like not a Seattle, Minnesota game but where this spread is also not massive because it's relevant this week because we've got Lamar Jackson, Kyler Murray, Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes all favored by somewhere between six and a half to eight and a half points. So we'll expand that a bit here and look at spreads from five to nine and a half points at quarterback we don't need to care too much about roster rates as you mentioned last week we can just look at performance here and last year 19% of all teams were favored by five to nine and a half points. So keep that in mind as a baseline here 19% of all teams were in this range 29% of all quarterbacks and perfect lineups were in that range five to nine and a half points that's a decent amount above the overall population to me that is a very good thing for the quarterbacks we talked about before I'm still gonna prefer tie games which is why Russell Wilson may be number one for me but there is zero level of concern for me around Kyler Lamar Mahomes with regards to the other team keeping pace at running back 33% of perfect running backs were favored in this range that is again compared to 19% of the overall sample 29% of popular running backs in the fan dual Sunday million were in this range so the public may have actually underinvested in this range so the two key guys who pop there are Nick Chubb and Derek Henry and Clyde Edwards-Elair but don't do it Chubb doesn't do a ton for me but I think that with Henry that is encouraging for sure so not that you need the reason to use Derek Henry but it helps. At receiver it was 20% of perfect wide receivers were in this range that's compared to 21% of popular receivers, 19% of all receivers so it was in line neither a plus nor a minus I can stack receivers in this range but I'd still prioritize the guys in closer games that their standalone plays so like Rondell Moore, Deandre Hopkins those guys are fine but if it's a standalone play I'll skew towards the closer games. Tight end was similar to running back 29% of all perfect running back or tight ends came from this range the public did use those guys pretty often but like you know that's fine so I think the biggest takeaway here is that we shouldn't overlook Kyler and Lamar not that any of you would but to me it's encouraging just because they're not in one of the big three games this week it also helps confirm for me that I still wanna skew toward the tight games for wide receiver specifically for running backs and tight ends I can be more flexible in these scripts so are you getting to Kyler Murray? Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen this week or are you trying to focus on the shootouts at quarterback? Well I know we'll talk about Josh Allen in your second trend so I'll kind of I won't focus on him but I do like him Kyler obviously like it's gonna take a very specific game projection not to wanna play Kyler Murray or a salary that is just unattainable and I don't think it's unattainable this week I actually love Lamar Jackson he might be my favorite quarterback of the week simply because we know the rushing is there he's averaged 237 passing yards per game I think he's at 235 and 239 in his two games but Detroit just sets up as such an easy pass defense that kind of the issue with Lamar is yeah maybe he'll run for 60, 80 yards obviously upside for more but is he gonna throw for any touchdowns is he gonna kind of flirt with 250 passing yards is or any of his receivers going to be relevant in this specific matchup I think that those are just guesses he has a very obvious path to doing that so I might be highest on Lamar which is fun because people won't be because there's so many other options in those better games but I mean when Baltimore puts up massive outputs through Lamar Jackson we know that so I like all three of these guys and they're not cross offs just because they're not in their shootouts I think this is the best counterpoint to Justin Fields is that there are guys who are in amazing spots it does mean that maybe it's tougher to get to Kelsey and stuff like that but I think that I agree the Lamar is in a tremendous situation here you can run it back with TJ Hawkinson if you use Mark East Brown run it back with maybe Quintess Seifus if you decide to go with Mark Andrews should I don't mind or maybe DeAndre Swith probably not you know whatever but I do think that the situation sets it pretty well for Lamar so I think of that group and that's also the best counterpoint to Josh Allen who we'll talk about later on but I do think that it's really hard to say no to Kyler and Lamar the problem that I'm having is it's the same problem as with running back last week where like I feel really good about a good number of guys and I don't wanna spread myself