 It was a wild week for NFL DFS's past weekend. And our job days, try to figure out what on earth just happened. We had big time offenses failing. We had running backs, putting up big usage out of absolutely nowhere. And our job, this is decide what if it is legit, where the concerns lie and how to view these assets going forward in NFL DFS. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire. That's right here on the Fandall 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. And Brandon, the good side of having everyone flop is that cash lines are super low, which meant that even a, what could have been a terrible day was fine. But it's still really frustrating to not take advantage when the chalk fails as badly as it did. So I just want to know what on earth just happened. Yeah, I don't have that answer. That's for sure. Not a whole lot of points across the main slate overall. And with the chalk mostly busting, aside from like Nick Chubb, you would think that someone who tries to be contrarian would have a good day. You would also think, especially given that and given the fact that my two quarterback loves on the Thursday show or Lamar Jackson and Justin Herbert, and they were the only two quarterbacks to go above 30 fandal points in the main slate and only one other quarterback, my guy who I was clamoring for a few weeks ago, Matt Ryan, now without Kevin Ridley in a really tough matchup. He was up around about 28 and a half and then nobody else got to 22. So we talk a lot about the upside at quarterback and just the sheer fact that the guys who can get to 30, they're always gonna have like a seven or an eight in front of their salary, sometimes a nine of course. But whenever that happens, it's really hard to catch up because there just weren't a lot of 20 point games. And despite that, I was too low on Justin Herbert. I played too much Dak. I played plenty of Lamar, but like, it just goes to show and it kind of goes back to if anyone's been listening to the show weekly, my process, but also your process is trying to be a little bit more narrow with the core so that whenever you do have, so you play three quarterbacks and two of them go off for 30, you should benefit. It still doesn't always happen, but I think that the process is, it's been working out the past few weeks for me. So lots to go over, but I think the process was right. Yeah, I think that I'd agree that. And I had half Lamar, which helped a lot. I had a lot of Dak, which wound up being okay. Like it is something, because like, but the problem is he was paired with Amari Cooper, CD Lam and every lineup. So it didn't actually, I guess there was some Zeke too. And Zeke was like, whatever, relative to other guys on the slate. So I don't know, it was weird to watch things on full because like I thought that I was going to get slaughtered because I wasn't trying to track like where cash lines were throughout the day. I just wanted to know, you know, just see where my stuff was at. And no, it was fine, which is like, I don't know. It's, I just feels like it should have been better given that I was on Chubb. I was on Lamar, but like I had so many misses that it like cancels out. The good thing is everyone else missed too. So like it was weird. It was weird to see high profile offenses flopping. If you look at the leaders in adjusted opportunities for this week, it was like Miles Gaskin, James Conner was up there, a bunch of random dudes just going nuts. And if you had told me before the slate that it would have been Miles Gaskin, James Conner, Melvin Gordon, Camara makes sense. Devonte Booker makes sense. But then Carlos Hyde, I would have liked, has not played. So I feel like it was calamity avoided, which is kind of nice, I guess, from that perspective. Yeah. Yeah, I sorted by adjusted opportunities and seeing Christian McCaffrey there on a sub 50% snap rate is wild, but we'll talk more about him. But, you know, we really only had, we didn't really have a single game that we felt totally fine with entering the week. And it was one of those weeks where this could happen and it did happen. My only regret is not kind of accounting for it more and just being even more aggressive with the place that I did love instead of shuffling things around a bit. Yep. Then I wish he hadn't gotten hurt. I wish the Cowboys hadn't constantly come up short and forth down. A lot of regrets there, but hey, it was fine. So we will talk about those big offenses flopping in just one second. But first basketball fans every day that the NBA on TNT has a game this year, you can go to fandual.com and play in their free over under contest. It is simple. Go to fandual.com slash over under and choose either over or under for each listed prop. You can make free picks for a chance to win a share of $5,000. All you got to do to make your picks is go to Fandal before every NBA on TNT broadcast for a shot at a big payday. Eligibility restrictions apply. Go to fandual.com or download the Fandal app for more details. Our headline for week number nine has to be these key offenses struggling. And it was weird for sure. Let's start things off here with the bills because I could have seen a path to the chief struggling again because they've been doing this all year. Like that definitely made sense. The Cowboys didn't have Tyron Smith. I can kind of understand that. The Rams, it's a surging defense of the Titans. I can understand that. The bills made no sense. And it was weird the way it worked. They couldn't protect Josh Allen. They scored six points. Really, really awful game. It also was weird because the guys we depend on on this team are in a funk like Stefan Diggs. Like let's talk about him real quickly. He has now been out targeted by Emmanuel Sanders in consecutive games. If we look at their overall shares for the full season, Diggs the 24%, Manny Sanders the 22%, but Manny actually leads in downfield targets 38% to 28%. So that's weird, number one. Other thing here is that Zach Moss got ruled out with a concussion on Sunday. Devin Singletary rounded playing 71% of the bill snaps. He had six carries for 16 yards, eight targets, seven catches for 43 yards. Now we've seen Singletary by himself in this backfield before didn't do a whole lot with it because he's like, he just doesn't have like juice. Like from a yardage perspective, from a touchdown perspective. So talk to me about this offense in general where you had on Stefan Diggs, Emmanuel Sanders and Devin Singletary and Zach Moss this time. Yeah, I don't, I mean, I don't wanna be too pessimistic because they are just one of the best offenses in football and I was thinking maybe, hey, this was like a trap game because they got some tough games coming up but they put it at Jets next week. Yeah, it's a tough one. But after that, like maybe it was a, like I don't know if trap games can happen. We have two winnable games before a tough stretch because then they play the Colts, the Saints on Thanksgiving, the Patriots, which you can say whatever they're the box. So like maybe that was kind of, maybe they were just in like a, we're sitting pretty mostly and we got two easy games coming up. So maybe it was something like that but the market shares for the receivers are problematic for me because, you know, we want passing efficiency which we generally have here. We didn't have it with Josh Allen facing Josh Allen which was an under-reported storyline for sure. Yeah, no one talked about that. The word cloud on week nine's coverage, I think was just Josh Allen and then like nothing else even made it. It was fumble, sack and interception. Those are the other things in the word clouds. You gotta get all three in a tweet. And trifecta, correct. But yeah, so I mean, look, I'm not gonna say let's not play Stefan Diggs but his salary's been, you know, up and down a bit this year, 7,600 I think this week. That's like at the high end. And that's weird because he's the number one on one of the best passing offenses in football but he doesn't really have the right workload to feel like, hey, I'm gonna prioritize the fun digs. Even in a past heavy offense, it just, it doesn't, I don't really feel like I'm gonna miss out because the touchdowns have been dispersed. And as for Devin Singletary, you know, like you said, we've seen him within this backfield by himself and it hasn't really led to much. This is one of the spots where I'd say, hey, in season long, if you have them or you pick them up or you're gonna try to pick them up, sure, DFS very, very different. You don't have to play Devin Singletary. The upside hasn't been there. They don't really throw, they don't run the ball enough to make Devin Singletary super viable in DFS. So I'm not really gonna chase Devin Singletary. And I would presume, you know, if Moss is out that Singletary will be a bit popular because he'll be an optimizer's favorite. So I'm not gonna be too skeptical here, but also like I'm kind of pumping the brakes on the offense overall, mostly because of the market shares for Stefan Diggs. Also, if you look at like schedule adjusted numbers, they were kind of throwing red flags of in this offense before, which is why I bet the Dolphins last week was because, hey, the bill's offense has looked a bit disjointed. I know there's scorns on the points, but that was generally because their defense has given them a lot of short fields and stuff like that. It was weird because like I didn't really buy into it. In part I did because I bet the Dolphins last week, but I had no interest in betting the Jags this week, even though my numbers said I should. So like it's been there for a bit. As far as Singletary goes, we've seen him leading snaps three games this year, 80, 91 and 59 yards in those. His red zone shares in those are 20%, 18% and 0%. I don't know if they, did they run many? They ran five red zone places a week and you got, I think Zach Moss actually had two before he got heard or Singletary had none. I think that like realistically, he can get you 90 yards, he can get you a touchdown. That's like 15 or so points, which is fine. I would see it to be a very low salary to be viable there. So name that salary on Devon Singletary against the Jets this week. So this is gonna be one of those discrepancy spots where it's hard to say what he's going to be versus what I would want to play him at. I think he'll probably be like 64, 65. I would have a hard time going much above like 6,000 or 61 for him. Yeah, I think that's where I'm at too. And he is 6,000 on the button. So that's low enough where you can definitely consider him, I think, right? Yeah. I mean, we have an 11 game slate. Looks like some games will be, you have appeal. I'm gonna say, you know, it's unlikely he will be anything close to a core play with 22 teams on the slate and some better spots. So probably just hoping that he gets