 The week seven NFL DFS main slate is going to be a tricky one because not only are we deprived of a lot of really good offenses that are on buy for this week, but also there are a lot of slanted games where one side may score a bunch, the other side may not score a whole lot. So we had to decide where can we find production with the good teams like Dallas, et cetera on buy and how do we handle those teams facing opponents that may not do a whole lot and keep that game competitive for all four quarters. That is our task for today to get you set for week number seven. Welcome on into the heat shack fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire. That's right here on the fan dual podcast network and numberfire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for numberfire.com joined here as always by Brandon Ganula. He is the managing editor of numberfire.com. Brandon, a tricky, I would say week seven coming up. How you doing today? Yeah, real tricky. There's one game that I think we would look at and say, yeah, we'll stack this one up, everything else. You say, you got to talk yourself into it. And I don't like that. You're going to be talking about some data on heavy favorites. I think that we have some interesting games that like I don't really have a whole lot of... So again, for you and I to want to stack a game, we want to like both quarterbacks. So like I look at the Falcons Dolphins game, it's a 47 and a half point total with a two and a half point spread. And I'm like, I'm not playing either quarterback. So I can't really say I like to stack that game, but it would otherwise fit our process of tight spread, relatively high total. So yeah, I mean, it could be a week where we'd just go with the onslaughts for the favorites. Outside of the Kansas City and Tennessee game, but I think there's a whole lot to go over for this week. Yeah, I think that it's an interesting dilemma because if you want to stack Kansas City, Tennessee, you're going to have to pay the piper because like the salaries there are absurd. And if you do that, it makes it tougher to get to the teams that are heavily favored. So do you want to go with the potential shootout or do you want to go with Cooper, Cupp, Mike Evans, et cetera, et cetera, the guys who are on the teams that are heavily favored. And I think I know my answer to that. We'll talk through how to handle things in terms of the heavy favorites. We'll talk about some understalled running backs. And we'll talk about a lot of stuff to get you set for this main slate. First, so a quick reminder that we do have a listener league for this week. Go to fandual.com slash league slash listener league, fandual.com slash league slash listener league. To get yourself entered, it's a $5 entry, three entries max, there is no rake. So Fandual makes nothing off this contest. That's the best kind of contest you can play. Fandual.com slash league slash listener league to get yourself entered and play against other people listening to this podcast and the late round podcast as well. Also football fans, Fandual is giving you the chance to bet on week seven of the NFL season. All you got to do is go to sportsbook.fandual.com or download the Fandual Sportsbook app. Place a three plus leg, same game parlay wager on any week seven NFL game. If your bet loses, get a refund and site credit. Max refund is $10. Bet on week seven of the NFL season with Fandual be heading over to the Fandual Sportsbook today placing a risk-free NFL same game parlay. Must be 21 plus in present Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut. What up Connecticut? Making my read longer. Appreciate it. Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia or West Virginia. Refund issued as non-withdrawable site credit that expires in seven days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fandual.com. Same game parlay available for multiple sports in all states on mobile and web. Gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER visit fandual.com slash RG in Connecticut. Call 888-789-777, I've not done that one before so we're running on the fly here. Visit ccpg.org slash chat in Indiana 1-800-9 with it. For confidential help in Michigan 1-800-270-7117 in Tennessee, call the red line at 1-800-899-789 in West Virginia 1-800-GAMBLER.net or in Arizona, call 1-800-NEXT-STAP to 533-42. Let's go through our slate overview for this week number seven slate and Brandon, I think to me, it kind of comes down to not just the chiefs titans generally, but Derek Henry specifically because he is 11,000. I think that the first thing you do when you are deciding, like if you're doing single entry, the first question you ask yourself is do you use Derek Henry or do you find other ways to get exposure to that game? What's the overview for you on this slate? Yeah, that's the real question because I mean, you and I were under in our expectations when we named that salary for Aaron Jones on Monday. We were way under 8,500 and I think Jones is still the, I mean, maybe Daryl Henderson, but Jones is really the guy who has the potential to really make you regret not using him outside of Derek Henry. So like, it's not like we have Henry at 11,000, we have a healthy Christian McCaffrey, Dalvin Cook on the slate, Austin Eckler or maybe Alvin Camara in a good spot. Like, it's Henry and then it's a cavern for the most part to everyone else and that is making the question that much harder because if Henry gets you 35, yes, you know, that's 11,000 of your salary, but I don't really know if anyone else is gonna get you 30, even 25, looks a little bit thin for these guys. So, yes, you associate that with the salary involved, but again, at a certain point, you need those points. So it does come down to Derek Henry and I think the single game or the single entry conversation is more apt because someone who historically has faded Derek Henry in good spots and just hope that he doesn't score twice, I'm not there at this point, the workload is just too good, the matchup's too good, the game's too good. So, yeah, the single entry discussion, I think is really like, or like three entries, something like that. It is really fascinating. So I'm leaning toward playing Henry in a single entry. What about you? Especially because you can go with Henry, I have a line up in front of me, which is Mahomes Hill Henry and I don't hate it. Like the other spots are not that bad honestly. Like, yeah, it means you are parlaying together one, two, three, four, five guys with salaries below 6,000, but I also don't mind it given the way that those guys grayed out. I would also say, I've been looking at some other projection systems outside of Number Fire to see what they think of Henry this week and they think he's over salary. So I don't think we're gonna get a situation where he's like 40% rostered. I think that's a key, cause like a lot of people do run optimizers and I don't think he'll grayed out well in those this week, which is another key factor in me saying, I'm pretty willing to just fight the chalk, and just load him in. Well, he is, I think, if I'm gonna nitpick, he's over salaried because the odds that he really over performs that number are small, but the odds that he has a great game are high. And you made a good point before the show where points could be at a premium this week. So it's really, I think the driving question for me is, okay, does Derek Henry erupt? If not, is he still good with like 20 points? And does someone like Daryl Henderson have like the 25 point game? Like Chuba Hubbard, Joe Mix and any of the, Lenny, like, I think you listed the most likely guy to burn us. Well, not burn us, cause I'll use a lot of him, but. Yeah, but it's like if three of those guys were even below gets a 20, then the salary is really gonna work against Henry if he's just putting up 25. So, you know, the case for Henry is, couldn't be a whole lot better right now. Great game, amazing workload, especially relative to the other guys. Great rushing matchup. So, we're leaning toward playing him. Yeah. But I, you know, being realistic, I will probably be just a bit overweight on the field. But do you have an expectation of his roster rate, 30? So I'd probably get to about 40. I think 40 to 50 is my range. It's definitely not a lock button, it's too hard. And again, the odds that he overperformed so greatly that you have to have him and that no other running backs, like a combination of them. It's kind of the thing is like, there's still a combination of backs who can, if you play them all, can get you those points. But, and yeah, I want a lot of Tyree cause got some good numbers on him this week. The good thing is, if you don't wanna get to Henry, like if you, in the line of story, not using him, AJ Brown is very much there, very much in play, very easy to get to. So you're not avoiding that game. You can just use a different way to get there and save a lot of salary. But I do think that being overweight in Henry relative to the field is a way to play things this week. We'll talk about that game more in just a second. First of all, there's an injury starting off with that game. All three of Tyree, Kill, AJ Brown, and Julio Jones in his practice Wednesday. Hill and Brown probably gonna play. They played through their current ailments last week. Julio, I would guess is gonna sit. Just, I think he's on the wrong side of questionable at least. Thought about the game in the bookmaker section. Washington was super short-handed at practice on Wednesday, Antonio Gibson, JD McKissick, Curtis Samuel, and Ricky Seales-Jones. All this practice, Gibson and Samuel are legitimately questionable. I would guess that McKissick and Seales-Jones are good to go. We'll talk with them in the bookmaker section as well. Antonio Brown has practiced Wednesday with an ankle injury. He apparently suffered that in week six at some point, which is on Thursday. So it's been a bit, so a bit more concerning to me that he missed practice Wednesday than usual. Rob Gronkowski also is still not back at practice because of his rib injury. So let's talk about this quickly. If Brown does sit, would that draw you in and either Mike Evans or Chris Godwin against the Bears? I like Godwin at his salary, I think, regardless or even irregardless of Antonio Brown's situation. He's kind of underperformed just with like touchdown expectations. I think the workload's fine. If you take Brown out for sure, I'm into these guys. The question is if they're all healthy, I'm gonna feel like a donkey not playing some of these guys because it's such an elite passing offense. But then I just feel like we are back to kind of square one where you're just guessing at who's gonna have the breakout game. And I mean, odds are it's gonna be Antonio Brown just because he gets like, he's still very good. But if he's