too thin at quarterback because I'm just setting myself up for failure and not being able to take advantage of them right and that's what I wanna do Yes and I mean specifically at quarterback scoring is typically flat-ish where the top guys are gonna be you know kind of bunched unless one guy really separates you can get more separation with like a Derek Henry outburst at running back so it's one thing to keep in mind you don't have to feel like you need exposure to all of these quarterbacks but I keep going back to Lamar and the odds I mean I have legitimate odds for certain things but like just thinking ask yourself like what are the odds Lamar Jackson gets shut down by Detroit and is like irrelevant Actual odds probably negative seven percent Right like Mahomes and Herbert and some of these other guys like it's a divisional matchup you never know how that those things are gonna kind of go so like I just I don't really see issues for Kyler or Lamar this week Yeah so if we're talking about like paths to failure which is a term that I use a lot there aren't a lot and the odds of those paths hitting are small preference for you between Kyler and Lamar? I think I'm gonna go Lamar for the salary savings because it just it will help this week so it's kind of where I am I figure it's Kyler for you? I think I like Lamar more because I don't think the opposing team hates their coach and that might help in terms of keeping the game competitive so I think that helps let's move now to your second trend talking more about those cardinals specifically the pass catchers because I think that this is really interesting in the past it's been with Kyler he just using with new who cares might not be the case anymore what are you seeing with this cardinals target share entering a matchup with a team that might actually just hate their coach? Well this is kind of a shorter trend but I think it'll lead to more roundabout discussion you know when we talk about the chiefs or like the Seahawks we know where the ball's going that's something we've already talked about on this show for this week we don't necessarily know that anymore with the cardinals based on what they've done with their pass catchers through the first two games and that is problematic because we wanna play Kyler Murray and you can play Kyler Murray without his pass catchers but honestly with the success rate of like when you lock in that a quarterback has a big game his receivers outperform baseline expectations so you in very rare instances should want to play a quarterback without his pass catchers just from a probability standpoint so we need to figure out who we're playing with Kyler provided that we are playing Kyler this week and even if we're not playing Kyler we still wanna figure out if we wanna exposure to these pass catchers but through two games Rondale Moore has 13 targets Deondre Hopkins has 12 same as AJ Green Christian Kirk and Chase Edmonds have nine and Max Williams their tight end has eight so that puts six players on this team between a 12% and a 20% target share that is not particularly good I rag on the colts all the time for not giving guys 20% target shares it is a very different situation because it's a much more efficient offense I get that but we still want that guaranteed volume and Deondre Hopkins I love him this salvage 8,500 he cannot get you like 12 phantom points and be worth it it just doesn't work that way he should over the full season should surge out ahead in target share but he's not there yet they might not need to force him 30% of their targets if they have, I know AJ Green but he has an 88% route rate we can say that AJ Green is irrelevant but he's not so we should not say like we can't say that AJ Green is irrelevant that is easily the second best route rate on the team behind Deondre Hopkins and we have Rondeau Moore who's 5,600 this week and Christian Kirk whose salary is 5,700 so they're at those low salaries AJ Green by the way 5,500 but it's possible that Rondeau Moore gets more involved but for right now he's not running a whole lot of routes and you could make the case that that leads to a bust week especially in a week where they may not need to throw the ball as much as they have been so I don't really know what to do with these passcatchers do you see any path to solving that equation for this week? The only thing that I know is I will not touch AJ Green he is a thorn in our side he is not a usable DFS piece I don't think you were saying that but I just want to clarify, no shot I think that with Moore projecting me pretty popular this week I would guess based on the buzz he's gotten he was a waiver wire pickup this week that tends to lead to some interest and the fact that there are some 5,000 range receivers I do like that's part of why I think