 I think we say this every year, but I believe that week two is my favorite slate of the year outside of like Thanksgiving and stuff like that for NFL DFS because we got a little bit of info, a little bit of data to lean on. We're not totally projecting what these guys will do from a workload perspective, but it's also not enough data to prohibit ourselves from over or under reacting. And that to me, I think is a good spot where paying attention gives you a big leg up. And that's what we got here for this week and week number two for NFL DFS. We're gonna break down this entire slate, let you know where we are seeing value over at Fanduel.com and outline our favorite plays for the week two main slate. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast. That's right here on the Fanduel podcast network and Fanduel research. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a managing editor of digital media for Fanduel research joined here as always by branding Adula. He is a senior managing editor for Fanduel research in Brandon. We are on to week number two. I think it's one of your favorite slates to if I recall correctly, how are you doing today? Yeah, week one definitely wasn't my favorite, but yeah, like week two, we get that week of data to dig through. You know, we're not, we're always digging through sort of the detailed usage, downfield targets, red zone work, not just reacting to the touchdowns. If anything, I'm always trying to, I have a column in my spreadsheet for players who scored last week. We've talked about this in our trend section in the past or I have, I think I find it interesting, but players who score one week to the next trying to make sure that we're not chasing that because historically they scored a lower rate or the same long-term rate. So that said, it's one of those weeks where we have a lot of info, a lot more info than we had with week one. Not everything's sticky, but a lot of it kind of is, depending on like per route numbers, per carry numbers, like that stuff adds up quicker than per game numbers. So yeah, I like it. It gets to kind of filter my, what happened with how I'm seeing things and how everyone else is seeing things. So it's really interesting, but week two is always, where we do some of our deepest analysis and deepest thinking. Hopefully best analysis and best thinking too, but no promises on that part. We're gonna talk about some of the stickiness stuff Brandon discussed in the trend section later on, outlining which data we should care most about from week one when trying to project week two, whether we should care about what happened in week one as far as overall offenses and much more to outline this slate. But first, a reminder to make sure you're subscribed to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts, the solo shot for MLB DFS is still cooking every weekday with Tom Vecchio, providing his insights on that day's MLB DFS slate that is up on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed along with the Fandall YouTube page and Fandall TV Plus. You can also get USC podcasts for select cards via Austin Swame all right here. It's exact same feed, twice weekly on a fellow shows. We recap on Monday preview on Thursday. As mentioned, we are on Fandall TV Plus now. You can find that by going to fandall.com slash watch or downloading Fandall TV Plus. Apple Fire, Amazon Fire, Apple TV and Roku devices. You can watch up in Adams there live by logging into your Fandall account. You can watch the covering, the spread. You can watch primetime Tom where Tom Vecchio breaks down each Thursday night game all over on Fandall TV Plus. We also do have a free play once again this week in case you missed the announcement last week we're running free plays to celebrate the birth, I don't know, a Fandall research. I don't know the right verb there. We're gonna go birth, it's not verb but noun. The birth of Fandall research. Stop smiling, editor. Senior editor, sorry, senior managing editor, sorry. The birth of Fandall research, I'm just gonna lean into it. To celebrate the birth of Fandall research we have a free play every week over on Fandall research for all of you glorious listeners. So go to fandall.com slash research. There is a post there with a link to this week's free play to get yourself entered and get yourselves some free free cash. Get ready for the NFL season with incredible offers from Fandall. America's number one sports book right now. New customers can bet $5, get $200 in bonus bets guarantee. Plus all customers, yes you dear listener who bet $5 will get $100 off NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube and YouTube TV. Now is the best time to join Fandall. The app is easy to use so you can bet on everything from spreads to player props and more Fandall official partner at the NFL. Must be 21 plus and president select states. Fandall is offering online sports wagering in Kansas under an agreement with Kansas Star Casino LLC. First online real money wager only $10 first deposit required bonus issued is non-littrable bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply see terms at sportsbook.fandall.com gambling problem call 1-800-Gambler or visit fandall.com slash RG in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Tennessee and Virginia. Call 1-800 next step or text next step to 533-42 in Arizona. 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org that's dedicated. 1-800-9 with it in Indiana. 1-800-522-4700 visit kscandleyhealth.com in Kansas. 1-877-770-stop in Louisiana. Visit mdgamblinghealth.org in Maryland. 