hurt, that kind of goes down. So, you know, for me, I like Godwin the most and if Antonio Brown takes a week off to get healthy, I'll have some Godwin at 6,700. That's really low for him. It is. I wanna try to find here. So the only game where they had without Antonio Brown was against the Rams. And I know Jen and the Rams just played a lot of slot. So I'm trying to look up how often he was against. So 18 routes for Godwin came against Ramsey in that game. Only had two targets on those 18 routes. He did run some routes against their guys, but that was kind of the primary defender he faced. So in that game, he had seven targets, Gronk had seven, Mike Evans and Gio had 10. So a lot has changed since that Rams game, which is weird because it wasn't that long ago. But I think that I'd agree with your assessment where the Bucks, if they're gonna be spread out and they don't throw the entire game, may be tough to get to. But if you concentrate that target tree, then I think it's a lot easier to tolerate. I'm gonna use Fornette regardless. Like I'll talk about him later on, but I do think that Godwin would grayed out really well at 67 if we get no Brown here. Yeah, and if quarterback were a little bit tougher, I think I would be able to get to Tom Brady. Probably won't get there as it is, just because I love my homes. And if I'm taking a pass-only quarterback around 8,000, so you know, Stafford, Brady, Rogers, it's gonna be Stafford for me just because of a lot of things. Don't game horrible defense and the revenge factor. Narrative. I feel like he's a lock for four passing touchdowns. Yeah, not because of his revenge, because of Sean McVeigh's revenge against Jared Goff. That's the reason because like Stafford, I think is on good terms with the Lions, but McVeigh, I still think he kinda hates Jared and he's also an egomaniac. So those are factors that I am considering. I'm not gonna bet anything based on this, but I'm just like, put it out there. He's a psycho and that might help things here. On the other side of that game, Damien Williams is still on the COVID list for the Bears. They're facing the Bucks, which is not a situation where you wanna use running backs, but would you have interest in Cleo Herbert 6,000 if Williams were to sit again? I mean, it's that matchup that's tricky, but he did run routes. So that helps me a little bit. It's just a matter of his, and I have the ceiling projections and stuff, but I'm gonna kinda roll it out here just because it's such a tough matchup. Now the yardage has been good for him for the past two games, but I just even on a slate where I'm looking for some running back value to help out balance out a Derek Henry lineup, I wanna make sure that all these guys have the ability to make up for Derek Henry being just okay. I don't know if Herbert against the Bucks really has that 25 point output in his arsenal, but maybe that's just me. It's really all about ceiling. The floor will be fine in this scenario, but I don't know, my expectations are low for this offense, which means they're inherently gonna be low for him, and I think that would be enough to push me off, even if there's no Damian. Hopefully Damian comes back soon to worry about it, but I think either way, not a huge chance he burns you. Dallas Goddard's on the COVID list as well. Lane Johnson is back at the team. That's a good thing for the Eagles. You'll run through the Eagles outlook in the trend section. Herbert is 6,000, there may be a pivot on that team at $100 less, let's talk about later on. The Giants seem likely to be without Seyquan Barclay, Kaderious Tony, and Kenny Galladay in week seven. All those guys in his practice Wednesday. Kaderious Layton was back though, so they get the Panthers here. What's your view of Devontae Booker, Sterling Shepherd, and Layton in this game assuming that those injury assumptions are correct? Yeah, so in the trend section, I almost did the Giants, but then I remembered you talked about the Giants, or I talked about the Giants last week. I talked about them, oh, what do we expect of Mike Lennon plays, and then the Thursday craziness occurred. So I started writing up some notes, then I remembered, and then I swapped over to the Panthers, which we also discussed last week. So I had some notes, but I think really the main standout is Sterling Shepherd, because his target share was great, but I'll be going back to Booker. I would love some Darius Layton, I don't actually even know what his salary is. 53, I think? I didn't look. Five. Okay, that's all high. High? Yeah, I mean, he gets the kind of targets we want, but I don't think the target volume will be great, and I don't think that the target quality will be great. I like him in general, I think that that's my concern there. Yeah, I mean, it's a matter of whether we like this game, and so actually speaking about this game in the trend section, we put the bookmaker info, those games that are most interesting first, so we kind of remove those from the games that we're considering for trends. And by the time I got to the sheet, because it's a small main slate, the only games we weren't really covering at this point were the Panthers Giants, which I think has some appeal, like some low-end appeal, and then the Jets and Patriots, which I was absolutely not talking about, so I'm probably gonna be a little, I'm gonna have a little bit of a soft spot in my heart for this game, because I think I was forced to look at it a little bit deeper. It's a tight spread, and I know the total's low, but I kind of like this game. I'm gonna talk more about Sam Darnold and his performance. I think maybe you seem low on Darnold. I'll see if maybe I can flip you around. Why would that be? It's like he's been doggie-do the past few weeks. I'll see if maybe I can flip you around on that one. You cannot? I'm just gonna, you're not going to. So this game's like an outlier, because every game on the main slate has a 47-point total, or better, aside from this game and the Patriots Jets game. Yeah. But this game also has that. I'm gonna go above 47, basically. It's very weird. It's a very weird slate. Booker, yes or no? Oh yes. Okay, cool. I'm down with that as well. Devonte Parker and Preston Williams both participated in the Dolphins walkthrough on Wednesday. Parker hasn't surpassed two games. Williams has played twice so far this year. Will Fuller, still an IR. We'll talk about that game more into the bookmaking section. Speaking of which, let's go there now. Let's start things off with that key shootout of the week with the Chiefs and the Titans. Total here is 57 and a half with the Chiefs favor by now four and a half. That spread is tightening. We love that. This game checks every box. The one issue is the Titans, likely without Taylor Lawan and Julio Jones. So are you into any of the Titans' value options? So we like AJ Brown, we like Derek Henry. Are you going to any of the lower salary guys? And do the injuries to Lawan and Julio impact your view of this game as a whole? Yeah, the injuries make me a little bit lower but I'm not gonna talk myself out of the game of the week just because of some injuries. As for the values, probably not gonna chase that either. I don't have to. And so I don't really feel like I want to because really it would just be there like secondary tertiary receivers and I don't know if there's enough juice there necessarily. Yeah, I think like I've been looking long and hard this week at Nick Westbrook Akinae and I'm trying to find this pronunciation here. Here we go. That's how I always hear it on Red Zone stuff. Akina, Akina, Westbrook Akinae. So I've been looking at him but like the checklist at wide receiver regardless of salaries, can you give me 85 yards or give me two touchdowns? I don't think the 85 yards is gonna happen and I feel skeptical that the two touchdowns will happen. He has gotten some deep volume and he's gonna be on the field. Like they keep talking him up. It seems like he's a good blocker from how they regard him. He has decent speed for his size but like he's also not fast. He's just big. So I have a hard time convincing myself that he can get me 85 yards. So I think that the Titans for me you really just come down to Dara Kenry and AJ Brown. As far as the Chiefs go, very to Dara Williams at 67 prefer for net over him but we'll use Dara happily. I'd rank him probably below, I don't know, I'll figure out how to rank him to the 5,000 slash 6,000 running backs there but very on board with him. Okay, before we move on from Westbrook Akina, right? Akina. Akina. All right, sorry Nick, I know you're listening. All right, I'm sorry to let you down. He has two games where he's played at least 75% of the snaps. In those games, six targets per game, 41 yards, 62 air yards, one downfield per game, but two and a half red zone per game. So maybe he could get like a touchdown in 60 yards which I know is like, at the salary being that low of 5,200. You're probably right. I could probably talk myself into that. Limited though. Let's say you've got 10 Titans Chief stacks and you've got 10 slots allocated to a Titan. I would say six Henry, three AJ Brown, maybe one Westbrook Akina. Probably one or two, yeah. Maybe get a Tyree and then a Kelsey or something. That's fine, I think that works. Sorry, you were talking about Daryl? Yeah, I think Daryl's fine on board there. I think Nicole is also fine. So they're both very much secondary options. I also think Travis Kelsey is more so fine than high priority for me. If we look at the games that they've played so far this year, target share for Kelsey 23% but just 11% deep and 17% of the red zone. He's got the stinger, it seems like it's a stinger at least. His arm was weird and he's listed with a neck injury on the practice, I think it's a stinger. It's a weird situation there. So I feel like for me, I know he'll be the most popular way to get here but I have a really hard time deviating from that personally. Yeah, I mean, Terry Kill, his, all three of his big games have come against teams that were outside the, well, I'll say outside the top six because he's faced three teams inside the top six in yards per target a lot on downfield passes. The other teams he's played have all been, I think outside the top 18 were outside the top 20. All three of his big games have come against those teams that have had worse numbers on downfield attempts and the Titans are 31st in that category. So it is really hard to get away from Tyreek. And I think the primary way that, and this won't really be like groundbreaking, if I'm not playing Derek Henry in a single entry, it's so that I can get to Tyreek Hill and then the sort of mid-range running backs. But so I want to make sure that I'm getting access to the high ceiling receivers, which I historically wouldn't consider as much as I am this