this game is less attractive for stacking then well it's part of why I think that Lamar makes a lot of sense this week over potentially Kyler but then also I think that's why I prefer to stack the Rams bucks over this one is because the one guy I feel good about relative to salary is Moore but he's also the one guy here who will probably be most popular so I kind of think that I'm gonna wind up being under on this game which is scary because I think that it's a good game I just think that there are issues within it I still will have Kyler because Kyler is freaking amazing his floor is stupid his ceiling is stupider so I think that like a Kyler, Nuke, Marvin Jones or something like that that makes a lot of sense but I think that I will have less exposure to that than I will have to the other games where I feel better about the Target shares this week. Yeah, I know I said that I liked this game more than Tampa Bay and the Rams maybe I shouldn't just because you pointed out like we don't, I mean I pointed out that we don't have the Target shares here that well but it's just really hard not to rank a game with Kyler in it above a game where I don't really want either quarterback. Yeah, but I do love Marvin Jones so he's the obvious bring back. I'd be cool with just make going, I think Deondre Hopkins is going to be very unpopular relative to the other guys in a salary with Tyree Kill right there. So for me, the Kyler, Nuke, Marvin Jones stack might be a really strong like single entry kind of approach this week. Not totally off BJ Chark. He's getting a lot of un-catchable balls. So like we talked about Prairie Arts, he's getting those. He's not getting area arts, he's getting Prairie Arts but like he's getting downfield looks. So yeah, he's got nine. Yeah, I'll mention that but a lot of paths to failure there. Let's move now to talk about the pace for Buffalo and Washington because I've not been in on Josh Allen the past two weeks because facing super tough defenses gets another one this week with Washington and they're on extra rest after playing Thursday but this game has at least some interesting components to it and the first one is it's a fast-paced game. The bills lead the league in situation neutral pace through two weeks according to football outsiders. Washington is eighth. Both those teams were above average in pace last year Buffalo ranked 11th and Washington was 14th. Other interesting thing here is that Taylor Heineke hasn't been bad. He's at 0.19 passing that expected points per drop back through those first two games. He was at 0.10 last year, including his playoff start and that to me says he can do enough to keep this game competitive. The problems I do respect, both defenses a bunch. Washington ranks fifth in my projected numbers. It's combination of 2021 data, mostly still preseason priors, Buffalo ranks 10th but we know defense is fluky. Weird stuff can happen when we rely on defense and that's the one thing sitting in my way of this game being fun. So I am interested in some Josh Allen's Defundings Terry McClaren stacks but I also don't wanna get too spread out of quarterback and that's my primary concern for this week is getting too spread out. So can I lop Josh Allen off Brandon or is this game enticing enough where I should still be in? So we talked last week in detail about quarterback popularity numbers and it just doesn't really matter. I think Kyler led at like 12.9% in the Sunday morning or something like that. It's just they don't get that high and people pretend like, you know, the assumption is that they are super chalky and it just doesn't work out that way at quarterback because there are so many options. So I'm not gonna say we should play Josh Allen because we'll be under the radar and we need to pivot from the chalk. That's not the case. But we know that Josh Allen has the upside to lead a slate in Fandall points. He has shown that and his receivers, specifically Stefan Diggs and Emmanuel Sanders have underperformed their roles and that leads to regression. And it's very easy to look at the guys who are converting someone like a Cooper Cup or a Tyler Lockett early on and start to forget about the guys who aren't putting up these big games. But this one is a really easy stack too. So that's appealing to me where we'd have Josh Allen and Stefan Diggs or Emmanuel Sanders and then bring it back with Terry McClurrin. There are paths to this game like you would say, not really having a whole lot of points. There's a chance that Josh Allen is not who he was last year. He's I think four for 18 on downfield attempts. Not very good. Easily the worst among guys with like more than 10 or 15 pass attempts there. So there's a chance that just nobody converts. But again, I say this with a golf all the time. If Josh Allen is