1-800-gambler.net in West Virginia. Call 1-800-522-4700 in Wyoming. Hope is here, visit gamblinghealthline.ma.org or call 800-327-5050 or 247-Support in Massachusetts. Call 1-877-8Hope and Y or text Hope and Y in New York. NFL Sunday ticket offer ends 9-18-23. That is Monday, just to clarify, ends Monday. No refunds, terms and embargoes apply $100 off NFL Sunday ticket, not YouTube TV. YouTube TV base plan required to watch YouTube TV. Redemption requires a Google account and current form of payment. Commercial use is excluded. Let's dive in now to this week number two main slate by talking about our slate over here, Brandon, for week two. When you look at this main slate, week two, what is the key thing that stands out for you? Trying to figure out how to balance a lot of what we would call low-end running backs, running backs with salaries in like the mid to low 6,000s and how they stack up compared to the higher-salary backs. And you can't really talk about a lineup or roster or construction without all the pieces going together, but the running backs specifically kind of saw some interesting usage as sort of just the general trend where anyone who's listened to us for a long time knows that we used to just prioritize high-salary backs because they were the guys with 85 plus percent snap rates, tons of workload, like the workload just was untouchable compared to like the other sort of backs and committees, but we don't really have a lot of that. Christian McCaffrey I think deserves like some attention of his own, but the salary of 9,500 makes it really hard to do a lot of different stuff. And with the potential, I guess I'll say, the potential of Travis Kelsey and Mark Andrews on this slate. I might need some salary for tight ends, big name quarterbacks at high salaries on the slate. So I think the thing for me is really figuring out which of the running backs, I'll call it non-elite salaries I can trust because there's a big risk of having like six plus names down there that I just like will through. And there's nothing inherently wrong if you just wanna play a lot of different names and get exposure to a lot of different players, but taking stands is really important for tournament building purposes. And if you're playing everyone, you're not really playing anyone. So I think for me, everything boils down to which of those low-salary backs I can trust. Yeah, and I think that your thought process ties into my key thing for this slate too, which is the high salary tight ends. And it's because I think we do have some availability as far as the lower-salary backs, but also there's no Justin Jefferson on the slate. There's no Tyreek Hill, no Jalen Waddle, no AJ Brown. We're missing a lot of key guys at receiver on this slate. So if we think we have salary savings, we can get at running back and we don't need to have the FOMO with Jefferson and Hill, it does allow us to get to the tight ends. So it's assessing, are they worth it? Are they healthy enough to be worth it with Kelsey and with Andrews? My hope is they are because I think my ideal approach for this slate would be to get to them given that they're both in games I like, they're both tremendous from a usage perspective. So I would really like to get there. But it, and to me it doesn't, for once doesn't come down to do out of the value. I think I've got the value it comes down to, are they worth prioritizing after you consider the health? And again, my hope there is that the answer winds up being yes, I just don't know if that's necessarily a guarantee based on where things are at right now. But again, I think the low salary backs are kind of, they kind of tie into that pretty well. I feel better with Kelsey because even though the Chiefs lost, I don't think they're gonna, I think they kind of made their decision that they're not gonna rush them back. Right. If they didn't make them play on the opener. It's something like he pushed to play, which to me implies that like, he wasn't that far away. Yeah. And that was an earlier game on Thursday. So an extra talking extra rest already in the week too, but that was one of those situations where it got some, you know, maybe if that game was on Sunday, he would have been able to play. We don't know. We still limited in practice Wednesday, but you know, I feel a little bit better about Kelsey than Andrew's also because Zay flowers looked like the real deal. The Chiefs did not have anyone step up to fill the void left behind by Travis Kelsey. So yeah, I think it's a, I think it's fascinating. And just to sort of put a bow on this conversation, the reason that another reason that we always like to sort of allocate a lot of salary for running backs is those guaranteed workloads. And while we don't have a lot of those, we actually have kind of viable, we're like, we're always kind of the viable, lower salary running backs. Sometimes it's just tons of workloads. So I always think of it as like, people like analytics don't hate running the football. They hate running the football inefficiently. Right. So I don't want to like dig into, I don't know, like an Antonio Gibson like type of timeshare whenever we have like one A's who are in the low 6,000. This is a very different situation. Yeah. One A's or even like ones who aren't like full feature backs. And I think we get that this week. Like Rashad, why does a salary in the pretty low 6,000 range? James Cook is I think kind of similar where it's not like a, he's not a, you know, a full on feature back, but like, you know, he gets enough work for us to view