week. Well, I think with the lack of high end running backs besides Henry, it's the opportunity cost is just lower, which helps a lot. So I think that's a positive for that one. Where are you at in Ryan Tannehill? We talked about him a lot on Mondays being a guy, we were down, we were down to you. That was before the Monday night game when Julio got re-injured effectively. I know Julio has not been like good this year so far, but it is still like I would assume a downgrade from Julio Jones, Nick Westbrook, Akeena. So that's my concern. I'm still gonna use Tannehill and he might be my number two quarterback this week behind the Holmes. But I think that does lower it where, if I'm going X percent before I'll lower it down, it's like X minus 10 or X minus five or something like that. So I mean, it just depends on how willing you are to forgive, I think. He's got the six games, obviously. Two of them have been against top three adjusted past defenses based on number fires metrics. So he's got four games outside of the top three. And all four of those were outside the top 20, Kansas City's 29. So it's more comparable to look at those four games. But in only two of those four games that he have, AG Brown healthy. And in those two games, which I know we're reducing the sample a ton, but do you really want to look at games against top three defenses? Whenever the past defense is really bad, probably not. In those two games against comparable defenses and with AG Brown, he's doubled up the league average in passing efficiency at number fire. I'm not that concerned. If the salary was higher, I would be concerned, but he opens up a lot. And really among all the passers in the 7,000 range, they all have some concerns. And I think Tana Hill probably has the fewest concerns. It might be a little bit overlooked just because of the issues that he's had. Julio's banged up, Luan, that whole situation. So I'm totally cool with Ryan Tana Hill this week. And I think it's probably overthinking it to go away from him. Yeah. I think the only guy with a comparable ceiling in that range is Aaron Rodgers at $7,900. I think everyone else in that range definitely doesn't have the same ceiling as Tana Hill because like Tana Hill is due for some positive touchdown regression. Like every touchdown they scored this year has been on the ground, which is fair. The other thing I would say is you can stack Tana Hill with Derek Henry because what you're getting there is exposure to every single yard and every single touchdown that they score. If it's not Derek Henry rushing, it'll be either Ryan Tana will pass or Ryan Tana Hill rushing. And in this scoring environment, I know they don't like, and like Henry will get some targets, but like we're not playing them for the double dip. But if you get access to every yard and every point a team accumulates and a game with a total of 57 and a half, I don't care if they don't like, I don't care if I don't double dip. Like that production, 500 yards is 500, like it's not projecting 500 yards, but like that workload is fine, double up with. So I am very okay stacking Tana Hill and Henry. We've seen a lot of times last year and the year before where they've both gone off in the same game. So I have no issues with that personally. What about you? Yeah, for sure. I mean, this alone won't get us onto Tana Hill, but if you combine those salaries and then average them out, you'd be getting Derek Henry and Ryan Tana about 9,300, oh, not about, but 9,300 each. And you'd say, yeah, if I can play Derek Henry for 93, I'll maybe over pay to roster his quarterback in a fantastic game. So thinking about that. Lower Henry to 10K and put Tana at eight, six. Yeah, that's more appropriate. I just did the averages here. Right, right. I think that that's pretty viable because of what it gives you elsewhere. Like if you go with Tani, Henry and Hill, like that's a pretty, you've got some flexibility. Like I had the Mahomes, Henry Hill one, and I'm gonna, I prefer that one obviously, but you have to make fewer constellations on the value plays. And I think that's a positive. So I think that even though it's high salaried, I think I just want to load up on this game. Any final thoughts for you before we move on to the next one? I think we got the right core plays and I think the value plays are in consideration for sure. I would agree. Okay, other game here to discuss a game that probably only in DFS players could love is Dolphins versus Falcons. Total is 47 and a half, or 47 now actually. I think the spread is tight at two and a half points. We like that for sure. Both these teams very willing to air it out. The Dolphins have been trying to talk about the running game this week, which is kind of concerning, but they also can't run. So I'm not that concerned. Both these teams has some lower salaried options as we do need on this slate. So are you willing to stack up both sides of this one? If so, who stands out? Yes, it totally is 47 now. Stack up implies to me quarterbacks and this is a no quarterback game. Right. So that caveat needs to be thrown in here. So a no quarterback game stack. Yeah, so mini stacks is where I am. But I like this game otherwise, like for a mini stack purpose. Calvin Ridley for sure. Jump into tight end. I think both tight ends are in play between Mike Gasicki and Kyle Pitts, right around 6,000. Tight end, we've got some big names, but Kelsey might not be a hundred percent. Mark Andrew is up to 7,500 with that salary. Darren Waller at 68, but he's not really been Darren Waller with the work. I'm gonna get there too, but it's a week where there are multiple tight ends who can put up 15 to 18 to maybe 20. So I don't wanna punt at tight end too much. That's a lot easier to justify when it's like Mark Andrews and nobody else. And you say Andrews doesn't get there then we're on the kind of insane boat. But both tight ends, Calvin Ridley for sure, like Jalen Waddell, is that where we are with his pronunciation? I was Googling today, I don't know. I don't know. I'm just going back to Waddell. I'll go to Waddell until I hear more of it. Okay, Jalen Waddell, great workload. And I have a note because he's one of my loves for this week. Don't care too much about the guy's returning. He's still at a, with Tua in week one, he was still pretty fine. You seem concerned. Not concerned. I'm just excited about the guys who are returning. Okay. Yeah, so who else here? No, Miami running backs. You can talk to me about Cordero. Talk to me about Cordero because he's your guy. I don't know. I think that like, he's fine. I can use him. But like, am I actively seeking him out now? Because like, Tyree Kill is 85. And I'd be using him at wide receiver to be clear. But I can pay $500 more to get to Tyree Kill. I can pay, say, 500 and go to Jamar Chase. Cordero or Nuke? Well, that's probably a bad question because I would say Cordero there, but it's not. I would. Cordero or DJ Moore. I like this game more. I don't know. Don't put me in a bad spot here. I'm going to get clipped up and put on. We'll stick to this game. No, I mean, like, I think it's a fair question, but I think that like, I would just try to get more Tyree Kill. But Ridley is 73. And his usage was insane before that London game. So the first four games this year, Ridley, 27% of the overall targets, 59% of the deep targets. Matt Ryan wasn't going deep initially, but did start to go deep, you know, a couple of games in. 29% of the red zone, he leads the team in all three of those categories in the first four games. So like, I feel like Ridley is an amazing play this week. And I want to run it back with Evante Parker, being the guy on the other side. Parker got in the limited session. I know there's like, oh, Tula won't throw in tight windows, but like he did have 81 yards in week one against the Patriots. Parker did with Tula starting in that game. Parker in his first four games, three of those were without Tula, but 22% of the overall targets, Jalen Waddle is at 21%, Kasicki was at 18%. Parker at 38% of the deep targets, Waddle at 10%, Kasicki at 29%. So Parker is $5,600. I think that a mini stack of Devante Parker and Calvin Ridley will be one of my favorite mini stacks on this slage because both those salaries, I think are too low for the rules they have. So where are you with Jalen Waddle then? I like him, I don't use him, but I'd rather go Parker if I had one line up. Okay. Not often, and I'm not off Kasicki either, but I think that Parker is probably gonna go overlooked. I'll take it. So I know again, there's like the narrative of he doesn't align with Tula and the way the Tula plays, but like you can get separation, even if you're Devante Parker against this Falcon Secondary. So I'll take it and be in on him here. Also, I looked into this last year, I'm trying to pull it up, but it's just taken too long. Tula had like a really high tight window percentage on next-gen stacks. Pretty sure it was higher than Ryan Fitzpatrick's and I'm pretty sure his 8-out was higher too. Yeah. So like, I mean, I get it, but like... Also Tula's 8-out is 8.1 this year. Just a couple of percents is like 6.8, like... Yeah. You just sometimes get a little bit out of hand. Yeah. Also, that's the... I mean, I'm dismissive of a lot of narratives and probably to a detriment to some degree where I'm not accounting for what other people are saying, but yeah, the date on Tula is not really as reflective as like he won't throw the ball and do like... So I just at least wanted to throw that out there. Yeah. So Tula had some really bad plays last week. Like they were hideous and I was like losing my mind because it looked so bad, but he's still an efficient game and now he's getting Parker and likely Williams back. So I think he can support past catchers here. So I want to get to Parker, want to get to Ridley on the bring back. Any final thoughts for you on this game? I think that's it. The big question for me was Patterson and... I'll use the game stacks, but not outside of that. Yeah. Patterson or Daryl Henderson? Same salary? Daryl. Me too. But it's not, it's more so compared to the wide receiver. So I think the new question was pertinent. Okay. But I'd go Henderson if we're looking at the running, because there is opportunity cost. So that's a fair question to ask Bill. Among the heavily favored teams, the one with the most lively opponent seems to be the Packers. This spread is down to seven and a half, open at nine and a half. So there is some action on the Washington football team. Total is 49 and a half. I think it went up 49. 