a terrible downfield passer again, it's like the decline of his ability to throw the ball downfield or it's just the kind of a cold streak. You want to kind of buy in on those low, have those bylaw opportunities. So I like this stack, but only those four guys. Oh, well, Tony Gibson's a low salary, but I would throw Logan Thomas in there too. Because he's one of a kind of routes. We're no revenge game. Who cares about the route? It's a revenge game. He can run one round, but it's a revenge game. So one thing I will say is there is a difference between saying to avoid a guy because he'll be chalk a quarterback and saying guy is enticing because he'll be low rostered. Because if I'm looking at rotor grinders, roster rate projections right now, if player X is on 5.7% of all rosters and he goes nuts, the competition for the top prize is whittled down quite a bit. So like if you think Josh Allen will fly into the radar, which they don't, I will note that. They do projection to be up there. But if you project him to be low rostered, there still are advantages to that. So I think that's the one thing. You don't need to avoid the chalk a quarterback, but you can seek out under roster guys. Allen could be that this week. I kind of think Russell Wilson might be the guy after looking at these numbers. So, but I think that that's good for Allen. I think that because I wanna be concentrated quarterback, I think that what I'll try to do instead is actively make sure I have Stefan, Diggs, Terry McClaren stacks just to get exposure to this game without spreading myself too thin a quarterback. That might be the route that I take here. Again, I think that Allen's a good play, but because I need to be concentrated a quarterback, I might want to just doing it with Diggs McClaren and getting my exposure that way. Yeah, and I mentioned last week when going over quarterback exposure numbers, it's still better to have a quarterback at 5% than 15%. I'm not arguing against that, but I don't want to pass up a ton of exposure to someone like Russell Wilson's a bad example, maybe Lamar. Mahomes is always the best example. Mahomes is never more rostered than he should be. Never, not a single time in his life. Well, I was trying to say like someone in a similar salary who's gonna be, yeah, yeah, yeah, like way more popular this week. So like, I don't wanna pass up Lamar just to try to get to Allen if I think Allen's gonna be less rostered, but I agree with you. I think that eventually people are gonna be winning tournaments with Josh Allen and Stefan Diggs stacks and that would not have surprised anyone entering week one, it shouldn't surprise us entering week three, and sometimes it can be easy to forget that, so don't do that. Yeah, and again, you can get exposure to this without spending yourself too thin. I think that might be my preferred route this week is Diggs plus McLaurin. Let's talk about weather briefly. There are a couple of games with some noteworthy wind. It's not like, oh my God, what's going on, but like just check back on it on Sunday. Winds worth monitoring for the Browns and the Bears 13 miles per hour right now, not a concern there, something to watch. Over under 20 rushing attempts for Justin Fields then if it's, if it's Wendy. Under, just in case you're asking seriously, just in case. 13 miles per hour, now not a concern, something to watch though. Same thing for the Giants and Falcons in Jersey where they're at 10 miles per hour. Again, nothing right now, but just check back on it later. Winds beats in Kansas City for the Chiefs and Chargers are at 16 miles per hour. That's the point where I start to downgrade guys. I think we said last year it was a 7% decrease relative to projections for guys in 15 plus mile per hour winds. I'll check back on that, but we have seen guys historically underperform projections in games that kind of wind and the total in that game did come down a point. So just noting that now, no freak out yet, just noting it and winds are at 13 miles per hour for the Bills and Washington. Slight chance of rain there. Just check back on those later on, but let's move now into our position by position breakdown for week number three and starting off the quarterback, Brandon, who are you going at this week on FanDuel? Really hard to narrow this down honestly, but I'm gonna go with Lamar Jackson number one here at 8400. He's averaged those 237 passing yards I talked about and one passing touchdown. More obviously we're interested in those 14 carries per game for just shy of a hundred rushing yards. I mean, it's two red zone carries per game which is 33% of the team's red zone rushes. And the thing for me is the Lions were just by far the best passing matchup possible at this point. That benefits Jackson who, the question for Jackson is never really the rushing. It's can he add any passing to kind of get one of those ceiling games for him? And I think the answer this week is yes. My second love is gonna be Justin Herbert just because I think he's shaping up to be a regression candidate already. 