him as being like a very viable option where you're not just kind of wish casting that he winds up getting a lot of work. So I think that this is kind of a nice slate in that regard where we have, like we've talked a lot about how typically we as a, like the royal we as DFS players are pretty good about identifying which lower salary backs we want to use. And I think that is a key thing to keep in mind for today's slate. So let's dive in now and talk some injuries here across week number two. And unfortunately this list is already pretty long. Austin Eckler didn't practice Wednesday, both due to his ankle injury in the funeral of his agent Cameron Weiss. So unfortunate situation there, of course with Eckler as far as the ankle goes, they're going to evaluate that on Thursday with him being back in the building. So we don't really know what Eckler status looks like. So let's say Eckler sits Brandon, tough match up here with the Titans who are very good against the rush, but Kelly really good workload this past week, looked effective, this Chargers rush offense had life and juice for the first time in, since like Lydian Tomlinson. So how would you do Kelly at 63 if Eckler can't go? Well, I just point out that Austin Eckler has like a thousand touchdowns over the past two seasons. So I think that some people would say the, the Chargers rush. The non-Eckler pieces in the, in the Russian offense were effective. I just wanted to. That's a fair, no, a fair thing to point out, you're very right. Okay. Yeah. I think that if we get, if we get Eckler completely out, Kelly is firmly in the conversation. Again, he's one of those names in that range with some appeal. Don't love the matchup. Definitely like the salary. Hit what, like a 31% first half snap rate. But if there's no Eckler, obviously he's going to be the go-to guy. I think the bigger question for me, because I think there's nothing you're going to convince me of that he's a substantially better player than any, like a certain other names down there is if we get Eckler, are we prioritizing him again? Cause. I think the matchup allows us to be a bit more, why say fair with it? Just because like, it's a really tough spot. Tennessee's defense is, I would say among the best in football, which is why I'd be hesitant with Eckler, but that wouldn't scare me that much with Kelly. Like I, should I admit this, but I used Jamal Williams last week against Titans. You know, oops, mistake there on my part. Maybe I shouldn't admit that. Anyway, I did. But Kelly's salary is 63. So for him, it's one thing. For Eckler, when you're fighting with like, you know, Christian McCaffrey from a salary perspective, that's a bit different. So I would say, I might wind up having a couple of game stacks to this game. Maybe I wound up getting to Eckler there. But as far as Kelly, I think that he's probably the guy I would go to and feel pretty good about it. If we don't get Eckler. Who are you running a back with for the Titans? So Deandre Hopkins is banged up. If you look one down in the injury sheet. Deandre Hopkins did not practice on Thursday. Wrong button or Jim. Deandre Hopkins did not practice on Thursday because of an ankle injury. They're facing the chargers. The defense looked pretty leaky in week one, but was that a chargers defense or was that Terry kill to a tongue of Iloa? I haven't seen concern on Hopkins yet. So let's assume he plays any interest for you on Hopkins. And then if Hopkins can't go any interest in Traylon Birx or Chiga Conquo here. I don't mind the salary of 7,100. Hopkins was definitely the guy. 39% target share. So there were two receivers or two pass catchers in general who had over a 40% target share. Both workies coincidentally. But Hopkins, the 13 targets, tons of air yards. No real issues with that. If he's out though, I think we're probably gonna get like a chief sort of situation where nobody necessarily benefits from it. Like Nick Westbrook, a Kine was second on the team in targets with seven. Birx was coming off an injury though. So like, I feel like he'd probably like, actually, I just think I'd go with Conquo, honestly. Just because, go ahead, yeah. Go ahead. I think that he's a tight end. And like, if I can get a tight end to his recently likely to earn targets in a bad game or in an OK game, I feel like I would go with Conquo. No, I think Chiga Conquo is a tight end as well. That is a statement of fact. But no, Traylon Birx, 92% route rate last week. You know, you can make the case that he can get work back in. I just, I feel like it's one of those where you might have three, like, cause for me, I think Westbrook and Kine would be like, I know, you don't like him. He's a RGHBAB, rather get hit by a bus. RGHBAB, he is like the poster boy for it. 54, Salary. Sorry, the poster boy is James Conner. Poster boy is 2023, James Conner. Poster boy is 2022, Damian Pierce. So they're Westbrook and Kine and Traylon Birx, Salary both 5,400. I would go with, it's one of those where I feel like it's a salary-based play and I'm playing someone because of the salary, not because I necessarily want to play them. I might have to though. So like, you know, I need value somewhere and it's not a bad game. That's why I'm at least taking a look at them. Let's talk to you about the Chiefs. Travis Kelsey got in a limited practice on Wednesday with his knee injury. Reportedly wanted to play last week, but was not allowed to do so. We'll talk about that game in the bookmaking section. Christian Watson and Aaron Jones, both missed practice on Wednesday. Jones picked up a