49 for this game. So the total has gone up. The spread is tightened, which means there's some action on Washington. What could go wrong? How are you doing this game from a stacking perspective? I mean, there are only so many ways for me, I think. With the Packers, it's Devontae. I still don't play Aaron Rodgers in DFS. So... I haven't this year, I don't think. Like, I mean, maybe that's a mistake. I don't actually know what is. I mean, Scott. But no outputs that would burn you for not using him. Got one 300 yard game, one game with more than two passing touchdowns. No rushing. So I'm not gonna get the Rodgers, which puts me on, you know, going progressively to running back. I think Aaron Jones is over salaried, but in game stacks, I'll get there. I just don't think I'd build around Aaron Jones as a priority. Unless I think that, you know what? I'm not playing Henry in this lineup. I might as well play Aaron Jones so that I get access to one of those two guys. I just think Aaron Jones is kind of over salaried by about a thousand. So then it's Devontae. Is that it from Green Bay that we're considering? I don't want any of those side pieces. That's a weird way to phrase that. I shouldn't say it that way. So I say tertiary, quaternary. Yeah, I consider it as Jones and Adams. So with Jones, I think that it's, he's now in the same realm where I put Derek Henry times last year where what are the odds he burns me? Happens to be that the odds that Jones burns me are lower than they were with Henry last year. I think it's 10 to 15%. So I'll probably have 10 to 15% Aaron Jones as a result of that. I can't get higher though, because you're right. He is over salaried very much so. So I think it's really about Devontae here. I prefer Hill over Devontae, but like I have no pushback on Devontae. And I think this game is pretty good. So I'm not opposed to go in there either, especially like my non Henry lineups where I can get, if I can get Tyreek and Devontae, which I can in my non Henry lineups, it's not bad. Can you rank then Devontae cup and Hill? Hill, Devontae, Uber cup. I think that's weathering it. I might have cup over Devontae. So. Just from a sheer touchdown equity standpoint. Yeah, that's probably fair. I don't. But yeah, you can't go wrong. So again, if you don't want to roster Derek Henry, you have other options to go to a receiver. So that's very helpful. But the problem for me with always with the Packers is it's Devontae and really nobody else in Devontae Salary is always super high. That being said, I do kind of like Washington as an offense. I don't know what the trade rumors might be doing. They were in accurate according to reports. Yeah, but I mean. Chalker that there were incorrect reports out about Deshaun Watson. So like, this isn't just an offense I've been cool with for the most part. I would like if Antonio Gibson just rested up because I would play JD McKessick at 5,700. I don't think I'd get the Jared Patterson just because I don't know what the role will be. No, we've seen McKessick get enough work where even in neutral scripts where you'd have to think he's the lead guy, even if he doesn't handle a full on workload because he's just a smaller back. The salaries were the good and the game's good enough for that. And then we have Terry McClaren, 72, if he's good to go, Ricky Seales-Jones. So I mean, the way that I can just stack this is so narrow. Yeah, that doesn't get me excited. So you say you don't like doing comps. I do. So I'll give you a comp. I'm bad at comps. Okay, it's cool if you do them. I just don't buy or sell this comp. If Antonio Gibson sits, JD McKessick is Deandre Swift, effectively. Do you buy or sell that comp? I would say like a Deandre Swift minus buy about like 10%. That's fine because the salary is like 89% lower. So yeah. So yeah. Last year, I actually don't know if this is the stretch that Antonio Gibson missed. I'm just pulling games where he happened to have a big snap rate. But in three games where Gibson is out, McKessick hours 9.7 carries and eight targets per game. That is like 26 suggest opportunities per game with 86 yards per game. That's almost a Deandre Swift clone. Deandre Swift this year is at 25 just opportunities and 86 yards per game. So literally the exact same thing. So I would say if there's no Antonio Gibson, just treat JD McKessick as if he is Deandre Swift. If you look at early downs last week when Gibson left early, McKessick played 24 snaps in late downs for Washington. Gibson played 20 and Jared Patterson played two. So I'm not expecting an 80% snap rate where McKessick gets all the early down work, but I would expect him to get me nine to 10 carries plus eight targets. And that's very much enough to be viable even on a half PPR site because reception volume is so, so, so valuable even on fan duel. So I think McKessick, I was lower on him earlier in the week. The more I thought about it, the more I realized, okay, he's just Deandre Swift. Like that's what he is if there's no Antonio Gibson. Yeah. I mean, you made a case. I wouldn't have gone that heavy, but I mean, it makes sense. That's why I'm not good at comps. He scored 15 points last week with no touchdowns. That's awesome. I love that for running back. See the red zone work he's gotten this year. While I'm pulling that up, can you rank Devonte Booker, Miles Sanders and JD McKessick for me? Assuming no Gibson. Correct. And at salary, they're probably all about the same, so. Yeah, they're about the same. Yeah. If no Gibson, it might be McKessick first, Booker Sanders. That's close. Yeah, I think the McKessick's first for me. If there's no Gibson. I think that's the part I feel most confident in. I like the game post. Yeah. And then probably Sanders Booker, but like it's very close. I could go out. Were you definitive with going Booker over Sanders or was it pretty tight for you? It was tight. That's why it took me about 15 seconds of dead air to figure it out. The reason I went there is, and I like Miles Sanders plenty. I just would trust the higher snap rate for Booker. Yeah. Sanders seems like they want to get him going a little bit, but you never know. I would rather take what I've seen than the assumption of certain things because I feel like one of the easiest mistakes, one of the easiest traps to fall into with EFS is assuming and projecting what you see is what the coaches see and actually want to do. So I never try to do that, which is right. Often why my takes are pretty reserved. It should be. I mean, like it's a volatile sport. This is kind of off topic, but like with the Sanders versus Booker thing in the two games with no say, Quan Booker's average 64 yards per game whereas Sanders this year is a 65. I think that's kind of the key thing for me in Sanders favor is he's been there already and he could get a potential role expansion in terms of usage this week. Yeah. It's tough because like Miles Sanders is really good. Oh yeah, for sure. And I think a lot of people will be like, well, they're trying to get him the ball more. He's going to play more and he's really good. And it's like, sure. And I'm about to talk about this team. I think arrows up on this offense. So maybe we should just pop over there and see if before we do pump up my. You is a beautiful transition. I'm proud of you. But I took six years to learn how to do transitions. Sorry, you did a good job. I'm proud of you. Good hat on the head. Terry McLaurin would be a really good pivot if Gibson can't go because he will go to McKissack. The McLaurin, like we've seen Green Bay get shredded on deep balls since Jair Alexander got hurt. So I think like if I'm doing one line up, I got for McKissack straight up. But like if you're trying to get leverage, I think that McLaurin would be a really good pivot. I also do still like Ricky Seales-Jones to make he's healthy. I think it's $400 too. It's funny because I assumed McLaurin was just more of a pivot and kind of a priority as it is. So. OK, yeah, that's fair. OK, so now let's talk about Miles Sanders and transition to the trend section because the Eagles. Yeah, it was fine. The Eagles are getting Lane Johnson back this week. He missed the past couple of games due to personal matter, attending to his personal health. Now he is back. Dallas Goddard might be back. We don't know yet. Not sure yet. But you're going to talk about the impact of Lane Johnson who, Ricky Nudes, is very good at football. So I'm happy to see him back for lots of reasons. Yeah, and without Zach Hertz now, which is noteworthy. But yeah, with Johnson coming back, I wanted to dig into this team. And according to NFL's next gen stats, Jalen Hertz has since last season accrued 381 dropbacks in total, 279 without Johnson, 102 with him. The samples are kind of small, but they're not super tiny either. With Johnson on the field, Hertz has been pressured on 24% of his dropbacks, but 36% when Johnson's been out. So a 12-point gap there. The sac rate, 4.9% with Johnson, 7.2% without him. So over to their expected points added per dropback. Just a .02 with Johnson, which is not flawless, but a negative .1 without him, which very clear gap there. Success rate, 46% with, 38% without. The yards per attempt, 8.0 with and 6.8 without. So lots of good numbers there, doesn't make Jalen Hertz the league's best passer, but makes Jalen Hertz go from below average to above average. And I will take that with all of it, everything else it comes with, with this offense and with his rushing. So for me, I think that people are very quick to judge Jalen Hertz as a passer and I get it, but this should be a much better situation for him this week. And I wanna take advantage of people are assuming he's still really bad at passing the football, which again, could happen here, but the splits say, you want Lane Johnson out there. Seems like a pretty safe take. They just traded away Zach Hertz and Hertz actually has better splits when Hertz is off the field, which I just find funny. I've defended Zach Hertz on this podcast because they were giving him the ball enough, but efficiency wise, maybe it's a good thing. And with Hertz out, they should just free up targets for the other guys. It takes one proverbial mouth to feed off the field. I don't know if we don't know if Dallas Goddard is gonna play yet, but Hertz had a 16% target share this season, which was second best on the team. 21% of the red zone target share, both of those target shares are second best on the team. And in five games with Dallas Goddard, again, not clear to play just yet, but Devontae Smith leads the team with 23% of the targets, just a 7% red zone target share. So that's kind of the big drawback for Smith. And I liked Devontae Smith this week at a salary of 5,800, but no red zone work and the Raiders are good against receivers and limiting the downfield pass, but factoring in the expected efficiency bump here, I still like Smith plenty at the salary. Then it's Jalen Rager at 15% in those games with Goddard, but no red zone work. Kenny Gainwell's at 12%, followed up by Goddard and Miles Sanders at 11%. So for me, I think Jalen