337 yards per game, but just two total passing touchdowns. Slightly above average adjusted expected points added per drop back. We know the stacks for the most part, like it's gonna, you can play him with Ken Allen or Mike Williams. You could throw in Jared Cook there, it'd be fine with that. He's got four rushes per game, it's not a whole lot of production on them, but he could always kind of get like a 20 yard carry or something like that if things work out that way. And he's yet to have a breakout game. So he might not be with all of all these quarterbacks, he might not be as popular as he probably would deserve to be within the context of that game. Yeah, I think that they all make sense. And Herbert, I might lop off from if I'm looking to try to concentrate my exposure, but I'd like to get there. But again, it might be like the Allen thing where like I just, you know. So the question, I'll let you give your picks and then I'll ask who you're including overall. Okay, so my first love is Russell Wilson. I do want to say Mahomes is amazing. He's not either of our loves, but like he's amazing this weekend. You don't need me to tell you that, but like he is. Russ is indoors, tight spread, Seattle ranks third in projected offensive efficiency by my numbers, Minnesota is fifth. So that's great. We have logical stacking partners, just two dudes to use here. I think Russ, if I have a single entry slate, he's gonna be my quarterback there. Second one is Justin Fields because he opens up so much without limiting your upside because he gets a full practice with the ones, full week of practice with the ones this week. He is throwing a deep. His eight-ot last week was 11.3, not the toughest matchup. Cleveland ranks 27th by my defensive numbers and we can use him as a way to go all in on stacking other games. It can get you access to Kelsey Eckler, can get you access to Metcalf, Dalvin, et cetera, et cetera. So using him as a catalyst for stacking other games, I think is in play. Again, it's really tough to pass over to the other guys, but I think I can get exposure to them via their pass catchers and that does help me a bit. So what do you think in here? So I think the real question is, again, I'll publish odds for this on Friday morning on Number Fire, but the odds that Fields puts up like 25 or 30, it's not out of the question that he goes to 25. I'm not sure that passing is gonna go from kind of zero to 60. And I think that's the difference is I have a pretty high opinion of his passing. I have a neutral opinion of his passing at this point, just because I think long-term it'll be there, but I don't wanna get out over my skis with Justin Fields again, because it's going to come directly at the loss of these other elite quarterbacks that I already love. Okay, so quarterbacks ranking for me this week, Wilson won, Mahomes two, Lamar three, Kyler four, Fields five, might cut it off there. I might not get to Brady or Stafford, I'm okay with them, but I might not get there. That was gonna be my main fault like question whenever you said about not getting to Josh. Like if I'm lopping off anyone, I'm lopping off guys who don't run. Like that's like, if I need to make that cut off, that will be the criteria I use. Yep. Okay, let's move now to running back. What do you have there? I mean, it's that simple. You agreed with me and it was just unsettled. You don't do that. We don't do this very often. So it cuts you off the game. Did you just play the quarterbacks who run the ball? That's easy. Easy game. I love Dalvin Cook at 9,500. I really hate running back this week over all. So I'm just sticking with Dalvin. I know he's not 100% healthy, but the team said they're leaning on him. I think the metaphor was like the throttles like pushed forward with him still. 31 adjusted opportunities per game, which is carries plus double your targets to account for the value of a target even on a half PVR site, such as Fandall. Crazy. 