like the Miles Gaskin love this from this past week, which I liked. Very similar. That's a very good shot. I liked Gaskin. I liked Gaskin this week more than I will like Devon Singletary for this upcoming week. Is that before after the Tua injury? So I feel like I adjusted Gaskin down with that. Yeah, I bumped him down, but like I'm saying, I don't wanna say, hey, I didn't actually like Miles Gaskin. I liked him with Tua, then I bumped him down, but like, let's say Gaskin with Tua, I like more entering this past week than I would like Singletary upcoming. I think that's a very good cop. Are you viewing Stefan Diggs, Manny Sanders is a 1A1B situation now or is that going too far? I don't think it's going too far. Maybe it's not going too far enough, you know? Is that a phrase too far enough? It's from Futurama. But like I've had issues with Stefan Diggs and nobody cares about my season long teams, but I made a trade for him in one league. I drafted him in another league and like I've been tracking his usage and it hasn't really been that astonishing for a name as big as Stefan Diggs with an offense that's scoring all these points. So I'm totally fine saying it's a 1A1B situation. So it's a 1A1B where both guys have a path upside. I think that's worth noting. They can still both do it, but like it is a 1A1B. Let's talk here about the Chiefs. They put up 13 points against the Packers. We were worried about them or I was, at least because of pace. I thought the Packers might run the ball a lot. I thought they might try to keep the Chiefs off the field, but like they just kind of sucked. The usages were normal. So like that's whatever, but like they couldn't do anything. So like again, what on earth? Like what are we doing here? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, there was still a recipe for this team this week with, look teams are like, they're playing that blanket coverage downfield. We saw a Tyra Kilgit 18 targets in week eight. You would think that there'd still just be a path to peppering Tyra Kilgit. And you know, you and I were a little bit, we were in on Travis Kelsey with this new trend for how teams have played the Chiefs. But Kelsey, I think at least was a bit better this week, looked a little bit better, but he's seventh in yards per run among relevant tight ends, which is like, it speaks to how good he still is, but that's not like, hey, you really gotta consider Travis Kelsey at like 7,800 on Fandle each week. Like last year, I felt like I had to consider Kelsey. This week, I haven't really felt that since like week one or two, if they were even on the main slate, I don't know, but they're not on the main slate this week, right? Cause they're on Sunday night. So I'm kind of just glad that I don't have to worry about it on a main slate, but it's very similar to the bills where you don't want to overreact, but there are paths to this just not working out based on how defense you're playing them. Yeah. And like when you are allocating as much salaries you need to get to Kelsey, you are doing so because he has both the yardage and touchdown upside. He has not had, he's had more than 68, he had 68 yards yesterday. He's topped that number once since week three. I had 99 yards in week six against Washington, but like, I don't know, like I hate to do what like we don't want to do because it's just like, you know, reading body language. He looks disinterested and I don't know. It's just weird. I don't know what is going on, but like it just, it looks, I just don't like ever feel, I don't know. Like it just, he just looks, he looks weird. It gets off weird vibes. Like Travis goes to the big vibes guy. The vibes ain't great right now. No, they're not. And I don't know if it's like an injury thing because it seems like that could be it, but, you know, he's still out there and he's still commanding a high salary. So like from a DFS standpoint, it's just hard to say, yeah, I need to save salary to get up to Travis Kelsey at tight end because the yarder job, like he, I feel like last year, I feel like I can book it up, but I don't have it in front of me, but like, didn't you have like 100 yards and like twice as many games as every other tight end, like combined basically in the yarder job side. 15 half PPR points like every game basically. Yeah. The yarder job side is just not there. And so that's what makes it tight end and outlier is the ability to have yards because they all have the ability to score touchdowns. That's what tight ends really do. But the true outliers can put up 80, 90, 100 plus yards and then they're relevant for that salary. So it's hard to really talk yourself into that case. And before we move on, I do have a, I wanna go back to the bills real quick. Sure. Because they are on the main slate next week. Stefan Diggs' salary went up to 7,900. Do you anticipate playing any Stefan Diggs at that high of a salary with his current workload? And if knowing that Manny Sanders has a somewhat similar workload and you know that Stefan Diggs is salary 7,900, what would you estimate for Manny Sanders then? I'd probably guess it'll be around like 72. 63. So like the gap just widened. That's so annoying because it means everyone's gonna use Manny and I'm gonna have like, oh, this incentive to like use Diggs because he'll be low rostered against a bad defense. I'm annoyed by that. I don't know, Diggs has been chalky the past few weeks. Yeah, but like it's the same thing as like the Mike Williams game against the Browns. We're like, oh, Keenan salary is low. So we'll just use him and then Williams goes nuts. Like I think that's gonna happen. So I think Manny will get talked. I think that the concerns, the red flags around Diggs will be a discussion point this week. Yeah. So like I'm annoyed. I don't want to use him at that salary, but I feel like from a tournament perspective, it would make sense actually, which sucks. I don't want to do that. The only reason I went back to it is because that salary discrepancy was so massive to me. Yeah. I mean, Manny's in play for cash with that number, which is nice, but like, you know, it's annoying. I would say ranking out concerns. Chiefs one, bills two. I would say Cowboys and Rams concern is relatively low. Do you agree that? As in chiefs are the most concerning? Yeah. Yeah, I'd probably say that because they really have three relevant DFS assets. It's Mahomes, Tyree Kill and Travis Kelsey. Quarterbacks replaceable if Patrick Mahomes isn't being Patrick Mahomes with the consistent 25, 30 point games. Travis Kelsey's salary is going to be too high to justify what he's putting out. And then Tyree Kill has the ability for like 18 targets and, you know, elite usage, but the lack of like, hey, he's going to break a 70 yard catch. That just doesn't really feel plausible with how defense are playing them. So I'd put that number one. Okay. So they're one and they're two. Cowboys and Rams less concerning. Let's stop with them here because they did struggle, obviously, last night or yesterday. The Cowboys are getting shut out in the second half against Denver. Dak was really struggling, got some open guys, missed them. There were some drops too. Like Amari had a terrible drop, which drove me nuts. Tony Pollard had a really bad drop as well. So, and they had some bad fourth down look. So it was not like concerning, but Dak did miss and throws, which is weird because Dak doesn't really do that. They did put us some points eventually, but that was after both sides had quit. It was after Lam and Cooper were out of the game. So, does this concern you with Dallas or was it just a bad game where things went against them? I'm a little bit of a concern. Possibly the biggest concern is the health of the receivers in the market shares, which are typically a little bit lower than we'd like to see for top tier receivers. Dak did get pressured a lot yesterday on Sunday, I should probably say. Pressure on 32% of his drop backs, which if that was like a, from a defensive standpoint, like that would be the second highest pressure rate in football according to next gen stats. So like, it's a lot of pressure. And unsurprisingly, and this probably would apply to every quarterback, but Dak against teams that ranked top 12 in pressure rates. He has four games there. He's averaged 224 yards, 2.3 touchdowns, 0.09 EPA per drop back according to next gen stats. And then outside of that sample, 383 yards, three touchdowns, 0.29 EPA per drop back. So again, most quarterbacks probably have that sort of split with just getting pressured, but maybe this team isn't just in a spot where we say, hey, it doesn't matter who they're playing, maybe there's a little bit more pressure sensitive and maybe with it, maybe we just gotta dig into like every team. Cause there, some years it feels like there are teams where it's like matchups don't really matter, like with the Chiefs historically, it's like they're gonna find ways to score. It almost feels like there are no surefire offenses each week, so maybe we should dig a little bit deeper even into these elite offenses that we're going over. I think that's fair. I don't think that would have gotten me off them this week in retrospect, because like with Von Miller being gone and Chubb being out still, I didn't know if I'd worry about it, but like it probably should have with Tyron Smith being out. But the good thing is they get Atlanta next week. Atlanta has never pressured a quarterback. So like they're probably gonna shred. And I think this is kind of like a one week blip we kind of know in the back of our mind when they're facing a high pressure team and Smith is still out, right? Yeah. The Falcons are dead last in pressure rate according to next chance that, so. Okay. So. Bounce back. So, okay. That's main slate. Name me a salary. I'm most curious about CDLM and Amore Cooper. What salary range are you putting them in? I think they're both $7,200. That's probably high because the marketers are not super big, but because they're both very good, tied to very good offense, playing indoors. That juices things up a lot to erase some of the market share concerns, but that's kind of where I'd be at. So lamb 77, Cooper 73. Okay. CDLM or Stefan Diggs for next week specifically at similar salaries. I feel like it's probably lamb. Probably, yeah. I think so. I mean, those are good. That's a, you know, you're not going to be able just to plug in CDLM because he's 67, 77. So you're really going to have to think about it. This might be an offense that we just dig into deeper for Thursday. We will. I can guarantee that. We will talk about this team plenty on a Thursday. The Rams scored late to get 16 points. They could have gotten Van Jefferson a touchdown to get me winning dynasty, but they did not. They struggled against Titans. Matthew Stafford negative 0.27, passing