Hertz is a great play, which is not the boldest take, but I think he's gonna, what I'm saying is I think he's a better play than most people will realize with Johnson back. I also think that Devontae Smith, despite a tougher individual matchup, the clear number one as far as pass catchers go. And if we were to put extra stock into week six without Dallas Goddard and actually be Quest Watkins, but point being this game is pretty intriguing overall. And this could be one of those games where if I didn't dig in deeper, I'd say, well, Jalen Hertz just really isn't doing it. So I don't wanna fall into that trip, but there's a lot to like here. So we talked about Sanders, talked about Smith now, Hertz. What are your thoughts on the Eagles with Johnson back and this game overall? So if you were ranking out quarterbacks this week, the home was one, obviously. I would probably put Tannehill two due to the salary. That could be stupid, but like I think I'd probably put him two. And then I think it's either Lamar Jackson or Jalen Hertz three. Would you agree with that rough ranking? Yeah, doing our loves, I was almost there, although I don't wanna be, I don't wanna overlook Connor Murray either. It's really hard. The, yeah, so, but point, yeah, point being Hertz is in the conversation for possibly second, if you're low on Tannehill. Yeah, I think that it's Mahomes in a tier of his own and then those other guys are in that second tier. I'd agree with that. As far as Smith, he gets two things in his favor. It's the increased target share with no, or it's potentially, but also increased efficiency, which has kind of been the big bugaboo this year is that they have just haven't been efficient. So I feel like those are two big bumps in a game that should feature a lot of plays, you know, he's $1,500 range that I will be pretty often this week at wide receiver. So I feel like he's really good play again. I don't think I'll get to Quest Watkins. I think that there are signs that his role will increase, but will his role increase enough to be viable for DFS and a bad passing offense? Probably not there yet, but like, you know, I'll keep an eye on it. So to me, I think it's about Devante Smith and Miles Sanders. If we get, if Goddard gets cleared like Thursday, I don't know if he's had any negative tests yet, but like, if he's cleared Thursday, maybe I'll get there, but I like Higney more. I like get Sicki more in that same range pits about even. So I think I probably get to Goddard unless he gets cleared pretty early in the week. So to me, it's Miles Sanders, Devante Smith. It's probably just those two guys, but I feel pretty good about those two guys and I do feel good about Hearst as well. Yeah, so I mean, the reason that I think this is extra appealing is that this total is 49 and a half and the spread's three. So it's kind of one of the, I mean, if you were looking just process-wise, this game should be considered second with in terms of the games to high spreads or high totals, but close spreads. So where are you with the Raiders? I like Walls Royale. Yeah, because we were talking about Tannehill, the only other name that really jumped out to me that if I needed to save salary and had to get away from Tannehill would be Derek Carr. I don't think I could get there because there are a ton of high upside quarterbacks on the slate, but the sheer fact that I would even consider him probably tells me enough. So talking about the Raiders. I just don't like using quarterbacks who are not named Patrick Mahomes against defenses that play the style the Eagles do where they just want to limit their plays. That's really annoying. And that also hurts Henry Ruggs, who I think it has enough of a role to like be considered because he's like so explosive. So lower on Ruggs, lower on Carr due to the kind of defense the Eagles play, but Waller sets up really well. 24% of the overall targets so far this year, he has 25% of the deep targets. That doesn't matter as much this week given the way they play, but 35% in the red zone. So this is not a Darren Waller against the jet situation last year where I think you go for 40, but like I would say the odds that he's the highest scoring tight end is later pretty high relative to where they usually are. So I would say favorite Raider is Waller. I'm not entirely, should I say it? Should I say it? Say it. Not entirely opposed to Josh Jacobs. Yep. It's so painful. It's so painful. He's not playing well, that matters, but he's getting some targets. He's had five, five and one targets since he came back. He, let's see here. Since he came back, he has 48% of the team's red zone opportunities that is actually second on the slate behind Derek Henry, just above Aaron Jones. He's getting 22 adjust opportunities per game. Like they're rushing offense is really bad, but the Eagles rushing defense is really bad too. So like I want a lot more for net. I want more Daryl Williams, but I'm gonna have a non zero amount of Josh Jacobs. It's very similar to Miles Andrews where I already regret it, but like whatever I kind of feel like it's the right thing to do here. This honestly feels like I'm not comping these guys because they're very different and the way that they can get high ceilings is very different. But I was low on Jonathan Taylor last week, but that was a game that I should have been higher on. And I just talked about how this game has a high total and a close spread, but it's not necessarily one that I'm targeting because I like the offenses in the games with the larger spreads and obviously Kansas City, Tennessee. It just feels like one of those games that, you know, this is a four or five game. So it's not, I can't say it like a three, three o'clock, but like six o'clock, this game's trending toward the over and we kind of know mostly where the ball's going. It's like, should have been higher on this game and that should have put me on Josh Jacobs. So I have a little bit of FOMO with Jacobs, which is weird because he's not really a FOMO player. He's not a Bernie kind of guy, yeah. But like this game kind of has that like, yeah, everything just pointed toward playing this game. Yeah. I don't see if people are lower on it, which with KC, Tennessee being so popular, this game's probably gonna be a little bit overlooked anyway. So this is one of the games that I kind of have been honing in on a little bit more as I stare at this slate for the 40th hour this week. I have more FOMO than FOMO with Jacobs where I fear of being on, but like I think I'm gonna do it either way. It's FOMO with Miles Sanders too, but like I think both those guys are in consideration this week running back. Let's now talk about the heavily favored teams this week. And we know a bunch of teams are heavily favored here. That means we have to decide how to handle them. And in general, players on those teams are fine. Looking at it, cash game, sick. They're awesome because if you're gonna blow a team out, you gotta score points. So don't cross those guys off your list in cash games. And I think for small field tournaments too, they're totally fine. But for large field tournaments, I think there is a leeway to be underweight on them, relative to the field. That's backed up by the data. We can see this by comparing what the public does versus what works out well. So I compared popular players in the FanDuel Sunday Million last year versus players who wound up being in perfect FanDuel lineups. For quarterbacks, tight ends and defenses, it was the three most popular opposite position each week in the FanDuel Sunday Million. At running back and wide receiver, it was the top seven in roster rate. So popular players based on those parameters. I looked at how often players on teams or double digit favorites fell in each bucket, whether the popular or the perfect lineup. Overall last year, 6.1% of all teams were double digit favorites. That's the baseline, 6.1%. At quarterback, 11.8% of all perfect quarterbacks were double digit favorites, which almost doubled the baseline. That's very good. But it's also well short of the 19.6% of all popular quarterbacks who were heavy favorites. So those quarterbacks were good. They outperformed baseline, but the public over-invested in that position. Same is true at defense. There, 31.4% of all popular options were heavily favored versus 17.6% in perfect lineups. Running backs and receivers were actually in perfect lineups right around the baseline of 6.1%. Running back actually fell short of the baseline. Only 4.8% of all running backs and perfect lineups were heavily favored. It was 6.8% at wide receiver. Despite that, 13.4% of all popular running backs and 10.9% of all popular wide receivers came from that group. That's a pretty big gap. It was double, more than double at running back, a little bit more at wide receiver. I do think it means that players in those scripts are at those positions, running back and receiver specifically tend to be overvalued by the public. It mattered at least tight end. So there's looking at Tyler Higby again, what could go wrong? There, 11.8% of perfect tight ends were heavily favored compared to 13.7% of all popular tight ends. So if you're gonna care less about a spread, tight end is very much the best spot to do so. That's good for Higby. Would be good for Gronk if you were to play. It doesn't seem like he will, but I think that is a positive there. So these players are fine. At every position except for running back, they were in the perfect lineup at a higher rate than their baseline. That is good for cash gains. And like I said, good for small field tournaments, but for large field tournaments, I am okay being underweight on a lot of these guys as a result of the fact that they're probably not gonna get a lot of uses in the fourth quarter. There are exceptions here. Leonard Fornette is among my favorite running backs in the slate, Darrell Henderson, very good play. But I think overall, this is the right move to be underweighted in large field tournaments. So Brandon, how do you view this? Are you different from me in terms of how you view heavily favored teams? And how does that pertain to this specific slate where 40% of the favorite teams are heavy favorites? Yeah, that's the thing for me is I'm crossing off, you know, not crossing off because it's not what you said to do, but if I were to, let's just say, cross off the heavy favorites, I'd be crossing off the Cardinals, Rams, Bucks, if you could throw in the Packers there, I'm not gonna throw in the Patriots. I mean, you can cross them off for different reasons. That's a lot of key players there and that's problematic, especially the one that stands out to me most, I think, within the whole context of who's a heavy favorite and the position that he plays, Darrell Henderson. I would love him this week if the spread wasn't 