hamstring injury in week number one, scoring a long, beautiful touchdown. Watson sat that game out due to his hamstring injury, kind of discouraging, I would say, that he didn't practice Wednesday because it sounded like reports were that he might be able to go this week, but typically if it got misses a game, doesn't practice Wednesday, that's not the best sign. If Jones can't go, I don't want to speak for you, but I feel like, I'd feel pretty firm in saying we'd both be on AJ Dillon then, but what about the pass catchers? Potentially, if Watson can't go again? Yeah, I'm kind of an AJ Dillon guy, but yeah, his salary's always pretty elevated or reactionary, 7,000, I'd get there in this matchup, although this matchup probably is gonna have 50 total pass attempts. Potentially. About 25 from each team. The pass catchers though, Luke Musgrave, really interesting role, but nobody, it's, I don't wanna just call everyone the chiefs now, but everyone got a slice, only Musgrave had better than a 65% route rate. If they don't have a homes, they're not the chiefs because I'm only to deal with frustration with the chiefs. If it's a different team, they're not the chiefs, I'm not gonna bother with them. So then they're the historical cults of recent years. No, they're the patriots. The patriots are the new, what's the point? Why am I wasting my time with this team? So yeah, I mean, everyone got a slice, and I know there's a blowout, but even the first half snaps, Musgrave was at 93% in the first half, Aaron Jones, 75%, and nobody else cracked a 65% first half snap rate among the skill players. So it's just tough to allocate salary to an offense that is doing that. I think the one difference for me is Romeo Dobbs. His salary is 63, so it's not like he's like a massive, massive value play, but he was coming off an injury himself and didn't practice until towards the end of last week, last week, and now got in a limited session Wednesday. So it should be healthier this time around. And Dobbs had a couple touchdowns in that game. We saw a pretty good rapport between him and Jordan Love during the preseason. So I know like the snaps weren't there and the target, like the yardage was not there, but they used him in key situations and love went his way. So I would say, especially if Dobbs gets into full practice by Friday, that could be a spot where I'm pretty into him as far as past catches on the scene. I would consider him also great too, if I'm being fully, fully honest. Just counterpoint, had two end zone targets, which is great, caught both of them, which is obviously great. But if he had five targets for 26 yards and didn't score, would you feel the same way? I would feel the same way because of the fact that he is coming off an injury and like that can explain the low usage. So that's the answer for me. I'm here to ask questions. Yeah, I'm just here asking questions, man. The Ravens are elevating Melvin Gordon from the practice squad with J.K. Dobbins done for the season when they torn Achilles. Justice Hill and Gus Edwards split work after Dobbins' injury in week one. So it's a three headed backfield. Brandon, can I safely cross off this backfield and ignore it for the rest of eternity? Yeah, this is basically the stuff that I was referring to. Like this is more of a cross off. This is a 1A, 1B, 1C. It's like a 3A, 3B, 3C for me because Lamar is 1 and 2. And the Ravens never give anyone elevated work. They kind of put J.K. Dobbins into that. Like he could get a 45% snap rate. So he's our guy. It's a bummer because he actually was playing every snap before his injury. So like that stinks. It stinks for him, but like also stinks for us. His part is more important than us. But Devontae Adams' practice Wednesday with a foot injury. Jacoby Myers didn't practice because of a concussion and I don't think he's gonna play this week. So I love Adams if he's able to go. Brandon, does the fact that he's now on the injured report concern you at all with Devontae Adams facing the bills? I don't think Devontae needs to practice. I think he'll be all right. I just need a full practice Friday, please. Like, full by Friday. Our band is fully back in form already. Zack Wilson will start for the Jets. They're in Rogers out there on the road and facing the Cowboys. Breeze Hall looked awesome week one. Garrett Wilson caught a disgusting touchdown, but they're facing the Cowboys. This might be the two best defenses in football. So are the Jets every single one of them out of play with Wilson starting? The only case you can make is that you wanna stack, like you wanna play the Cowboys offense. So you just take shares, but it's game stacks only and realistically, I'll put it this way. I haven't even looked at any of the Jets' salaries, because I don't wanna, I'm trying to be better of looking at the games and the usage and just be like, oh, I wanna play this player. What's his salary? Not, let me look at everyone's salaries and then get tempted by that. So I'm probably gonna come into this season a lot more like I don't even know what this player's salary is and I'm fine with that. I agree. And also the salaries were set before the Rogers injury. So they don't account for that. That's true, yeah. So that's part of it too. I think the over is in play in this game, but that does not mean I want to stack it. Brandon Cooks missed practice Wednesday with a knee injury. Mike McCarthy said Cooks has a chance to play, but that's kind of a grim answer for a Wednesday. They face a very good Jets defense. So with taking Cooks out of the equation, increase