that expected points per drop back. The one concerning thing I would say here, so you're talking about the pressure rate with the Cowboys. That's something to log in the back of our minds for them. I would say with the Rams, when they're facing good interiors, that's a concern. Now, the counterpoint we hear would be, hey, they faced them down to consume, they were fine. So maybe this is not a good real thing, but like their guards aren't very good. And I consider it being an issue if you face teams that can generate interior pressure like Titans can put Matthew Stafford in like vintage Matthew Stafford mode, that can, you know, that can get some stuff going. Also, Darryl Henderson got banged up. He came back in and did play, but they let Sunday Michelle close things out. The snap rate for Henderson was with 60%. So talking about the Rams in general first, but then also about Henderson, given that like he came back in, I think it's at least like, and he has an injury history. I think it's still a little bit concerning despite the fact he did leave due to injury in this game. Yeah, so I pulled similar numbers with the pressure rates just because you were talking about their interior. So I wanted to dig in and Stafford has four games against just even top 20 pressure rate teams, according to next-gen stats, averaging still 289 yards, two touchdowns, but 0.07 EPA per dropback. And then in his other games, it's 323 yards, three touchdowns, but 0.48 EPA per dropback. So the efficiency, like the numbers are still good because they throw the ball out. They're still pretty good overall, but the efficiency that has gotten Stafford to lead the league in overall, like not expected points for dropback or EPA per dropback. That's mostly come from teams that don't get as much pressure, which is again, to be expected, none of this is like, hey, this is groundbreaking, but I was thinking, hey, the Rams might be one of the teams that we just can play wherever, whenever, but maybe that's not the case if the efficiency is gonna tick down. So that's kind of where I am with the Rams overall. I'm not concerned, but I do think that there's probably not a team at this point where I feel like just play them, you know? And that's a bit different than what we've had in years past. As for Henderson, I don't like to see a snap rate tick down, especially because our concern mostly with Daryl Henderson has been like overall production and yardage upside. And if you get fewer snaps and fewer, I'll just call them touches, even though we care more about like targets than touches, that leads to a lower chance of actually breaking one or just churning out consistent gains to get yardage. And I would imagine within this offense, his salary is not going to adjust just because of his snap rate too much. So Henderson was like borderline cash game material for me most weeks, but I don't think he's in that conversation right now. So he has played in eight games. How many do you think he has had more than 100 yards in scrimmage? Two? Correct. He has not had more than 116 the entire year. So like even with an 80% to 90% snap rate, which is very good. That's awesome. He's not doing a whole lot. Yeah, he was like leading the position in snap rate basically and was putting up numbers that were not really in league leading territory. Like when Christian McCaffrey would play 99% of snaps, that came with a workload that was untouchable. He'd have 100 yards rushing and receiving. Yeah. So I don't know. I mean, so they play Monday night. So they're not going to be in the main place. You don't have to worry about them. But, you know, am I right to say like Henderson's really not in the cash game conversation despite his majority workload generally at this point? Like in order for someone to be like a firm cash game play for me, they either need a low salary, you know, just to offsets and stuff or to be able to, I think that what Zik did on Sunday is a good example where he got you 11 fan to a points despite everything going wrong, everything wrong. He got hurt in that game. The Cowboys offense was terrible. He still got you double digit points with no touchdowns. I need that. Henderson probably isn't there. So like, I don't know. I've been lower on him than usual. I think that so like the production is a concern for me. He's been fine from an efficiency perspective. Like he has a 50% success rate. That's like one of the best numbers in the league whereas Michelle's a 39%. So like he's been, he's been efficient, but like just there's not a lot of juice, I guess. Like the passing game messages is like whatever. I don't know. It's weird. He's been weird vibes too. Like if they get worried about him being banged up again and they start to give more to Michelle that could be a pretty serious downfall there. So any final thoughts for you on these four offenses we discussed? One thing that jumps to mind is Van Jefferson. Love him. Gonna love him for the Monday slate next week, but once they're back on the main slate, hopefully his salary is reasonable, but he's basically become a full-time player. 90 plus percent of the routes the past three weeks. Team leader in air yards, ADOTs and end zone targets over the past three games. If only he could have scored. If only he could have scored. What do you have like nine end zone targets? Well, that doesn't even count the one where he was all alone in the flat, but it got whistled because of a false start or something like that. Like Rob Havenstein or Havenstein, dead to me, dead to me for that false start. He was gonna score whatever. Let's move on to injuries here and break stuff down there. I just want to note, Devante Booker got banged up late for the Giants. They're on buy. Saquon Barkley should be back, but just noting that one because it might be Gary Brightwell. I don't know, he'd be like the next guy up. He's on the COVID list right now too. So who can say? The Patriots, both their backs left early with head injuries. Stevenson's didn't seem like a big issue because David Andrews was asked about after the game started laughing, which is not something you would do for like a concussion. So that's weird. But Damian Harris also left to do a head injury. His role was concerning before the injury. He was around a 40% snap rates at the time of the injury. Been a very positive script. Brandon Bolden got snaps even before the injury again. JJ Taylor would likely see a role expansion of either Harris or Stevenson were to miss time. So, I don't know Brandon, this is a weird situation too. I used Harris in this game and that was a mistake. I should not have done that. I could admit that was probably that process. But what do we do going forward with this backfield? Do we ignore it until something changes? How do we handle things here? I think we ignore it. This is not a good enough offense to make multiple running backs viable and not one of these running backs is going to be a majority player. Harris has been close at like 50% to 55% of the snaps, but with a very narrow path of just rushing work, nobody is going to be significantly fantasy relevant. I think Bolden's a fine waiver wire ad for this week, but as far as DFS goes, this offense doesn't do enough for me to make a committee worthwhile. There are really, there's probably one, I guess two if you would consider the Colts, like committees that I would say are worth targeting or where the situations are good enough and that's the Browns usually with Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt. You can still play Nick Chubb. You can play some Kareem Hunt sometimes. And then the Colts, if you consider Naim Hines, I know, but anything else, like you just can't, I guess maybe the Packers, you can still say like F.A.G. Dillon is part of a committee. I'd consider the Packers more so than the Colts, but yeah, I think that you're right. You need a really good situation to justify that. This is not that. They've been playing well, kudos to them. They've been good, but it's not good enough. It's more so the defense and the offense. Yeah, and like we're talking about Devin Singletary, but like we don't play Zach Moss and Devin Singletary on one of the best offenses in football who are constantly like 10 point favorite. You don't play Zach Moss. Well, I was like cheering in the second quarter because he caught a pass and was no longer scoring negative points. Well, you know, it's just, I think that's, it's worth it to like think things through a little bit and there's, I couldn't even, the only way that I would probably play a Patriots running back is if Harris and Stevenson were out and Brandon Bolden had a salary of like 4,700. Well, even then JJ Tanner is gonna get the work. So like it doesn't even matter. I don't know. So Bolden's 5,100. Like, I don't even think that's enough. Yeah. Correct, I agree. Bigger one here was Chase Edmonds. He sustained an ankle injury on like the second or third play of the game, which paved the way for a monster, monster game for James Connor. Connor had 21 of 30 running back carries after Edmonds left. He had five targets, five targets for James Connor in the year 2021. 20 routes played 77% of the team snaps. And the key thing to me here is that Eno Benjamin was active and James Connor still had that passing game role. That to me is the best thing about James Connor's role on Sundays. Eno Benjamin is active, didn't matter. He still got that work. So let's assume that, I hope he doesn't cause I love Chase Edmonds. Let's assume that he misses time though. And Kyler Murray is back next week, name that salary for James Connor. I've been trying not to peak because nothing really jumps up a salary quite like a massive fantasy point output just because that it has to go up. But yeah, the five targets on the 20 routes and just they just threw them screens like all day. And he actually made some work. He looked good. He was like one hand in it and his breakaway touchdown, like you and I talked about James Connor in years past where it's like. No juice. Just doesn't. And again, we don't like watch, watch film for like how guys look really. I know we said we're talking about Kelsey in that regard, but like, I never felt like James Connor was going to break a long play. He looked like a different player this week. So what, what, what on earth are they doing there to give Zach Ertson, James Connor, like AJ Green looked fine before he went on the COVID list too. Like what is going on there? Is my goodness. Yeah, also the, I just needed the 49ers defense to outscore the Cowboys defense. Yeah, we don't want to be one in our head to head. And boy, that did not work out. That was a slow burn, not even really slow it. But okay. So a salary for Connor, assuming again, we're looking at like a 77% snap rate, red zone work, potentially receiving work, design a not elite defense in Carolina, especially Brian Burns is out. Like designed targets too, not just dump dump offs. That's with Kyler Murray, that's gotta be at least like 75. That's what I was thinking. I think 75 was exactly my number and he is 7,000. That's fair. It's, yeah. Assuming again, assuming no admins, I mean, I'm not gonna say even without Kyler, but like he did this without Kyler Murray. Allegedly. But we don't know the Colt or that Kyler wasn't like secretly like Avatar and Colt McCoy out there. You don't know that. I guess I can't prove that, but 7,000 is a very reasonable salary based on what we saw from Connor in week nine. I think the key is that like, A, again, Benjamin was active, but also B, he looked good. He gave them reason to keep it up. Yeah. So he had about 20 yards over expectation according to next-gen stats, just from a rushing standpoint, he would be in the conversation for a cash game lineup at that salary, assuming Murray plays. Yeah. Like it's weird. It's very weird. He's also been good this whole year. I mean, like his efficiency numbers are fine. He just hadn't had the workload. He didn't get the kinds of rush as a generic yardage, but now he is. So that changes things. Like it's just totally different. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that they didn't have AG Green. They didn't have 200 Hopkins. He might not get as much work, but if they get Hopkins back, we know he's gonna get all of the red zone carries that are available, basically, especially if Kyler's not 100%, then just makes me feel better that they'll hand it off to Connor. So we said 75, if he's seven, that kind of bakes in some of the market share concerns that he might see with the team healthier, but with the added efficiency, things are still looking up. They're also gonna be, what, 10-point favorites in that game? Probably. So like, I know that we wanna target close games, but like, it's one less path to failure for him. So I think that's a good thing too. So we are in a James Conner in 2021. It feels weird, but we're in. Let's move down to role changes here and talk about the Browns offense and the Odo Beckham. Didn't get to see a lot of the passing game here because they didn't have to throw a lot because they were too efficient and too good. Weirdly, the defense is good too. 23 total drop backs for Baker Mayfield. Jarvis Landry led with 19 routes run. Donovan Peoples, Jens and Anthony Schwartz both ran 16. No targets for Schwartz though. DPJ had three targets. All those were deep and he cashed one into the house. Jarv led with five targets. If we expand this and look at two full games with Jarv and without O'Dell, Jarvis leads with 22% of the overall targets. David and Joku second with 17. That's eight total targets. Most of those came in that chiefs game back in week one. So, okay, taking swipes of Jarvis in the right scripts. I would need a likely negative script to be in on Donovan Peoples, Jens. So, where are you at the Browns after Baker Mayfield lit it up on Sunday? This is tough for me because this is just an offense that I typically am low on because I see a lot of Baker on Red Zone and I don't always like what I see. But this week I played Jarvis Landry because I assumed the market share would be good. I guess technically it would have probably been really good if there was any passing at all. I think the biggest shift for me might be Nick Chubb. I might have been too low on, I know I was too low on Nick Chubb this past week, not just from a result standpoint, but the fact that he looked as good as he did, we're talking a lot about grinding film here but it doesn't take a whole lot to see that Nick Chubb looked like pretty much Nick Chubb again. So, this is probably just a two-player offense though for me though with Landry and Chubb at this point. I don't think there's enough from Donovan Peoples, Donovan Peoples, Jones to want to really prioritize him because he does get downfield work but he's kind of been efficient on them. That Hail Mary touchdown kind of juices things up too if you look back. It's one of the 60-yard bomb we get behind the defense in a legitimate fashion. So, I'm probably not there with DPJ but I need to be higher on Nick Chubb and I will play Jarvis and Landry when I anticipate that they will need to throw the ball. Which they might next week against the Patriots. It's a 44 and a half point till that's already gone up a half point from open. I wouldn't be shocked if it goes up more because like, I don't know, not a terrible game. How do you view Jarvis in that spot where you expect kind of like a neutral script, probably not game stacking that one because that would imply you have to use a Patriot which I'd rather not do. But where are you at with Jarvis with that game specifically? If his salary's low enough, I would have him as sort of a one-off. It's kind of how I treated him this past week where the salary was 5,900 and he just kind of made some lineups work and I felt good enough there. I really don't view it as an absolute shift where it's like, hey, I got to prioritize Jarvis Landry. It's just more if the salary remains low, I'll play him. So that leads me to the obvious question. Name that salary for Jarvis Landry next week. I think 6,000 is probably appropriate given that they don't want to throw. I don't know if that might be too low but I think that's probably not appropriate. I think adjusted for everything, it's appropriate. He's 61, so he very easily could be someone that we just say and we're not trying to peek yet. We'll go over this in the salary scroll but this year the 6,000 range has been pretty bleak at receiver, so by default, Jarvis might just stand out more than just about everyone there, so. Yeah. We do have one game on this kind of Brown's offense against Patriots and in that game. Jarvis did have 10 targets, but it was for 65 yards. I think Shubb had a big game in that one but I would expect like we just talked about how Bill Belichick wants to take away your best whatever it may be. I feel like that's probably a game where he's shutting down Shubb at all costs and making fake or beat him, which is scary. Probably. I mean, I feel like we're just on the same page overall with Jarvis. He's not going to be someone that we really go nuts to play but he's going to be someone that we would play if he makes a lineup work. Yep, I think that's probably right. Alvin Camara in his first game with No James Winston played 67% of the snaps in week nine. Mark Ging was at 36%. Saw this a bit last week too. Camara's snap rate was at 68%. And before that, the five games before Ingram signed, Camara's snap rate was at least 83%. Over the past two games, Camara's does still have eight of 19 chances inside the red zone or inside the 10 for the team but his red zone roll yesterday was really bad. I think he had one out of 13 chances inside the 20. So that's weird. They may start tasting hill at some point because Trevor Simeon wasn't great. I mean, he did leave them on a comeback but like he wasn't great. So where are you having Camara in his first game with No James? Down, like, we're, there's enough, marking rooms doing enough, playing enough to have Alvin Camara at a sub 70% snap rate the past two weeks. Again, 83 plus five games leading into that. That's a pretty massive shift for a player who does have the ability to break really anything but I could kind of get like embarrassed here but does he have like a big play this year? Cause usually they'll stick out to me when I see Alvin Camara like. He did in the Monday night game against Seattle cause he had a bucks 79 total. You don't get that without big plays but that was before Ingram signed. Yeah. I don't know. I just typically I have highlights of Camara just kind of making some plays and those aren't jumping out to me this year. I mean, that offense doesn't make big plays. That offense doesn't make big plays. I was gonna say probably not his fault but like you guys started to factor that in and we were low on him at, it started at 9,400 this week. I thought he was the best snake draft pick of the week. So I took him first overall in our snake draft but I didn't play him at 9,400. I thought that salary was too high. So I would be very, very curious to know what his salary is for next week against the Titans but I would be more curious to find out what you think his salary should be before I check. Okay. So two games with Ingram he's at 27 and 27 adjusted opportunities. That's not bad. And most of that came with no Winston but 7,604 yards, really bad red zone roll this week too. So I think you add that all together. He's around like an 82 type guy probably. I think that's probably where I would put him but he's 88 still. Okay. I think that's a bit steep. Presumably that's gonna, that game will be one of the highest totals. Yeah. So. It's tight spread. Well, actually the Saints might suck it down themselves. Honestly. Yeah. The total for that game. Let me see here. Total run off. Just because like they're both run heavy teams. Yeah. I see a two and a half point spread but no total on Fandalsports book at the moment. I've actually got a projected for like kind of weirdly middling efficiency too in part because of the New Orleans offense. So maybe that might be less enticing than I thought. Yeah. I have a total. I could see it being like 46 and a half or so probably. Oh yeah. It would sort of just be sort of middling. And at that rate I would say again, Camara not gonna be someone I probably even put in my player pool with a salary that high. I think it depends on who I've now looked at to also on the slate. Yeah. That'll, yeah. But at the moment that feels too high. Not a priority right now. I think that's where we're at. A little too high. You can still see using it because like he's very good. Yeah. We would, It's not bad. It might not be great, but it's not bad. We would need pretty phenomenal value at probably every position. Yeah. To make Camara more than like a every now and then play. Yep. Let's move now to the 49ers defense. Let them down here for sure. But the offense had some interesting usage notes. George Kittle came back and they were in a negative script. They did throw a bunch. Debo Samuel loaded nine targets, but Kittle and Brandon and you both at eight. You get three deep targets. Kittle had two. Debo had just one. So that's kind of interesting. It was also our first case of Eli Mitchell in a negative script with Jeffrey Wilson, Jr. back and Wilson didn't play a single snap. Either offense or special teams. Mitchell had five targets and played 66% of the snaps. That's actually to me kind of encouraging. I would say it's also good to see Kittle and you getting targets in this offense. So I would say neutral situation. I'm upgrading Mitchell due to the fact that he played a lot of snaps in the negative script. That's one of the concerns I had with him is that he might not be out there when they're down. He was. I would say upgrade Kittle, upgrade IEUK, downgrade Debo. It's still an offense that wants to run and is not the world's most efficient, but I think that we actually have more than two guys we can use here now, which is a shift from where it was before. Where are you at the 49ers right now? Yeah, I think Aaron's up on Mitchell too. Again, I was tracking him very closely because I had him in season long where I needed him and I didn't know what the workload was going to be. Sounded like he was going to be pretty limited, but he played plenty with that 66% snap rate. The five targets, very, very promising with a 60% route rate because he just hadn't been getting targeted at all. So that's definitely a roll shift. I would probably have to say, and you're way better at this than me, that this game itself has to be the most relevant sample with IEUK's roll being what it is and now having Mitchell back. With Kittle back, with Mitchell being the guy. So I should probably put. I'd agree with the most relevant sample thing because IEUK was not running all the routes and Kittle was healthy earlier on this year. Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at because IEUK's roll has shifted. So I'm fine with, you know, if we have three pass catchers who might have low 20% target shares, like let's say 18 to 22, 23%, this does kind of lower me though on Debo Samuel. Oh yeah, for sure. So, and I know that we've been going back and forth on Debo, but the real value with Debo is that he was getting plenty of targets with downfield work, but also, you know, easy to catch targets and he's might be the best run after catch receiver and football at this point. So I'm lower on Debo. I don't know if I'm still, I don't know if I can like prioritize Brandon IEUK yet, but Kittle might be back as like the best tight end with Kelsey not doing a whole lot. Darren Waller showed a pulse this week, but he's back in a conversation for me already. I would say like they're not the main slate, but like if I were like allocating salary just to give like vibes in my sentiment around them, I would say Debo 7,000, that fair? That's lower than I would have assumed. I know, but like it's a pretty big shift to get one more awesome pass catcher in there. It is, yeah. And it's also still not a pass heavy offense. I'd say Debo around seven. I would say IEUK 62, Kittle 67, is that fair? Yeah, that seems good. Okay, cool. What about Mitchell? Was there enough passing game work for you to bump him up into like the next tier? So I thought that 71 was too high for him. Yeah. I no longer think that's too high. I would say I'm about there, but his salary would probably go up. So I'm catching up to it, I would say, is the way I'd phrase it. Mitchell or James Conner? For Nick? Conner, I would say Conner too. I think it's Conner pretty comfortably. Yeah, but trying to get a heat check there. Yeah, no, I think that's fair. It's a good question. Pretty similar, I would say, but yeah. Miles Gaskin played a season high 74% of the snaps a week nine, also led the entire week in adjusted opportunities. He had 20 carries, six targets. He did score, still didn't do Jack because he was terribly inefficient and the team was bad. Like, where are you at with Miles Gaskin? Cause like the usage was good, but also like, I don't know, they're weird. Where are you at? Yeah, so I liked Gaskin this week. Of course, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that his quarterback got downgraded. Like that's relevant. Also really funny cause everyone's like, oh, when two was ruled out back in week three or whatever, the spread didn't move. We'll move this time, bud. Like it did, like they won, but like it moves. Like if you're gonna use that argument, you know, maybe we should use it more than once. Sorry, to mean to hijack this conversation. Next-gen stats had 76 expected rushing yards for him. He put out not that, like half that. 20% rushing success rate according to next-gen stats. It's just the workload is harder to find if it's gonna be this good, but at a certain point you need production. So again, somewhat similar to what we might expect from Devin Singletary, if there's no Zach Moss, where you'd say 70% snap rate, plenty of work, probably not a whole lot of production. And honestly, if there are people who wanna make a case for running backs mattering, it's probably easier to make a case of like that not all these guys can like make things happen. Like a Gaskin or Singletary. Yeah. Of course, we have like Eli Mitchell doing stuff. So like, but, you know, not every running back gets plugged in, it just produces. I think you need someone who can like not drag your team down. Like I think the chief circuit example of that, like, I mean, they took kind of the first round who doesn't even move the needle, but they took the wrong guy. You shouldn't allocate a lot of resources to get it. So you can find it in weird places, but like having a bad rushing offense actually is probably a negative for your team overall. So it is definitely. Yeah. So that's what the data says. That's what, that's why people who say running backs don't matter. This is basically what they're talking about. Just phrasing in a more antagonistic way. Correct. Yes. You're needlessly making, you're needlessly pushing people away from your argument, which is kind of fun. I'm sure people love it. So whatever. There's something on my laptop. I don't know what that is. We'll figure that out later. That's disgusting. Anyway, we got to see the Raiders in their first game with no Henry rugs. It was very conservative. Derek Carr's ADOT dropped to 6.2. It was 9.0 coming in. They did still throw at a 64% clip and only down to the first half. That's high still. That's good. So they won't go deep as much, but they will still pass. Zay Jones, Brian Edwards, Darren Waller all ran 42 plus routes. Hunter Renfro ran 34 routes, despite missing some time due to an injury. Darren Waller led with 11 targets. Renfro had nine, but had a corduroyal pattern. So that's 2.8 yard ADOT. So Jones and Edwards each had four targets. They got some deep shots, but that's kind of like a Marquez-Valdes scantling type rule where you don't have a lot of volume, but you get some deep work. Wallers likely to have good volume. Renfro will get targets, but lack upside. So I kind of feel like it's Darren Waller and nothing else from a DFS. Like Renfro is fine for season long, but I think that like for DFS, it's kind of Waller and nothing else. What about for you? Yeah, that's probably it. Josh Jacobs still has some relevance if it's like a- Oh, yeah, sorry, I meant them on the pass guide. Okay. Jacobs, yeah. It was good to see Waller somewhat return. Maybe the bi-week helped him with those 11 targets. Three downfield, three red zone, two end zone targets. That's what you want from Darren Waller. 12.7 fandal points, but expected to have 18 and a half with such a good workload. So he's back on the menu. I basically just didn't even consider Darren Waller for a long time. He's definitely back. They did bring in, or they're bringing in to Sean Jackson. So that could help the A-dot for Derek Carr go back up, just help stretch the field more. But overall, from a pass-catching standpoint, it's really just Darren Waller, like you said. I'm mentioning Jacobs. He did have 95 yards in this game, which is the most he's had this year. So that was kind of encouraging. His snap rate was low because they were in a negative script. And he gets it was, it was more neutral, I guess, but maybe they just like weren't, I don't know. It was weird, but 95 yards is fine. I think that's, I've been interested in him, but just like was concerned about yardage. Now the yardage is fine, but I'm concerned about everything else. Three or five red zone carries. That's not the worst. But only did get a red zone target. Four out of 17 red zone opportunities, which is 24%, that's pretty low. He had been getting a lot of red zone work. So maybe that was just lucky, but 48% snap rate, I'm not sure. That's weird, I don't know. Weird vibes, but. They're the main sleigh. No, I think they get Los Angeles, right? No, they face Kansas City on Sunday night. Oh yeah, yeah. It's going to be Patrick Mahomes versus Derek Carr. If you told me week three, we'd get this game and be like, oh man, they're both got like a nine yard eight out. That game's going to be fun. And now it's not fun, fun, fun. Speaking of fun, fun, fun, Mike Williams is evaporated. Got the Nost. He saw five targets on 33 routes in week nine. He was shadowed by Darius Slay because he ran 67% of his routes versus Slay. All five of his targets came on those routes, which means that on the other 11 routes, he was not targeted. From weeks one through three, Williams had a target share of 26% with a 34% air yard share. Since then, if you exclude week six when he was banged up, his target share is 20% with a 36% air yard share. He now has a sub 15% target share for the past five games. So where are we at with Mike Williams right now? So I mean the 20% target share in the like, post-elite sample is still fine, especially for a receiver who can do big things. But Mike Williams, it almost felt unfaithable to start the season. He is not that now. And for as much as I like this passing offense, I no longer feel drawn toward anyone in particular, really. I know that he faced Darius Slay this week. Slay got banged up, but if the matchup was the reason for the target share being down, you would think that as soon as he wasn't lined up against Slay, they would try to pepper him. Didn't happen. I know it was an 11 route sample. So like that's not totally fair, but if that's all it was, like you would think there'd be some juice on those non-Slay routes. And the bigger thing for me is that we've seen it over like a five week sample where he hasn't been treated the way that he was the first three weeks. I know he's not, I know he's been banged up. So maybe that's all it is. And maybe once he's healthy, he'll go back to what he was weeks one through three, but right now he's not that. And that kind of takes him completely off the radar almost. What? Off the, what? That's way too far. I think that's- At his salary? I mean, he's 73 this week. It's not like he was like- That's high for a guy who's been basically 15%ed in form as past five. Okay. So week six, he was banged up because he didn't practice in all that week. Last week facing the Patriots, they know you want to take away Mike Williams. This week, we talked about it on Thursday, the Eagles don't let up deep passes and like they didn't in this game. Next week they faced the Vikings who've let up like the fifth highest ADOT this year. I think that's going to be an elite spot to buy