15 and a half. So yeah, I'm gonna play some Henderson. The data says to be underweight on him, so I'm gonna trust that because I'm not smarter than the data. So overall, boy, this is tough because it just takes so many of the good teams, again, not off the board, but makes you really second-guess it. And so for Kyler specifically, jumping over to quarterback, I mean... So this is anecdotal, I've not researched this, but I worry less about the big spread when it's a quarterback who will run because that gives them more chances to have a rushing touchdown and that's kind of part of the appeal with Kyler. He doesn't know as much this year. I think that I worry about it less for him than I worry about it for Stafford. I think if we're gonna compare those two, I worry about it less for Kyler than Stafford. Yeah, although Stafford's got his own thing going on. So yeah, and I, boy. So where do you think it'll be with Kyler in terms of ranking the quarterbacks? So Mahomes, Tannehill, Hertz, Lamar, I'm probably not gonna play more than five quarterbacks. And that was four or five that I just listed, so I might not get there. Like I think that he's a fine player, but I might not get there just because I wanna keep my core so tight. Yeah, that's scary. I don't feel good about it, but... Yeah, I will say that since 2012, quarterbacks favored by double digits have at least, and especially against bottom six past the offenses which should apply to Kyler, they've overperformed in the odds that they get to 300 in three touchdowns. So Kyler's very much in play. Lamar, Kyler for you. Because Lamar's in a very low play volume game which we'll talk about in a second. Okay, I probably go Lamar, but I think it's close. Okay. I think it's close, that's what I'd say. I think that Kyler's in that second tier, but he's probably below the other guys just because I like those games more. So we'll see, I will not get to Stafford. That could be a mistake, but because he doesn't run, I do worry a bit about the script there. I think Henderson's totally fine. The issue that I have with Henderson is not him. It's the fact that I can get Fornette who is a usage clone of Henderson for $1,000 less. So I think that's the reason that I'll be, like I'll have Henderson, but I think he'll be, so I mentioned Jones will be like 10 to 15%, I think Henderson is probably around 20 to 25 for me or so, somewhere around there. Yeah, I'll definitely play Stafford though. Yeah, okay. Do you wanna do a bet on Stafford versus someone? Actually, no, that doesn't make sense because he's great for, like his median expectation would be very good. So that's a dumb bet. Don't listen to me. Let's go to your second trend now and talk about the Carolina Panthers with no Christian McCaffrey because they are a very different offense when Christian McCaffrey is not out there. So you're gonna talk about what they've looked like here, what we should do with them as they face the Giants here this week. Yeah, so I mentioned this already. The only games that we had not planned on touching on by the time I got to the sheet for my second trend was the Jets Patriots and the Giants Panthers. And so it's an easy call from there. So I wanted to dig into something about this Giants Panthers game. And I know we looked last week at the Panthers offense with McCaffrey, but I think it's time to look at them without McCaffrey. Now that we've got an extra week of data on Sam Darnold with the Panthers without Christian McCaffrey, they're favorite in this game by three points. So their implied team total sits at 23, which is 11th on the slate of 20 teams, which isn't enough to get you to wanna go there, especially with how Sam Darnold has played, but there are pieces in this offense that I don't think we just write off. That makes them relevant, at least way more relevant than the Patriots for context, despite the, you know, a higher implied team total by about 1.75 points for the Patriots, specifically that would be Chuba Hubbard and DJ Moore. We have a bigger sample of Sam Darnold splits again with without McCaffrey because we got last week and they're not great. He's averaging 6.5 yards per attempt without McCaffrey and 8.3 yards per attempt with McCaffrey, as well as a massive shift in next-gen stats is EPA per dropback, 0.30 with McCaffrey on the field minus 0.27 without McCaffrey, that's pretty substantial. And if we left it at that, I think we would say no Sam Darnold, no Panthers too big of an issue, but the Giants are 25th and Number Fires adjusted past defense metrics and Darnold over the past three games without McCaffrey, his face defenses that ranked second, 11th and 14th against the pass by Number Fires metrics. In the first three weeks with McCaffrey and at least temporarily in week three, they faced defense of the ranked 13th, 22nd and 28th. So I'm not saying McCaffrey is not a factor here, he is, but I think past defenses also factor in for as much as we wanna dislike Sam Darnold, we've seen him do some stuff against weaker past defenses. In total, Sam Darnold has played barely below expectation once you account for opponent adjustments, so it's not as bad as perception seems. It's a great matchup this week. The NFL average and Number Fires, passing that expected points per dropback metric as a 0.13 this season, the Giants have let up 0.30 per dropback and among all starters they've faced, they've held just one quarterback below average and that was Matt Ryan at a 0.08 when he had a 4.18 hot. He still got to 243 yards and two touchdowns. So I think Darnold is not someone I'm gonna play specifically, but I think there's enough here where we don't write off this offense, specifically with DJ Moore and Chuba Hubbard. DJ Moore's at a 29% target share in three games without McCaffrey. Robbie Anderson's kind of dusty with the 26% target share in those games, but each of those guys are averaging at least 2.3 downfield targets per game and a red zone target per game. DJ Moore is at a 39% red zone share and as for Hubbard, he's played almost 60% of the snaps in those three games without McCaffrey with a solid 25 adjusted opportunities per game. 22 last week, but lost our red zone rush to Tommy Tremble, which you hate to see. I forgot Tommy Tremble in Dynasty. Did you start him? No. Well, it's the best ball team. Oh, okay. I don't think he started despite the touchdown anyway, but you know, it's fine. And the Giants are a below average rush defense. So it's not the most glorious game, but it's a game that I think has more appeal than you would look at and see initially. So are you still way down on this offense or did I maybe convince you that better days are head for Donald? I still think they suck. So I think that like you can use more and you can use Hubbard because of the usage. I don't think I will use Hubbard. I think you can. I don't think I will. Just because the salary is too high at 73, like I honestly might go mixing over him, despite the fact Nixon's in a really tough matchup. Like they just signed Amir Abdullah this week. I wouldn't be shocked if Abdullah and Royce Freeman take away some passing game usage from him or actually don't know if they signed him. They had him in for a workout, but I think they're looking for a passing game back which could eat into his outlook a bit. So I probably won't get to Hubbard, but I think he can kind of make sense. I think Robbie is back at his old shopping grounds if you want to go for that, but I don't really care. He's just, I don't think he's good anymore. I don't know. Is that weird to like 11 yards and 11 targets last week? Like what is that? Not great. Not great. What is that? So it sounds like I'm hiring DJ more than you then. I think he's fine. He's hard for me to use him over like, let's see here. I'd rather, I'd much rather have Jamar Chase than DJ more. I'd rather have Calvin Ridley, 73. Marquis Brown at 73. McLaurin at 72. I think the workload is very good. I just don't think there's enough juice in said workload with this quarterback and with this offense playing the way it is for me to get there. I feel like I'm gonna get some, some slight vindication with Donald this week. Defined vindication. Like he doesn't turn the ball over 16 times. Like what's the baseline for goodness here? That he supports fantasy viable games for Chuba Hubbard and DJ Moore. Fantasy viable, sure. But high upside games. That's the, that's the, where I get hung up. Do you want to do it? We're just to the point. Tua versus Donald fantasy points. It's not about Donald specifically. It's about, can we go to Chuba Hubbard because we need running backs that like stand out. Let's find a, find a way to make this to a version of Donald by now. You're saying you like Calvin Ridley more and you like Terry McLaurin more. And we're just to the point where like Sam Darnold in a good matchup is way significantly worse than Taylor Heinecke and a Dusty Matt Ryan. Correct. That like- We're made of how I'd phrase that. What I'm saying is I don't think that we need to be that low on Darnold anymore from an efficiency split standpoint. That's my overall case. Agree to disagree. Can we do something with around Darnold and Tua? I don't know how you want to phrase it. It's a bet. It's like, that's all we can do. Like straight up fantasy points or what? Can you name me an alternative that makes any sense? Over what? You're saying, is there anything we can do between Tua? We can do passing that expected points. I'm not doing that kind of stuff. Okay. Well, I'll just do it, whatever. This is for fun. Yeah, you can do it, but like Darnold at 7700 is not a play I'm looking to make. Right. But like that's a good way to measure like overall fantasy or overall like production, I guess, is just like through fantasy points. I don't know. Would you want to do like a team total bet of Panthers versus Dolphins, maybe? Like who scores more points? Sure. Okay. Cool. So I have dolphins, you've got Panthers. What could go wrong? Let's move to my second trend now and talk about that Raven's Bengals game specifically because the usage is here. Good. The pace is terrible. It's a terrible game. You've got as the slowest game on the main slate and that doesn't matter a lot. One way to overcome that though is via concentrated usage and both teams in this game give us that. We've got four games here with all the Bengals pass catchers healthy in those games. Teagan's does have 24% of the targets while Jamar Chase is at 23%, but Chase has 72% of the deep targets in those four games. It's absurd. He's $7,500. I am very okay with that side for him. Joe Nixon, 26, adjusts opportunities per game in his full games this year. Sumajipi Rine is back. I just got acted from the cover list today. But that number ranks fourth in the slate in each back is most relevant sample and most of those came with