your interest in any of the Cowboys skill guys. I really like Tony Pollard this week. I'll never say no outright to CDLAM if I like the whole game environment, but other than that, our guy, Michael Gallup, was running some rounds, didn't get a whole lot of usage. This team really spread things out. Michael Gallup's story. What's that? That's the Michael Gallup story. Yeah, that's true. I mean, Jake Ferguson got a ton of targets on limited, he got a target on half of his routes, which is sick. And 11 yards on seven targets, which is also pretty sick. Two of them. Yeah. I feel like with the Jets defense being as good as it is, I don't need to worry too much about this one. It's a very low total. Again, I like the over, but it's 38 and a half for a reason. I think that Pollard's the one guy I'm okay with. And honestly, even with Pollard, if I'm at 8,000, I know it's a big gap between 8,095, but I'd rather just try to find a way to get to McAfrey instead of going for Pollard there. I will probably use Pollard, most likely, but you know. I'll chalk this one up to the Jets, well, I guess, I don't know. I don't know what I'll chalk this up to, but the next gen stats, their catch rate over expectation numbers had every cowboy at at least double digits below expectation other than CD lamb, who was a plus 20.6. Well, they were up 40 before they got in the field, so they weren't really trying too hard, I don't think at that point. But yeah, it's a weird team. Jerry Judy sounds like he is on track to play this week. Nobody really separated in that offense with Adam last week, like even Cortland Sutton needs to cut a touchdown, but like, so they get the commanders this time around, tougher defense. Any Broncos on your wish list this week? You know, I was optimistic about the Broncos. I'm not gonna write them off after one week, but I talked a lot last year about how their like ceiling was like 23 points and they basically were, they're a team that scores like 16 points a lot and like that's not a super common number. It just feels like they're scored 16 to 19 points, not really breaking 20. I don't know. I don't think there's enough upside. I think there's too many, it's a combination of too many players with potential, but not enough offensive upside to take the dispersed target shares. Where are you on Givante Williams? His salary is $6,400 and Williams in week number one, 13 carries and six targets, which is actually a pretty good workload, didn't do a lot with it, which is concerning because it's a tougher defense this time around, but I feel like the snap limit or whatever, the snap counties on should increase as the year goes along. I think he's one of those guys in the mix in the low 6,000 range. Where do you settle in on him specifically? In the mix, but again, probably on the low end of that because I can make the case to cut him out. Actually, lead the team in targets, 19% target share, one of two red zone carries. I just, again, it comes down to the offensive upside. I just don't know if it's there where he's gonna, I mean, let's get, let's turn into like a breeze hall kind of situation where he just makes everything happen himself. I think I can do better. Yeah, I'm a bit higher in him than you are, I think, but I understand your concerns. Finally, Zach Moss practice in full Wednesday and should be able to return from his arm injury. Now, typically I would just say, cool, we can cross off this backfield, but Evan Hall is on IR, rest in peace, my beautiful, beautiful son. Deon Jackson had 13 carries and 14 yards and lost two fumbles on Sunday, not ideal. Is there enough f-wordiness in the backfield for the Colts for you to consider Zach Moss in 61 now that he's healthy? This is, this feels like one of those ones where no matter what I do, it's wrong. Like, I'm like, there's not a chance I'm playing Zach Moss and then he has like a 95% snap rate and scores twice or I talk myself into it and he's just split in work with anyone who can. So I don't know, again, it comes down to the offensive upside here. I think we just have better potential options in this range that I don't wanna guess. Yeah. That's something we talk about a lot on our RP to the joint recap show, but- It's me talking to myself for 54 minutes. We went a little longer than, I was like, oh, it'll be half an hour and it's 54 minutes later. Oops. We typically talk about not guessing in DFS. Like you can guess in season long if you need like replacements, but you don't have to guess in DFS. That's the whole point. Yeah. Especially this week when there are guys in the low 6,000 range where you're not guessing. Yeah. One good question from William over on YouTube asking about Trowman. We talked about the Broncos and there's no Greg Dalsich. Dalsich gonna miss this game with a hamstring injury. And Trowman had pretty good usage in week one. My concern is that will he consolidate any targets given that Judy is likely back and Trowman is kind of, you know, it's like a different position effectively than Dalsich. So I think it's a good question. Trowman's salary is $4,600. So it's a decent question to be like, should we be on Trowman here? I think I like other low salary tight ends more, bring any interest for you and Trowman given how bad that position is. So it's bad outside of potentially two guys. And I think, you know, if you're playing Adam Trowman you're betting against Travis Kelsey and Mark Andrews having a big game. We'll have more information obviously by Sunday, what their status is. As of right now, I think you could do a lot worse than Trowman. 