back in when he's not facing a defense that's scheming to prevent him from going nuts. I think that Mike Williams next week is going to be a tremendous DFS play. I don't think- I need his salary to be with a six in front of it. Well, where would you put it? 69. Nice. I mean, I put it around there too but I'm saying that like in the right matchups he can still be sick. He's 69 exactly. So are you making these salaries? You've been very close today. I think that's very appropriate. I think that he's going to, I think he's going to blow stuff up this week. So he's on the radar. I said he's off the radar assuming his salary is what it kind of had been. It's not. So that's a difference. Uh-huh. Agreed. That's the key point to make. But I don't think that, I just don't think that you can like see poor market shares and just always explain it away. Oh, I mean, I'm not like- I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm saying like, you can't like, I have a hard time saying, well, it's definitely going to get better as soon as the matchups there. It's like maybe the coaches are doing something different. I think the differentiation is I wouldn't put him in like a cash game play but like I know the upside is still there. That's the difference to me. But I still think the floor is substantially lower than it was weeks one through three. I know we don't care about floor. Ignore the floor. I know but- It's like lava. Compare the ostensible floor from weeks one through three compared to now it's lower. Yeah, definitely. But like- And weeks one through three, he felt like someone you would plug into a cash game because he was getting every kind of target and all the targets, he's not right now. So like that's a concern. So we did this with Mike Kasicki a couple weeks ago where I projected him for 150 yards. I think that Mike Williams, you project for 220 this week. And then he could go under that. It could be variance, you know? It's the- So we talk about if it doesn't go our way, it's variance. So projection- I mean it's a great spot. Minnesota's 30th against Downfield passes. Okay. You project Mike Williams for 220 this week and if he underperformed it's variance. If he does it, that was expectation baby. But again, I agree not the best cash game option for tournaments though, he's gonna lose his mind this week. Let's talk about some situations to monitor here. Brandon, you were taking notes on Christian McCaffrey this week, what was standing out to you here? Yes, so McCaffrey according to beat writers was expected to play 30 to 40 snaps in that sort of range. You played 27, it was 47% of the Panther snaps but he had 14 carries for 52 yards, five targets on 10 routes. That's 24 adjusted opportunities. That was like a top 10 rate among all running backs. And he played 47% of his team snaps. So when he was out there he was getting the ball. And if you project that up to even 70% of the snaps which is low for McCaffrey, he could lead any slate and adjusted opportunities. So that's pretty substantial. As soon as we get word that he's full go, we can go back in. I probably wouldn't even need to wait that long, especially if the salary's down. So I know we don't really do this in situations to monitor but name a salary for McCaffrey next week against the Cardinals based on what we saw. And what we think, I know it's Monday, we don't have a whole lot of confirmation on whether his role will expand but you would think it probably would. I hate his quarterback so much. Cause like that spreads to me pretty high and that stinks. But it's also Christian freaking McCaffrey. So who cares? 93? I would probably say, yeah, that sounds good to me. Okay. So that is 9,000. 9,000? Oh, buddy. So, okay. It's more receiving yards as the other Robbie Anderson on 33 fewer targets or 31 fewer targets. All right, let's say. He's at 89, 65 and 54 in the quote unquote full games he's played. Only two of those are full. Okay, let's say the reports are, instead of 30 to 40 snaps, it's 40 to 50 snaps this week. Still kind of expecting a snap like cap. I guess I care more about the practice designations cause he's not on the IR anymore. So we'll know if he's a full. If you give me a full practice on Friday, I think the 9,000 is way too low. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, we're in. We're in, baby. We're in. Let's go. I need this so badly. Yes. For the Broncos, they're pass catchers. They're not really going to be easy to target like pinpoint role changes cause it's probably going to be pretty nebulous. But last week with Jerry Judy back, we saw every Bronco who got targeted get between three and four targets. Judy separated this week with eight targets for 69 yards, followed by Tim Patrick and Albert O'Koybanon with five and Albert O'Koybanon did get hurt. So he didn't even play the full game. Unfortunately for us, Melvin Gordon had three targets and Cortland Sutton had just two targets. Notably Sutton lined up against Trevon Diggs on 64% of his routes according to next-gen stats. I still don't feel great about any of them but I would probably still put Judy at the top based on his ability to lead this team in targets but also downfield targets and just assuming he's going to be at a lower salary than Cortland Sutton. And then this could be relevant, could not be, but without James Robinson, Carlos Hyde had 21 carries two targets for 25 adjusted opportunities. The yardage wasn't great but it was a really tough matchup, 77% snap rate. So honestly, in a better situation, like that's not as bad as I expected. So if Robinson can't go, like I laughed off Carlos Hyde last week, I would at least be open to like a 75% snap rate in that much work. Yeah, I think Robinson would be good to go, which would be nice if we don't have to worry about it. He still only had 5.8 Fando points on that because he lost a fumble and was bad. But again, like you said, matchup, so whatever. As far as mine, Cordero Patterson actually got some downfield work this week. He had just two deep targets but he only had one this entire year before this. His 8-out was 9.9 up from 2.4 and honestly wouldn't be shocked with that if maybe not 9.9 yard 8-out maybe a 5-yard 8-out. And a 5-yard 8-out for a running back is pretty sick with Calvernilly being out, Kyle Pitts being the only guy on this team with some downfield juice. It helped him rack up 126 receiving yards. So where are we at in Cordero Patterson right now, Brandon? Based on this and based on just kind of everything around him right now. He and Debo have been giving me a lot of problems with how I project out ranges of outcomes. You might need to project him as kind of like a wide receiver who gets rushes. I don't know, it's weird. Maybe you project him for like a 4-yard 8-out for now? Yeah. So I mean, look, if he's gonna be this much of a key in this offense without Calvernilly which without Calvernilly this team needs any playmaker in Cordero Patterson is he's not a running back. He's not a receiver, he's an athlete. He's a football player. So if you give me that, it's gonna come down to offensive expectations and you hate Matt Ryan this year. Not anymore. Not anymore? No. You changed your tune? I don't hate him. Okay. I didn't hate him before, I was like- You hated him. I mean, I hated him. I don't want to use him for GFS, but hey, I mean he was great this week, so whatever. When I talked about him being viable enough to target- It was against the Panthers though. Like, you know? To target their skill players. It wasn't about loving Matt Ryan that much. It was more about like, hey, can he get it done to make their players- Oh yeah, and I used all these players. They flopped that week, it was great. Well, yeah. That was the week Calvernilly just didn't play either. So Patterson had 136 yards this week. He has had 110 or more, or 100 or more in four out of seven, or four out of eight games this year. Pretty good. Where did he put that salary? So they're at Dallas next week. That should probably be a game where they need to throw plenty. Yep. Get him the ball more, like 73. Yeah, I'd say that's about right. And he is 78. A little high. That's a little high for me. A little high, but I think that that's like, I can understand it even if I wouldn't put it there. For game stacks, that's going to be, it's not so high that I won't be able to justify him in game stacks. Even for him at 78 or pits at 69. That's tough without knowing what Titan looks like, but probably pits, assuming we have more running backs to pick from, again, if we have James Conner at 7,000, like, yeah, that's a big gap. I agree. Other stuff to note here, Marcus Valdescan, we didn't play a full role in his first game back. He ran 19 routes on 35 drop backs. Worth noting that the tight ends didn't do much either. None of them ran more than six routes. I'd expect MVS's role to expand, but worth noting that he was not a full go just yet. In the first game, and though Derek Henry, the Titans were a full blown committee. Nobody played more than 45% of the snaps. Nobody had more than 30 rushing yards. Nobody had more than 35 yards of scrimmage. So we can just ignore this backfielf right now, right? Yeah, from a DFS standpoint, for sure. She's long as different, but I don't know how you... She's not stupid. She's not stupid, yeah. I don't know how you build around any of these players in DFS. Yep. So let's move to philosophical changes in the Saints. The first game in though, James Winston, they did throw a bunch, but that was all because of the script. They ran 21 plays on early downs in the first half. 15 out of 21 were run plays. So if Trevor Simeon continues to start, we should expect a super, super run heavy approach, which is bad for both them and their opponents. It's just Kamera here, right? Nothing else? Yeah, and even then, again, we know the salary's high. Yeah. Maybe not. Yeah. Their opponent next week is the Titans. They ran 22 early down first half plays yesterday. They were evenly split. They had 11 carries and 11 passes. They were at 48% pass rates with Derek Henry prior to his injury. So pretty much the same, but this was a very positive script. I bet they remained pretty close to 50-50, so could go up a bit more in the neutral situations. Brandon, vibe check for you and the Titans offense. First given though, Derek Henry, how is this impacting your view of Tannehill, A.J. Brown, et cetera? Is there an et cetera? Julio-ish? I don't know. Julio-ish, that's why it's Julio-ish. I think it's really, I think it's just, are we gonna play A.J. Brown or not? Yeah, that's about it. Yeah. So in games where I would anticipate that they have to throw more, I'll play A.J. Brown, but if it's gonna be somewhat neutral, I probably, the salary most likely will just be too high. Well, I mean, like he did get 11 targets. Yeah. Despite a super positive script yesterday. But are you, okay, so next week against the Saints, do you have a spread area? It's a really tough matchup. Two and a half point, home favorites, no total yet. I got probably about 46 and a half, I had to guess. Get around that key, the key numbers. Within that game, what salary do you think is appropriate for A.J. Brown? 