Sumajipi Rine active. Nixon ranks fourth in yards per game and he was up to third if Damian Williams returns to the bears that would make Herbert's sample different for the bears. Send $200 for Nixon. I think that's fine. Baltimore has been awesome against the rush. So Nixon's not the top of my list, but I'm willing to use him due to the users that he gets for the Ravens. Only three guys had more than three targets. Last week, those were shot Bateman, Mark Andrews and Marquise Brown. Bateman and Andrews had six targets while Brown had five, but that wasn't a massively positive game script where they were able to run the football. The Bengals rank third in schedule adjusted rush defense, but are 17th against the pass. I think we'll see more passing here. It should be good. Brown is $7,300. I would expect people to stay away this week. I would not. Bateman's a great salary saver at $6,300 or $5,300. Might be one of the better value receivers in the slate. On fond of Andrews and 75, I might not get there because this game isn't as intriguing as some others where I can scoop some tight ends. So to me, we've got three very usable wide receivers here with Jamar Chase, Marquise Brown and Rashad Bateman, and I'm okay with Joe Nixon too. Lamar, I would say is top four for me a quarterback as well. So how are you viewing this game from a stacking perspective between the Ravens and the Bengals? I want to be higher on it, but I also want to be okay being lower on it because I would fully anticipate that my volume is low and you need plays or hyper efficiency to put up a lot of fandal points. The concern is that I always love Lamar. I like Marquise Brown at this point. I love Rashad Bateman at the salary. I like Mark Andrews with his workload, although it's a high number at $7,500 with that salary in a game where you might think that there's not a ton of plays. So it's almost like I got to talk myself into this game playing faster than everything tells me it will. I don't really like doing that. So I see the appeal and I have like simultaneously want to like this game, but I also want to, I want to not fall into that trap. Yeah. So like, does that mean you're totally off these guys or just not prioritizing them? Just not prioritizing them because this would be the type. Bateman? Bateman's probably the lone exception just because the salary is so low. But this is one of those games where I would probably say normally I would be like, no, there are a lot of key plays in this game and the pace won't be so bad because or the pace won't matter so much because they'll just be really efficient. And then this could just be one of those games where it's like 7-0 and halfway through the second quarter. Yeah. Well, I think that's why it's not a priority for me. But like, I think all these guys are very much in play just because the usage is so concentrated. Yes, but we have to balance this and the stackability of this game compared to the teams and the games with higher spreads. So like this is a key discussion. Give me a comparison here. Like who are we comparing against? So same total, Buccaneers and Ravens like same over under there at 47. So like the wide receivers like Godwin versus Marquise. So like which team are you more likely to stack? The Buccaneers and Ravens. I don't think I want to stack either because I don't want. Like I guess I could go Godwin and Mooney but like I just don't have any faith in the Bears. So it's, but it's not even a strict like bring back unless you're saying that you would never build a lineup with no bring backs. No, I would. Or would you rather play the Buccaneers and like Fornette and the receivers or the Ravens? If I had to rank them out between those two teams, Fornette is one, like easily one. Yeah. Then number two, like I think it'd be Godwin over Marquise Brown or like, and the Bateman's a different conversation because he's just a value receiver. But like, yeah, I'm going to play Chris Godwin over Marquise Brown, right? I think it's close. But I think that that also is an endorsement of Godwin because Godwin is 600 hours lower. So saying that it's close means that I'll probably be playing on Godwin, but I feel like for me, if I'm ranking up to those two, it's Fornette one, Bateman two, because of the salary, obviously. And then it's either Goodwin or Godwin or sorry, Goodwin. Marquise Goodwin. Wow. Marquise Brown, very different, although it is Marquise Goodwin against the Bucs, I think. I don't know if he's still there, but I don't keep track on Marquise Goodwin roster status all that close. So maybe, so I said, like we should compare these games to games with higher or higher spreads. I keep messing that up for whatever reason. Very similar game is like same total. Another tight spread is Falcons Dolphins. How does this game the Ravens Bengals compared to Falcons Dolphins for you? Well, the Falcons part of the appeal of the Falcons Dolphins game is that the salaries are pretty low. Yes. And I would say those guys are more under salaried. But you're you're not saying that you're not going to use any Marquise Brown and and and Jamar Chase, right? I'm not saying that I'm saying on the same page. I don't know. We're on the same page. I don't think their priorities is why they're brought up last, but like, I think that they're worthwhile despite the pace because the usage is so concentrated. Yes, but we were talking then about like the game overall and it's the type of game where I feel like maybe I should like it more, but simultaneously like it less because I know the play volume is low. I agree. Like that's that. Yeah, I agree. Like we're saying the same thing like that. That's the first thing I said is the pace is bad. That's the first thing I said is the pace is bad. Yes, but we have to contextualize that because we can say the pace is bad and we don't care and we want to load up on these guys. I'm not saying you did. I'm saying we need to like clarify. Okay. Yeah. Okay. To clarify, they're not priorities over other options on the slate, but I think that they're still in play despite the bad pace because the usage is so concentrated and within this game really narrow with. Yes. Brown Chase and Bateman mostly. Yes, I agree. So, okay. Yep. I'm on board, but the pace probably lowers you on the mark, correct? Yes. Would that be a difference maker? We go hurts over Lamar. I believe so. I think I am there as well. Weather for this slate doesn't look too bad. Nothing like last week, a couple games with some weather or some winds. Just check back on Sunday morning for team our power winds for dolphins Falcons 11 for Washington Green Bay and 11 for Bucks Bears. Right now, I don't care too much about any of those, but check back on those on Sunday morning. Let's go now to our position by position breakdown for the week seven main slave Brandon at quarterback. Who stands out to you? Before I even say that the Eagles activated Dallas Goddard from the COVID-19 list. That'll work. Welcome back Dallas. So quarterback, a lot of overlap this week for us. Patrick Mahomes. He's the number one play. He's been great despite facing one team outside the top 20 and past defense based on number fires, adjusted metrics in that game, which was last week you threw for 397 yards and two touchdowns. Tender 23rd against the pass 31st against the deep ball. And my second love is just Ryan Tannehill. I think he's the best value play of the week. Again, I already talked about this, but if you look at the full sample, there's not a whole lot to get you excited. If you account for the injuries, not a whole lot to get you excited, but if you adjust for the fact this is not a good past defense, you know, Tannehill has been fine in those games, especially with AJ Brown, again, doubling up the league average efficiency and those in that short sample. So I'm cool with that. And just because we have so much overlap, I also would love Jalen Hurts and Matthew Stafford to the point where I almost consider just talking about them. But yeah, my home's Tannehill or my number one in my home is my one two for the same reason you mentioned. I love him. They've five got one line up. My homes will be in it. If I had to go the second one, I did have Tannehill here, but because we talked about him, let's go to Jalen Hurts just really quickly. I think there's a lot of like consternation around Hurts because he keeps paying off in garbage time. But like in the garbage time is not always guaranteed, but part of the path to garbage time that happening is if he plays well earlier on and the odds he plays well with Lane Johnson back are higher. So to me, I don't really care too much that he's that most of his production is coming garbage time recently because the odds that he pays off before then are decently high because he's been good. Like he was not really in garbage time against Kansas City. Like that game was somewhat competitive throughout. He had 28 fan dual points there, 23 against Dallas, 22 against San Francisco, 29 against Atlanta. I think that he's just like a good fantasy quarterback and I'm just going to keep using him because I have no reason not to right now. So to me, it's definitive rankings. Mahomes, Tannehill Hurts is the way I'm going to rank it right now. Yeah, that's my top three as well. Okay, let's go to your running back. What you got there? So I'm going to go with Derek Henry. I think you have to strongly consider him. So my, my, I think where I'm settling is I want to be overweight on Henry. Assuming early it's Thursday, maybe 30% roster rate for him overall get up to about 40, 50%. Don't have to lock him in. It's a little bit too restrictive, but he's the guy on the slate, 33 adjusted opportunities per game, 87% of the team's red zone carries 71% snap rate, three targets per game. The Chiefs are 31st in rushing that expected points per carry allowed to running backs and in rushing success rate allowed to backs as well. My second love is I'm going to jump down to Chuba Hubbard. I know you don't like him this much, but I feel pretty good with this offense in this matchup. Going to take a chance here. Hubbard played 66% of the team's snaps last week, three targets on 19 routes, 50% of the red zone carries the past three weeks. I think that the role is enough to trust. I do prefer Leonard Fournette, but we already had so much overlap that I just didn't want to talk about him in detail. And my third love is going to be Miles Sanders. I think there's a lot to like about this offense as well with Lane Johnson back, maybe without Zach Ertz as well. Could kind of maybe up Miles Sanders is a touchdown expectation. The Raiders are 22nd in adjusted Fandal points per carry allowed to backs 25th and adjusted Fandal points per target allowed to backs and Sanders is coming off an 81% snap rate game. Three red zone carries four