71% snap rate, 56% route rate as kind of expected he's gonna do some pass blocking. 3.1 yard ADOT, average depth of target. I don't think there's a lot of juice on his targets. So you're kind of banking on like a five or six target, 45 yard touchdown game. Which can get it done at tight end, but. Which can get it, yeah. As we're gonna talk about here in a little bit based on week one, not even just the results but like week one underlying data at the position pretty bad. So I don't hate it. I don't hate it either. I think it's a fair question to ask at least. Okay, let's move into the bookmaker section here and talk about games to stand out from a bookmaking perspective. Four week number two with the first one being the Jags and the Chiefs. The Chiefs are in Jags and they'll total here as 51 and a half. Chiefs are favored by three and a half but the muddy line had been inching towards the Jags and then this morning went back towards Kansas City. Travis Kelsey got into the limited practice on Wednesday. So looks like he is trending toward playing. I am far more into this game than I was into Dolphins Chargers last week from May and overall like game environment perspective. The problem is I have less of an idea of where the ball is going, specifically on one side in this game than I did in that game. So Brandon, what's your read here on Chiefs and Jaguars? Yeah, I like it a lot. You can kind of look at the like a Chiefs offense two ways, one being, well, there's not enough. We don't know enough about where the ball is going to get there or well, we know the ball is going to Travis Kelsey if he's healthy and that makes it a lot simpler. I'm a little bit more on the ladder there where like if Kelsey's healthy, I'll get there. I'm not gonna take any swipes at other Chiefs receivers. That was just such a shared offense. Even the route numbers are just, they're low, they're dispersed. I'm not gonna get there. I guess potentially we talk about Pacheco, but I'm never, I like his talent. I think he's a fun runner, but overall I'm typically I'm low on him for DFS because the single game upside is pretty limited. Yeah. But I mean, Mahomes, Kelsey stacks are very viable with the amount of the value we have at running back. So that's where I am with the Chiefs. What about you? Yeah, I think that, I wanna ask you like, let's say Kelsey is like good to go, like confirmed good. How big of a priority is he for you? He's big. Yeah, I agree. That's where I settle in and like, it just makes stacking this game a lot easier because I can go with a Lawrence Ridley Kelsey stack and make that work based on the value we have at running back for this week. And I think like, if you give me one single entry dart that might be the build I go with is Lawrence Ridley Kelsey because the projected target shares, those guys are very good. I think Trevor Lawrence as a quarterback is very good. His salary is good at 78. So, I don't think this, so like we talk a lot about how at times my process is hit the combos of a game stack, you know, Lawrence Ridley Skymore, Lawrence Ridley, Kidarius, Tony, whatever it may be. I think this one might just be, I have a template and then I build around that template and just kind of go bananas with that and hope that it hits. And if it doesn't then whatever, I wasn't gonna be able to predict Rishi Rice suddenly seeing a ton of snaps and they played well on Thursday. So I feel like for me, this is a bit of a different game stack where I just build around the core guys I know will get work and then find value elsewhere. Would you, so Pacheco's salary is only 5,700. Would you play him in game stacks? I think so. Would you play him out of game stacks? Probably not. Like more targets. Pacheco or Jameer Gibbs? It should be Pacheco. I mean, the reports on Gibbs are that he's gonna play more but I don't know if that means he's gonna overtake anything. Pacheco's already in that 1A position. Yeah. He got the four targets despite not starting that game despite the fact CEH mixed in a pretty decent amount. Like I think that there are reasons to like Pacheco for game stacks. Yeah. But I don't know if I'll get beyond that because like he's close enough to Rashad White, other guys where, you know, I kind of rather would just not deal with it. I think in stacks on there, other than that probably not. Yeah. Cause I need this game to be the game with all of the points. I think the one receiver on the cheese someone uses Marquess Valdez scantlin just because I can feel most secure that he'll actually play. I hate MBS. No, that's why I'm laughing. He was a firm RGHBAB player last year but anyway, two targets in week one. But like of the guys, he is the least likely to just not exist. Yeah. 28 routes. Oh my gosh. He had 28, Skymore 23, nobody else more than 15. We know that he can get downfield work. So yeah, you know, we haven't talked about this yet this year. I don't think to this degree, but for me, downfield targets are at least 10 yards downfield, but two targets means more whenever they're downfield targets, just on average, you got to kind of account for that. His eight, I was over 22 yards. Like it's, and it's wrong to think it only takes one catch for someone. If he gets like three or four downfield targets, he could get to like 70 yards in a touchdown. Right. You want a little bit more than that, but... 85 and two is like the threshold. Like I need to be able to get to either 85 yards or two touchdowns, but I feel like MVS can get me 85. That's why I'm okay with him. All right, so who's down here? Nukua or