75. That's probably appropriate, but I don't think that's enough. I don't think that's a good enough situation to prioritize A.J. Brown. I'm 76, I don't anticipate like making that up. With CD-Lamb at 77, CD-Lamb against the Falcons next week or A.J. Brown against the Saints, it basically the same salary. So A.J. Brown's gonna have a better target share. I can guarantee you that. I don't know. Okay, I would have figured lamb somewhat easily. Yeah, I don't know. What about digs at 79? Versus A.J. Brown? Yeah. See, like if it were a different matchup, I'd be into A.J. Brown quite a bit. But that's a tough spot. But that's what I'm saying, it's like it's gonna take the right matchup for me to want to allocate that much for A.J. Brown. I don't know. It's tough. It's tough. That's a tough range for sure, I would say. I'll receive it for next week. The Eagles have fully leaned into establishing it. They said before week seven they needed to run more. Their early down first half pass rate in this three game stretch is 29.7%. It was 67.2% before that. They have gone from one extreme to the other. Jalen Hertz is at 21.7 pass attempts per game in that span. Dallas Goddard and Devontae Smith have insane target shares, but it doesn't matter. Goddard is at like a 30% target share but has six targets per game in this sample. Like, how interested are you in those guys and Hertz given the team has clearly decided they don't wanna throw? Not that interested. Their non-garbage time pass rate in three weeks entering this sample, 69, 68, 69%. In the past three, 42, 32, and 30%. This doesn't adjust for the amount of plays. It's just whenever your pre-snap win probability was 20 to 80%, but that's a massive shift. And the thing is, they're probably gonna be efficient enough factoring in Jalen Hertz also running the ball where they can run the ball like enough. So that does sort of take Hertz not off the table, but again, we talked about this with like Lamar entering this week. The reason that stud quarterbacks are worth high salaries is because they run the ball, but they also have enough passing. And we were talking about like Jordan Love and like maybe he runs the ball as much as one of these rushing quarterbacks, but we didn't expect the passing to be there. If you take the passing away from Jalen Hertz, then his fantasy value goes way down. Right. So I think I've had Hertz pretty much every week. I've been at least, I've considered him every week of this year. I don't think I'll consider him in that game against the Broncos next week. I doubt it. Like that's just such a bad, I think that game sucks. I will say Denver, I've been tracking their pace a bit. I didn't make a note here. Their pace has been getting better. They were really, really slow to start the season. That continued yesterday too. They ranced up tempo. Yeah, they were up tempo, even as underdogs against the Cowboys. So they worked. So I wouldn't expect that change either. That's like the one path for, you basically have to sell yourself on the fact that the Broncos get ahead and Jalen Hertz can't, they just can't just run the ball the whole time. Yeah. That's about it. And once you have to do that with a quarterback, presumably with a salary of at least 8,000 for Hertz, like that's those are the types of conversations you have to have to talk yourself into someone at like 75, not 8,000 plus. Yep, exactly. Okay. So he's 77, he's 77. So what do I know? Don't care, but still hands off. You can have them. I know you don't want them, but someone else can. Salary scroll for this week. Let's start off at quarterback going position by position, shouting out Salar to stand out to us. Tom Brady is 83. Not terrible. Not sure. Also Kyler's 83. So Brady's one. Brady's playing the football team. It's pretty good. Well, Washington will be coming off a bot. I guess both of them coming off a bot. Yeah. Yeah. Dak at 81 against the Falcons. Herbert at 8,000. That's pretty good. Rodgers at 78 when we get Angry Aaron. Angry Aaron against- If he's allowed to play, he might not be, he can't get cleared until Saturday. Yeah. Ross is 75. That's intriguing. There are actually a lot of interesting numbers here. Okay. So I think to me, that 8,000 range, right on 8,000 is really good. Cause that's where you get Rodgers, Herbert, Dak, Kyler, Brady. Those guys all at least on Monday to me considerations. Yes. I will say, did you say Josh Allen? No. So the thing for me with Josh Allen is I typically jump off whenever I see glimpses of Josh Allen and the concerns I have with him. And then it feels like maybe the next week, those are gone and he's back to like good Josh Allen. So if that's like a get-right spot against the Jets, he could kind of erupt at 87. So that's a bit of a concern. I'm not very tempted by any quarterbacks below like 75. Below Ross. Below Ross. I agree. Except your boy Matt Ryan, 73, 100% there. I guess, if Tayson Hill were to start at 73. Sure. But I think I'd rather get to the other guys. You want to go to running back? Cause I think running back is pretty interesting at the top and I want to have a full discussion about this. So we have Naji Harris and Jonathan Taylor are both 94. Christian McCaffery is 9,000. Who you got out of those three? Naji gets the Lions, Jonathan Taylor gets the Jaguar. So both amazing matchups. We get McCaffery with a really bad quarterback on the road against the Cardinals. Interesting dynamics at play here. McCaffery could end up with like 15 targets next week if Kyler plays and that goes according to plan. Jonathan Taylor could have 197 yards on two carries. I think I might rank them currently at, I think somehow Naji's third just cause. The upsides not as big for him as the other two, I think. I would probably say at this point McCaffery, Taylor Harris. I should probably have Taylor first, but. No, I think I agree. The potential of McCaffery getting more than 47% of the snaps and therefore probably 35 adjusted opportunities is. I think I agree. Let me read through the last six fan dual point outputs by Jonathan Taylor, 18.9, 30.4, 28.3, 16.5, 19.7, 33. Yeah. What a psycho. That's good stuff. Who allowed this to happen? Anyway, I think I agree with your ranking. McCaffery, Taylor, Naji, that's not knock on Naji. I think it's just because the other guys are really good. Also, I'll have a short week for whatever it is. Oh my gosh, Dalvin is 85. I got the team that just 100% Dalvin. Against a team that just sort of like says, please run the ball. The Vikings are like, okay. Wow. His passing game usage has not been very good this year. I will say that that's one counterpoint to Dalvin. But also it's Dalvin, F and Cook against the Chargers in a great game I'm going to stack. Like Dalvin, Mike, William stacks. Oh, buddy. Gonna have way too many of those this week. Oh, buddy. This is a loaded week at running back. We've got like two, four, six, eight. I think we got nine backs at 8,000 and above. And as much as I like would nitpick Camara, you could make a case for all. So, seeing Dalvin at 85 and Zeke at 8,000 makes Cordero way less appealing. It's $7,800, way less appealing. It also makes James Conner less appealing in a sense. It does. You're right. You're right. It does. Like, it's not enough where I'd be like, oh, no, but like, you know, that's worth noting. Like DeAndre Swift is back at 73. I don't want to. But they're going to get trucked. What game script do you want for DeAndre Swift? The script where you can get 10 cards. Not a one where I expect his team to score 13 points. Well, that's every single week with Swift. Not, no, this is the worst case scenario. On the road against Pittsburgh. I know the rest discrepancy is big. I don't want any piece of that. I will probably not use any DeAndre Swift this week. I'll be tempted. So, with the 8,000 range being so massive, we've got one, two, three, four, five backs with a seven in front of their salaries. So, you're either going to have to decide to get up to the studs or you're kind of by default saving a lot of salary at running back. Do you want to make a really stupid bet that I'm going to regret in like five minutes? I win. Depends on what it is. Lenny versus Swift. I knew that was going to be. And I probably wouldn't get there. It's more DeAndre Swift has a path to like double digit targets, which is worth about 20 carries. And he's also probably going to get 12 carries. Yeah. I think it could be a Gaskin type thing where it's 32 adjusted opportunities. He gets you like five points. Well, he got me, I know. I know he got you. Look, he ruined me two weeks ago. I'm still tempted. Okay. So, Leonard for another $74, by the way, just noting that James Conner 7000. The 6000 range is barren. Like there's no one basically between 65 and seven either for the most part. Trying to find someone I'd use. Michael Carter 61, but his role went back a little bit this past week. And he's facing Buffalo. Just because we're never going to talk about them. Are we too dismissive of the Denver backs or is the committee just too great that it doesn't matter? Have they ever burned us for not using them? No, I'm just, you know, That's about like James Conner yesterday. It was a really good question. Like, hey, do you feel like he missed out this year? And like, I think it's a very fair question because of all the touchdowns. And I'm glad they asked that. But when you don't have yardage upside, they can score two touchdowns and not burn you for using them. Like Melvin hasn't had more than 19.3 this year. He's had more than 17.71s. Jivante is no more than 14.2, so. Yeah. I don't think I will have a single. I don't think I'll have a single back below 7,000. Potentially not. Unless we get something weird. That's gonna make it hard to get up to, I'm gonna really have to nitpick the higher salaried receivers if that's the case. I could see a situation where if Damien Harris were out, you could like, I could see people talking to themselves into Ramon Drey Stevenson at $5,400. I probably would not do that myself, but I could potentially see it. Or like JD McKissick against the box because he'll get 10 targets. But that's. What if Aaron Jones decides to take a vacation? Just like, you know, I've had a good week. Good season, guys. Let's just go to Barbados for a week. Maybe AJ Dillon at 53 would be great. We'll get that. And like just because there's an outside possibility of James Robinson missing again, Carlos Hyde at 57 would become like an optimizer's favorite. Yeah. Oh, I guess we got gloss