60% red zone rushing share, 44% route rate, five targets per game. Seattle's not particularly good against running backs. So I want that. Austin Eckler is my second love at 7,000. No targets on 24 routes in week one. Nine targets on the same amount of routes in week two. 61% of the snaps. And for this next bit, just remember, there are 32 teams in the NFL. Really? In the city's ranks against running backs thus far. Rushing net expected points per carry, 32nd. Rushing success rate allowed 32nd. Adjusted rushing fantasy points per carry, 32nd. And adjusted receiving Fandall points per target, 25th. So I know it's not the quad factor, but that's pretty good. And my third love, it was a note to my future self this week, Saquon Barkley. In week two, on short, short rest, he had 83% of the snaps, 83% of the red zone rushes, three targets, 75% of the routes. Atlanta's 27th in rushing success rate allowed to running backs in 23rd. And adjusted receiving Fandall points per target allowed two backs. Yeah, I think that Saquon is the kind of lock button for the guy from me. He is also my third love this week. I can't provide a counter example for you. I don't know if we talked about him enough within the context of how that like goes with quarter, like goes with like the quarterbacks and stuff. Yeah, it makes it a lot easier to get to all those guys. So like Justin Fields and... Well, I'm gonna use Justin Fields and Saquon first of all. Okay. So I just entered my bobble hat lineup against you. Justin Fields in it, for now, for now. I might change it later, but like he's in there. I think that with Barkley getting five of nine red zone chances last week, he ran routes on two thirds of the drop backs. That was on three days of rest. He's now on 10 or nine, whatever. So I think he's kind of the highest exposure running back for me this week. I think that Dalvin's number one, I agree with that. But if we were to talk about Derek Henry, I think that he had six targets last week, four the week before that, should get a positive script here, especially because we have potentially Brent Hundley or Jacob Easton not starting. But it's also not so positive based on what the bookmakers are saying, where they stopped trying. I think that's a good thing here. The Colts defense has looked more vulnerable this year. It seems like Darius Leonard might not be fully healthy. So I think that stacks up pretty well for feeling pretty good about Derek Henry this week. My second love would be Eckler, probably pretty boring to double up on him. I would say Eckler, Saquon, Dalvin are the core place for me this week. If I were to provide like a counter in this situation, I think it'd be between David Montgomery and Joe Mixon. Both those guys, at least interesting in that range, Montgomery is 69, Mixon 67. Mixon has better work, a better workload, but Montgomery isn't an offense I feel better about this week because they're facing a less threatening defense, Montgomery getting good work, 98.5, total yards of storage per game so far, 30% of the team's red zone opportunities, 18 carries, two and a half targets per game. Diddly's weak one a bit early due to injury and had a good role in week number two. Maybe we get that situation where a rushing quarterback opens up more lanes for the running back. So I think if I were to pick someone outside of Eckler in this range, I'd go Montgomery over Mixon by a bit, just because I feel better about the overall workload there, but it's really all about Eckler in this range for me. I've just given you more dudes to consider. Let's move to wide receiver. Who stands out to you there? I've got Stefan Diggs, it's 7,700 again. Had him last week, sticking with him. Obviously, I don't think either of us are gonna talk about Tiger Kill, but play him if you can. Stefan Diggs, 7,700. He's for Hillary Kelsey in one lineup. So there's the replaceability aspect with Kelsey, but the sheer upside for Hill is like immense. Like a 40 burger gonna come from Hill. Yeah. So it's always like a coin flip. I think for this week, I might lean Kelsey just because there are some receivers I prefer at Lower South that I like not necessarily prefer straight up. So probably Kelsey by a little bit for this week. But Stefan Diggs due for some regression for sure. Still 12.7 Fandal points per game, which should have about 16.3, 92% of the routes, 11 targets per game, 129 air yards per game, but just 65 actual yards per game. I know we need Josh Allen to get a little more accurate on those deep balls, but we also want the downfield attempts anyway. So I'm sticking with it, 28% target share for him. I also like Manny Sanders in that offense. He's getting a very good workload. He's 5,200 for this week. Yeah, I agree. Second loves Keenan Allen at the $6,900 salary. 