MVS? Nukua, despite the matchup. Like outside of game stacks. In game stacks, I'm fine with MVS, but outside of game stacks, Nukua. Gallop, assuming Cooks is out. MVS. Okay. I feel weird that I can answer this so quickly. Like, am I too firm in this for a Thursday? But... No. Are you using Kaderios, Tony or Skymore? No. Cool, let's leave it there. What about the Jags side of things? I won't talk about the stupid team anymore. The Jags side of things, Calvin Ridley went bananas on Sunday, which is fantastic. Zay Jones though, was still in the mix of 63. Christian Kirk snap rate plummeted, playing exclusively in two receiver sets, but I feel like we could see a game plan where they use three receivers more in this one than they did in week one against the Colts. So, and then of course there is Evan Engram there as well. And ETN actually finally got receiving work at 82. So I would say Ridley is viable everywhere, not just game stacks. Yes. I think Zay Jones is somewhat viable beyond game stacks. And like I'm willing to consider him at 63. Yeah. ETN, I think because the salary went up and he lost goal on where to take Bigsby. He's more of like a game stacks only kind of guy for me, but I'm okay with him for game stacks. Kind of like Eckler last week, where like for game stacks, sure I'm fine with him, but beyond game stacks might be kind of hard to get to. What's your read on the Jags side of things? Love Lawrence. For ETN I think it's right where it's game stacks because you do kind of need things that go right for him. Tank didn't have the best start, let's just say, but was still involved, which I think is very, very telling. That salary, there's really no room for error for ETN. Correct. Ridley, 34% target share, love that. I think with Kirk, that's too much of a guess that it's gonna improve. That's probably a good example. I think you could do worse than playing someone who, at least I think it was a 61% snap rate. 65% of routes. You could do worse than plugging that player in in a high scoring game, but... You kind of want that more at $54,000 than $6,000, though, I think. Yeah, I would say that for sure. And then Ingram, he's kind of in that in-between where he could get you 15. I mean, 15 is kind of a rare threshold for a tie down. It's crazy to say, but he's got, I mean, he's got that ability. He's athletic enough, he's involved enough, but... Yeah. Yeah, I think that I agree with you on pretty much all those. So it's a good game. You just, I think you want to be selective. You don't need to steal the phrase of Rich Rebar of sharp football. You don't want to get too high on the ancillary jabronis on this team. And I am trying hard not to do that. MVS is that, but I'm probably gonna be there anyway. Let's move down to the second game here, which is the Seahawks at the Lions. And this one has been all over the map as far as bookmaking for this week. Total was 49 and a half, went down to 47, went back up to 47 and a half. The Lions were favorite by five and a half, then four and a half, or no, it was four and a half, then five and a half, now back down to four and a half once again. I think the movement there has been because of Seattle's offensive line. They put Abe Lucas on IR, and I don't think the Charles Cross is gonna play either. And even accounting for that, downgrading their offense for this, I still think the over is very much in play in this game. I took it when it was 47, actually I think I got 46 and a half. Either way, I think that it's still a pretty high scoring game despite that. So looking at this game, will you get to either quarterback in this one, or is it all about the skill players for the Lions and the Seahawks? I don't think it's a, I think it's a zero QB game for me. Yeah. I think there's enough upside. Even with Jalen Hertz off the main slate, Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, Trevor Lawrence, Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow. Like these guys have big up, big ceilings. And the problem is some of the guys with big ceilings are directly above Jared Goff and Salary, like Burrow 74 and then Lamar is 76. I think that if you told me that those guys were above 8,000 and Goff was 73, it'd be a different story, but that's not the case. Yeah, I don't like, I'm trying to get better at not only forcing the obvious high ceiling quarterbacks, but I've done research into it. If you don't run, you gotta throw a lot of yards and a lot of touchdowns in a single week to sort of make up for, or again, you're betting against like big games from other guys, which is always a viable way to look at it too, but. You need like 350 yards and four touchdowns if you don't run to be a perfect line of quarterback, which could happen, but. Yeah, unless Alan and Mahomes really struggle. But even then you could have Jackson pop-up, you could have Burrow pop-up, Herbert could pop-up. I think there are enough guys where you need a lot of guys to fail to make that work. Yeah, so basically taking up a pure pocket passer is a bet against the rushing quarterbacks every time you do it. That's kind of what you're doing. And yes, there's salary differences, I understand that, but 35 points from a QB at 9,000 is gonna outdo 21 from someone at 72. Yeah. So with, you know, Tyree Kill, perfect example, we talk about mistake erasers, like that's what Travis Kill is, he can do relative to the position. Like this stuff matters. So again, it's not that we never consider these players. I'm trying to be better, but for me, I think it's a zero QB game in particular. I think that the Detroit