targets, including a downfield target, which I didn't realize, but I think arrows up on this offense and Miles Sanders, especially at that salary. I agree. I do like him as well. My top love is also Derek Henry at $11,000. I know the salary is high, but like the gap between him and everyone else is monstrous. He's 154 yards per game so far, like from scrimmage. He has 49% of the team's red zone opportunities in this season. I can get there and make it not suck. So I would like to. My number two love is Leonard Fornette because he's had a pretty clear role change the past couple of weeks in the past few games with Giovanni Bernard back. Fornette is still at 28 adjust opportunities per game. He has 119 yards per game. He's he's at a 34% red zone share, but it does help that they're getting a ton of red zone chances. The Bears ranked 20th against the rush. So I think Fornette is under salary and if I had to choose again between him and Henderson, they're very similar from a used perspective. Henderson gets fewer adjust opportunities per game and fewer yards per game pretty even in the red zone. So I'll just go for net. I think the Henderson definitely is someone I want to use, but I want to have a lot more for net to the salary and the fact that I think his role is a little bit better than Henderson's right now to my third love is going to be Devonte Booker and I still don't mind him, but I'm going to pivot to JD McKessack. I think that if we assume Gibson sits, if he doesn't sit, then I don't really need to go here. But if I assume that he sits again, I think that McKessack is basically just DeAndre Swift. He will get you nine to 10 carries. He will get you eight or so targets and at that salary. That's a lot, especially against a Green Bay defense that we do not fear in a spread that's been tightening high total. I think that game is pretty good. Again, I don't mind Booker and I will use him, but if I can get McKessack, he is my favorite lower salary back above Booker and above Sanders. I'd rank them McKessack. One Sanders to Booker three. That's where I'm settling out for now is my ranking there. Let's move to wide receiver. What you got there? Because I mentioned Henry and Mahomes. I can't mention Tyree kill, although it's very clearly a smash spot for him, but I'm going to go with AJ Brown at 7000. The Chiefs 29 against the past according to number fires metrics and Brown has played two top three defenses and two outside the top 20 in his full games, 109 air yards, 41 yards, which I know, but 25% of the targets, 39% of the air yards, 14% of the red zone targets in those games against more comfortable defenses. They got to involve him or they'll probably lose very quickly. Also considered Chris Godwin here to save some salary. Speaking of saving some salary, my second love is going to be Jalen Waddle. 5900 get a great workload last week. I know Davante Parker. I know they're getting healthier, but a 20% target share in five games prior to last week with a really bad a dot, which I don't think will stick because it's a quarterback change. 22% target share 10.2 yard a dot to downfield one red zone target in week one with two and Parker playing. So I don't feel that concerned about Waddle, especially after break out games really hard to kind of script him out just because of other guys getting healthy. And then we go with Davante Smith as my third love. Going back to the Welp here. But that's good. That's good. We just know he's the guy in Philly. They lost saccords. They got a huge upgrade to the offensive line. The main issue is efficiency, which I think should improve. But the issue outside of that that still lingers is that the Raiders have been really good against receivers and against the deep ball. But 5800 for a guy who should get who is just their number one and an offense that should be at least league average and passing efficiency. I'll take. Yeah, for sure. I think that both those guys Waddle and Smith work out well. Love AJ Brown at 7000. I want to go with Calvin Ridley is my top love here at wide receiver. Again, Tyree kills a given. Calvin Ridley has had insane volume when he's been out there this year. He has 27% of the overall targets 59% deep and 29% in the red zone. You don't get that usage for $7300 very often. The Dolphins corners should be back this week. But I don't think that should scare us too much. I think the Calvin Ridley is going to explode very, very soon. My number two love isn't that same game Devonte Parker sounds like he is trending towards playing. He had seven targets for 81 yards in his lone game with to a tongue of Iloa this year. He led the team with a 22 percent target share before his injury. He had 38% of the deep targets and he's not a separator, which again, we can, you know, talk about that with Tua and he does prefer that, but for $5600 if Parker gets in a full practice Friday, I will bite. If he doesn't play, I'll go back to waddle and feel fine about that. But I want to be in on Parker when he comes back. My third love is your shot Bateman just 29 yards in week six, but unique circumstance or he's facing the Chargers who sell out to stop the deep ball. And the moral is he didn't play his best game there, but Bateman in his first game had six targets, ran a bunch of routes. And the key thing is he was getting targets on third down, which means that to a trust him tool turned towards him. We're sorry. Lamar will turn towards him. Lamar trusts him. Sorry Lamar didn't mean that. And Bateman actually had more air yards than that game. The Marquis Brown. He's $5300 in a decent game. So I do like Bateman quite a bit for this week. Let's move to tight end. What you got there? Um, just for what it's worth to it does have a higher tight window throw percentage than we average since 2016. So again, narratives, narratives, narratives, well, also because he had receivers who can't separate. So you got sure that could be very right. Yeah. Um, I was the reason I brought that back up as I was considering Mike Kasicki, but I'm gonna go with Kyle Pitts at 6100. Um, in that same game, I think both are very viable. He's eighth in among all tight ends and target market share. Fifth and weighted targets per game, which accounts for downfield and red zone targets. I'm second behind Rob Gronkowski and red zone targets per game at the position in Miami's 18th against tight ends. Once adjusting for opponents faced so they're not an outlier by any means that I have to avoid. Uh, and then my second love is gonna be rookie sales Jones just for some value. He's run around on 90% of the football teams drop backs in two games without Logan Thomas. That mark would lead the position over that sample and also over the full season. They should have to throw um, and green base 25th and adjusted fandal points per target. A lot of tight ends. Yeah. RSJ also one of my loves. He did his practice Wednesday, but sounds like he should be good to go. Probably maintenance into the workload you mentioned. Uh, he's been out there a lot. So got a rest up. Uh, 18% of the team's targets in the two games with no Logan Thomas. Like you said, the Packers not a lead against tight ends. So, um, this tightening spread also positive for rookie sales Jones. So $54 to dollars. I'll go back to him assuming he's good to go. I also do want to go back to Tyler Higby. I think that Kisiki works once again at 6000, but Higby city, $500 gets you a ton of snaps. He has five plus targets and four out of six games this year. He has obvious touchdown upside given the matchup. As we discuss the trends tight ends art as dependent on a back and forth game as wide receivers and running back. So Higby. It hasn't worked out yet. It's kind of like the Devonte Smith with you saying going back to the Welp. Here we go. I think that that's applicable for Higby too, but I'm going to keep on doing it until I get a firm reason not to from a usage perspective. Let's finish up your defense. What you got there? I'm going to go with the Packers at 4100. They're still affordable. Definitely. Washington may or may not have ever been involved in some trade rumors. I think even the buzz that they maybe have been can't help the locker room. So, you know, it's a little bit read into things, but, you know, Antony Gibson's not a hundred. The team's not a hundred percent overall. So that's a big factor. Pro football focus does have Washington with a big offensive line advantage, which I don't love. I do think Green Bay is kind of overrated as a team. But they should still put up points against this bad Washington defense and that'll force them to throw and we want sacks and turnovers from our defenses. And Heineke's de-gaffer which helps too. So that will that's positive as well. I like the Giants defense. Sorry. I know you talked about San Darnold a lot, but he's kind of turned back into James Darnold without the positives that James provides. The Giants have not done anything on defense, but I would expect Leonard Williams to do well against the saw offensive line. Got a couple sacks last week again. I'm okay with the Jets defense at times. I know that's a stupid thing to say, but like they're thirty three hundred dollars. So I will have a non zero number of Jets shares. I think the chiefs work at times against the Titans. They played better last week. Chris Jones, you back this week. Made some defensive personnel changes to saw some chiefs and then other teams. I'm okay with Miami Green Bay Ravens and Bucks. It's a good week differentiated defense is what I would say. If you need to spend down to get to Henry, I think the Giants and the Jets both work. What could go wrong and trusting those two teams? That is all that we have here for today on the week seven preview podcast. But if you want more Brandon, he is back with you on Thursday. Do you are Thursday football preview? You could talk Kase Keenum versus Teddy Bridgewater. Oh boy, should be fun. You were doing that at 4 p.m. on the Fando YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Twitter pages. We also have our snake draft, which Brandon won last week. That is tomorrow, Friday at 4 p.m. Eastern YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Twitter. We also have NHL and then the ADFS podcast back here on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast via Tom Vecchio. We got PGA. We got NASCAR, UFC. We've got it all right here on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed. So make sure you are subscribed. And 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 am at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the Fando podcast network at Fando podcast. Big thank you to ever for tuning in for this week. Good luck to you in week seven. We'll talk to you once again on Monday. Drap it all up. This has been the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.