87% of the routes, 10 and a half targets per game, 104 yards per game, hasn't scored yet. And if he's gonna do it, this feels like a good spot for him to do it in. 24% target share with a slightly higher ADOT than Mike Williams, only brief, like only barely, but two and a half downfield targets per game, two and a half red zone targets per game, just an elite workload. And he's yet to have like a massive game here. And my third love, not digging under $6,000. There are plenty of receivers I do like, but I think Robert Woods is a really good play for this week at 6,100. Part of that elite game that is in that top tier, 83% route rate overall, played 98% of the snaps last week. Week one, he wasn't quite as involved. Four end zone targets, but just one score, three red zone targets, three downfield targets. Tampa Bay has not been particularly stout against receivers once adjusted. So I think Woods at 6,100 is possibly a bobble hat lock for me this week. Might already be in mine. We'll say that. My first love is DK Metcalf. It's similar to the key to now in discussion where we've seen production from the other wide receiver, but this guy's gotten good usage in the two games. So far, Metcalf has 31% of the overall targets, 33% deep, 50% in the red zone. They're playing indoors. He stacks really well with Dalvin Cook. I think Metcalf is superb this week. My second love is Mike Williams, $6,000 for tremendous usage. He has 26% of the overall targets, 30% deep and 28% in the red zone. The Chiefs do tend to be good against wide receivers, but I also don't care. So I think that 6,000 is too low for Mike Williams. So Mike will be back in my lineups. My third love, I was gonna go Darnell Mooney. I'm gonna stick with him. I'll stick with it. I thought about pivoting into Kenny Galladay. A Mooney field stack opens up a lot. It does. It does. I think that Kenny Galladay though is worth noting at $5,600 given that he got four downfield targets in both games, was it? Is it four in one or four in both? Let me just check this quick. I've got it right here. He also played both. Four in both. And he's facing the Falcons. Well, he also has, we can say whatever we want about his quarterback, but Daniel Jones has been one of the best downfield passers since the start of 2020. I'm glad he's got one thing going for him. What do you have, 96 rushing yards last week? I'm glad he has one thing going for him. Let's just do Kenny Galladay, whatever. Okay, in the first two games, Galladay has six and eight targets. He had four deep targets in both those games. He had a red zone target in week one, none in week number three, but like $5,600 for a guy getting that downfield work at home is a slight favorite against this secondary, sick. I don't mind having both him and Saquon in the same lineup, totally fine by me, given that their production doesn't overlap too much. Running back and wide receiver stacks were actually in perfect lineups a decent amount last year. So I think that having Galladay in there with Saquon is fine, but I do like Mooney. I don't mind Rondell despite the popularity. Miko Harbin 54 works, KJ Osborne at 51. I like Manny, you alluded to him at 52. I would say commit to your mid-range and top tier receivers, rotate through the lower sour guys, Chase Claypool was in there too. Quickly, are you gonna use Cordell Patterson or no? He can be a run, you can use a running back in your wide receiver slot, $5,900. No, his role is like way overstated. Is it though? Played every single red zone snap in week number two. He had four of nine red zone chances in week number two. We've seen teams do this with speed guys in the past. Curtis Samuel last year, Isaiah McKenzie for the past 16 years of the bills. Oh yeah, all the times I played Isaiah McKenzie on family. I used Curtis Samuel a lot last year. Curtis Samuel's different. At this exact same salary, and I think that we're getting in a range where Cordell might have kind of a similar role and you can use a wide receiver or a running back at wide receiver. I'm just saying it's not outrageous to talk about it. 34% snap rate running back at wide receiver. Just saying, just saying. I think he's worth considering. That's what I would say. I don't think it's preposterous to bring him up is what I would do. It's not, but I'm not gonna use him. Thank you. Let's move now to tight end. Who do you have there? TJ Hawkinson, 6,300. We'll be playing from behind and if you're not going to have a very efficient high scoring offense, at least play from behind and be a tight end who is treated as a receiver which Hawkinson definitely is. Leads all Detroit skill players in snap rate at 88% and route rate at 87%. Nobody else is really close. Nobody else is even above 70% in either of those. 