over Singletary at 6,000. That was probably not an accident. I didn't know us. I didn't know us. But I would say all of the guys below 7,000, he is the most appealing by a wide margin. Do you agree? Yes. Also the Jordan Howard production, he played 40% of snaps this week. He's got a good red zone roll, but he's also being out snapped the past two games by Boston Scott. He's got three rushing touchdowns in the past two games. So like that's why at 59, that's not enough for me. That matchup too. Yeah. Against Denver. So yeah, I think based on that, we're going to need to find value at receiver this week. I think that's my takeaway there. And tight end as an extension. Yep. Especially with quarterback being what it is at the top. Now some of the salaries are a little bit lower, so that helps, but they're still 77. I'm going to have so much dow in this week. Oh my goodness. The Vikings are going to be one of those stupid freaking Vikings games where they score like seven points and make me just... No, they're going to score 30, but it's going to be... CJ Ham will have three touchdowns. Conklin, yeah. Conklin, I'm probably going to use Conklin, so that's fine. Just anyone other than Dow. I think it'll be CJ Ham. No, Kenny and Wanglu is going to score again. Another kickoff return. There we go. Okay, we figured out how they're going to make us sad. Let's go to wide receiver. What are you seeing there? A lot of good names at the top. Devonte at 87, presumably with Aaron Rodgers back against Seattle and then DK Metcalf at 8,000, possibly. Devonte with Rodgers or Dalvin against the Chargers. Like straight up, who would I be proud of? I'll say Devonte only because I feel like we'll have more options at running back, monster. Okay, it's scrolling down. This all seems right, and Michael Pittman's up to 72, but his marker share is good enough to make that worth it. I just don't think I'll probably play him there. I'm going to have so much Mike Williams this week. He's $6,900. He's capable of 65. It's not bad. No, Manny 63. Did I just throw past Deontay? Where is Deontay? He's like 74. Oh, wow, okay. Yeah. Manny at 63 is probably going to be a core play. Judy at 62 versus Sutton at 66 is not enough. I'd probably go Sutton there if I could. No, I'd go Judy. Okay. You want to bet? No. I don't feel that great about it. It's just more people will probably play Judy at the lower salary side. I'd rather go Sutton. Okay. Elijah Morris had good weeks the past two weeks, but that's because Corey Davis has been out. I don't know what his snappery will be with Davis likely being back this week. I would just caution people on that one. Michael Gow 65. He should be back this week. He's practicing this week. We'll get 12% of the targets like everyone else. Yeah, 12%, but that's enough for 120 yards because he's playing for Michael Gallin, baby. Yeah. We were saying we need value at receiver. I'm not seeing a whole lot right now. You could use Levisca Chanel, who has fewer deep targets the past four games than Carlos Hyde. Alameda is a keyist, scored twice, but his usage wasn't very good outside of that. Nope. Rondo Moore possibly 54. Okay. Yikes. Marquez Valdez, Scalings 53. Oh, buddy. We might have to use a lot of MBS this week. What's the dip? Oh, buddy. It feels like Robbie Anderson waiting to happen again. No. Oh, okay. I thought you'd say use Robbie Anderson. With an MBS line. Yeah. So we need value at receiver. I don't see much jumping off the page right now. Which means we instead look to tight end maybe to try to find it. Wow. So we might have to go a little bit more balanced this week. Might have to mean we're going down as opposed to like, or like Zeke, Zeke, Connor, et cetera, et cetera, as opposed to just totally splurging and running back. Instead of like Taylor and Najee. Terrorist Marvel came back to a solid one target this past week. That's fun. Are we on to tight end or are we still on receiver? I was still looking for receivers and I couldn't find anything. Tight end. Kyle Pitts is tops of $6,900. TJ Hawkins in 65. Then the other two at six are Gronk at 61 in Dolan Schultz at 6,000. Dallas Goddard with his run only, not even run first, but run only offense. Yeah. That's tough. Conklin is 53. He has 71, 57 and 45 yards of past three games. That's not terrible for $5,300 tight end. That Friar Muth is 51. I feel like we'll just go to him again, right? Yeah. Friar Muth, Conklin, Dan Arnold all in play. Yeah. Okay. So we got three guys at 53 and below. Logan Thomas, I think, can be back next week. Yeah. 55. He's expected to be back. Tentatively, I believe as well. So that's not, that would be viable, but I'd probably just take the savings there because I think I'll need every dollar I can get. Most likely. So this also, Johnston wasn't active this week. That's fun. Fun, fun, fun. Um, Jesus. Jesus is correct. So going back to like quarterback now, like Russ and Rogers might get bumped up because again, Correct. four or 500 might go a long way between getting back up to like a d'Alvarez, or settling for like a four net or a Patterson. And I think that gap's big enough where you. I also think it's going to juice up Devin Singletary as being pretty massive chalk this week. I wouldn't be, and I wouldn't be surprised if like Jordan Howard is at least, I know, but like at least 8% rostered, which is enough. Oh yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Defense. The jets get broken. Josh Allen just kidding. Don't, don't listen to me. Don't listen to me. Don't listen to me. This is supposed to be slack takes Jim. Slack takes only. This is the one where we go to the bottom and go up from there. Why are the chargers $3,300? They should be higher than that. Like, I know I like d'Alvarez a lot, but like that's very low for a good defense. They're lower than the Washington against the Bucks. What? That doesn't make sense. Philadelphia is 36 against Denver. Denver played pretty well, but like I could see that being viable. There's not a lot below 4,000. Unless Russ can't come back in which Packers at 39 would work. Sure, but that's Denver's 4,000. It's fine. Yeah. But you don't want, you don't want a bunch of rushes. You want. That's true. All right. No, you're right. You're right. Tennessee against New Orleans if it's Simeon again. 41-1. That's doable. Dallas against Atlanta. As well as Atlanta's play. That's still not terrible. That's a better game environment for defensive points. Yeah, yeah. Like I think the Vikings put up 12 against Lamar yesterday. They had a kick return touchdown. That's right. Yeah. So we're going to be scrambling for value, I think is a takeaway here, correct? I think so. I'm really going to have to rank out the running backs to prioritize and see who I need to get to. But also the receivers, because it's very easy this week to say, well, I need the running backs because it's a half PPR site receiving some matters. But like, typically for me, that means three running backs. So one in the flex. And then it's like, you know what? I can't get to CD lamb or Justin Jefferson or Mark Cooper. And it's like, I'm just, you know, it's a bit scary, but that might honestly have to be the way that it goes. Yep. So let's go to a note to future me. Is that where your note is to make sure you rank out the running backs and receivers to decide prioritization? That's the first note. And my second note is, and I've been saying this for week, week after week, make notes early in the week and stick to them and then adjust whenever you really think you need to. There were a lot of plays I liked this week who I just kind of forgot about some things that I just I chased because and I do it every week because it's very tempting and you don't want to be falling behind. But again, injuries impact certain teams, but not the entire slate always. So what we talk about for an hour and a half here, this is all still relevant. Yep. My note to future me is do not use 60% Mike Williams because I'm going to want to. It's going to be so bad. I already this is like the Miles Sanders week where I was like, I already regret this. And I still have six days to not do it, but I'm going to do it. I know I am. It's like that picture of the goofy mean where he looks like deranged like, I'll believe and do it again. Like I'm going to do it again. I'm going to do the thing. I know I'm going to regret. I know it. I know it. Don't go 60%. 57. Like just scale back a bit. Cause like it can hurt you. I don't want to hurt future me. I'd like to coddle future me. Just like, don't, don't, don't do this to yourself. Yeah. Maybe the real note to me is. Take a long look at the value receivers and see who's got maybe something that I'm not quite seeing right now. Right. I think that what I'll do is I've done this with tight end a lot is just pull up my target sheet, scroll through and be like, okay, what am I missing? Yeah. Because I'm going to need that this week, I think. It's very easy to do that at receiver, especially because receiver is very volatile. And you can look at who's scoring fandal points, but that's from the, the research I've done, looking at who's scoring fandal points at receivers, probably the worst way you can go. Cause it probably means if they're down at low salaries, they're just overperforming. And the guys who are underperforming are probably about to perform. So maybe, maybe I'll look very close to my expected fandal points model for value receivers this week. I think that could be good. Okay. So that is all that we have here for today. Brandon, any final thoughts for you before we send off the good people to fill out their Monday night single game lineups? I think this week is going to be this past week, week nine was a little bit underwhelming from a prep standpoint. This upcoming week is going to be a lot of fun. A lot of prep, a lot of digging, a lot of trying to find gems anywhere we can. It will not be easy, but it should be pretty fun. That is all that we have here for today. We'll be back with you once again on Thursday to preview the week 10 and main slate that is live on the fangirl YouTube page at 10 a.m. And then up on the number fire daily fantasy podcast feed immediately after that. So make sure you are subscribed there. We got NBA, NHL, PGA, UFC podcasts coming your way each and every day right here on the number fire daily fantasy podcast feed. Subscribe. If you like what you hear, leave us a rating and review. Brandon, if people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? I'm at Goodwill 13, G-D-U-L-A-1-3. And I'm at Jim Sonnis. J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the fangirl podcast network at fangirl podcast. Big thank you to everyone for tuning in for today. Good luck to you on Monday night. We'll talk to you once again on Thursday. This has been the heat check fantasy podcast by number fire.