21% target share and two and a half combined high leverage targets per game which is Red Zone plus deep targets for me. Second love is Jared Cook at 5,300 running 60% of the routes. Should have nine fandal points per game but just at 6.2, is averaging six and a half targets per game. It's a 15% target share in a game that we like a lot. One and a half Red Zone targets per game. One end zone target thus far and I think you said the Chiefs pretty good against receivers generally. Not quite so good to start the season against tight ends, 25th and adjusted fandal points per target there. Yeah, David and Joke, we got a bunch of downfield work against them in week number one. My first love is a guy we were poop talking on Monday. That's Mark Andrews. He could get completely overlooked due to the low target numbers but he's still running a ton of routes. He has 19% of the targets for this team which is not nothing. We saw George Kittle and Robert Tonion have success against Detroit and limited volume. So I think that Mark Andrews is $6,000. I would prefer Marquise Brown if I have a Lamar lineup but I don't think we should write off Mark Andrews yet just because usage has been underwhelming through two games. I think Andrews is in play at $6,000. I also love Tyler Higby because I love to double down when I get stuff wrongs. Let's just go right back. He has yet to miss a snap this year. He is the lowest salaried access, relevant access to this game outside of, actually no, he is the lowest salaried relevant access to this game. I lied. The Bucks let up 10 target set-ins in week one. They let up nine in week two. I'm gonna give it a shot again. I just think again, I want to find lowest salaried ways to get access to high scoring games. Higby is that, plays a lot of snaps. Let's get him in on the breakfast table with Maddie Stafford and Cooper Cup and let's get some targets out to my guy, Tyler Higby. Let's move now to defense. What do you have there? I have the Raiders at $4,000. Pro Football Focus has them with the top eight, pass rush matchup or I guess specifically like Miami with the bottom eight. I don't know, either way. Jacobi Prasett took a sack on 9.1% of his drop-backs in week two. They are four and a half point favorites at home. So it should be a little bit competitive. We want games where there's some action because again, about 60% of the fandal points come from sacks and interceptions. So I'll take that at that salary. Yeah, Prasett is, he didn't look good last week. Yeah, that offensive line is poop. Could be bad. I think the Giants are pretty fun to defense at $3,900 because Matt Ryan might be cooked. He ranks 30 second and passing that expected points per drop-back out of 35 guys and at least 15 drop-backs. He's above, not a great list. A lot of rookies. The defense has not played well to open for the Giants, but I think their defensive coordinator is pretty good. They played decently at times last year. So I don't mind the Giants. Don't mind the Falcons on the other side of times given that Daniel Jones is their quarterback. But just putting that out there. I think the Bills at 41, the Browns at 42 are both under salary as well. That is all that we have here for today. Brandon, any final thoughts for you before we send people off to fill out their lineups? It's going to be really easy even if you're playing maybe 20 lineups to want to get sprinkles of all of the quarterbacks. I know it's tough. And I'm saying this for myself as well. You can't play everyone. So just try to figure out who you, Jim would always say rank, go through and actually rank them and go from there because it's going to be really easy to want to play two lineups of everyone even if you're playing like a 20 entry max. Right. That'll be my tough thing this week is narrowing down quarterback. Running back is very easy to narrow down. I have to work to expand it. But quarterback, I need to narrow it down. I need to sit down and decide, okay, who do I need to have? Who am I okay glossing over for me? Quick reminder again to get yourself entered in the listener league for this week, go to fandual.com slash league slash listener league, $5 entry, three entries max. There is no rake for this contest, fandual.com slash league slash listener league. That will be the URL the rest of the way. So once they get the lineup up each week, you can enter over there. Also make sure to subscribe to the number fired daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts. We are back here once again on Monday, nine a.m. Eastern to wrap things up, go through the biggest takeaways from the week from a DFS perspective and get a quick look at week number four as well. Brandon, if people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? I'm at Gadoula 13 GDULA13. You can find Brandon today at 4 p.m. on the Fandall YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Twitter pages breaking down the single game slate of thriller between the Panthers and the Texans. I am on Twitter at- Who's calling me? No, come on, man, come on. Actually, I don't know. By the way, this is why you're doing it, not me. I'm on Twitter at Jinsanus, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the Fandall Podcast Network at Fandall Podcast. Big thank you to everyone for tuning in for this week. Good luck to you in week three. We'll talk to you on Monday to wrap it all up. This has been the heat check fantasy podcast powered by number fire.