running backs are probably the hardest thing to figure out in terms of where I really, like kind of my, the first thing I think about when I think about this game, David Montgomery had a great role in week one. Sounds like they wanna get Jameer Gibbs more involved and not, I think the quote was basically not wanting to overwhelm the rookies, but we don't know what that means in terms of what the, how big that role will change. So the salaries are low for both of them. When you have two running backs, you kind of don't have one. I'm open to both. I like Gibbs. He looked really good whenever he got the ball, whenever he was on the field. Just it might be a while until he really breaks out and takes over. But it seems like they like David Montgomery too. So what are your thoughts on these running backs for Detroit? I'm willing to use either and we'll probably have both of my player pool at some point. Either will be like a core play. So like, I think both are very in play for game stacks and I might wind up having some of both of them outside of game stacks too. Just because like, I think it's such a good game. And the fact that like Montgomery is gonna get 20, you know, we got 21 carries last week. No target, which is annoying, but it's hour 63. We expect a decent amount of points out of this team. So that's valuable. And then with Gibbs, like you said, when he was on the field, he was like a focal point of the offense. Like he was in motion, this is an exaggeration, but like he, I think he played 19 snaps. I think he was in motion for 47 of those 19. And like- Glad you clarified. He broke 45 tackles. That one might not be an exaggeration. So I think that because the value in his touches is so high as far as like talent, as far as this offense, the way they're being schemed up. I think that's enough to make him viable. I can't go more than like probably 25% on either. Like I don't have a lot of guys with below 20% roster rates that I tend to use, but like I think both guys are guys I can see the path for. And thus would be willing to use them around a 20% roster rate or so. Yeah. So he got a carrier or target on 47% of his 19 snaps. So he's like Garrett Blunt. Well, that's like okay. It's better than average. Average is about 40% for running backs. That puts him in the like Christian McCaffrey, Tony Pollard tier, but obviously the snap rate is a lot different there or the snap volume I should say. But obviously he's gonna play more snaps. They don't have like an overabundance of skill, like. No. Players. They have a dearth. Is dearth the right word there? Yeah. Well, it just depends. An absence of skill players. We'll go with that. No, I mean it's, I just, I don't wanna, I don't wanna speak ill of like obviously. I will speak ill of everyone outside of Amon Ross St. Brown in that wide receiver room, except for Josh Reynolds, who is a sweetheart. And we cannot speak ill of at 59. But Sam LaPorta. Sure, okay. Fair enough. You're right. I retract it. You're right. You're right. I was like, it just depends on how you view it, but. You're right. Fair enough. Let's talk about those pass catchers Amon Ross St. Brown is 81, Reynolds 89. I refuse to use Marvin Jones because I don't hate myself. And Sam LaPorta is 51. How are you viewing the pass catchers in this game? This on this side at least. I would play Amon Ross as much as I can. Where do you get relative to Ridley outside of Game Stacks? Well, I was gonna say, but I prefer Ridley. I prefer Chase. Maybe I prefer, I don't know. I should prefer Jamar Chase and Stefan Diggs. So like I love Amon Ross, but I think he's fourth out of the top four in salary. I put him above Diggs personally, but that's like a, I have a weakness for being too low on Stefan. I know. He had a great, he was like the guy. So I think that kind of encapsulates it. I like it, but it's probably more for Game Stacks than singling him out. And LaPorta I think is a really strong tight end play if you're not playing one of the elite guys. Any interest in Josh Reynolds or no? Um, I think Game Stacks specifically. Last week, Reynolds had seven overall targets and three deep targets and Marvin Jones is dust. Reynolds, actually, whenever he's played with Goff, like he's gotten work. Like he had that weird stand with the Titans, got released, then came to the Rams and like almost immediately got work. So like, I think he has a decent rapport with Goff. 59 is high. Like he should be 52 or 54, 53. But I'm like, okay, with filtering him in for Game Stacks, he would not be like the focal point of a Game Stack. Like it'd be, oh, I've got LaPorta in there. I can toss Reynolds in too if I want to save extra. I should stop scrolling up and down while I have my screen share. This is ADHD. But you know, I think he's at least fine. What about the Seattle side? Starting with the pass catchers, DK Metcalf had a touchdown in week number one, not a ton of yardage, but also Seattle never had the football in week one. So I don't want to overweigh that. Title Lockett missed time in week one because he was being evaluated for a head injury, but he passed their protocol and came back. So we talked about Lockett last week, loving him. I think he's the same salary at 65 or at least close to it as he was last week. I'm going to go right back, despite the fact it did not work out in part it was the injury, part of his play volume. So to me, Lockett at 65 is one of the best 6,000 range wide receivers this week outside of like Debo at 69. Where are you on Metcalf and Lockett? Yeah, Metcalf at that salary, he's getting close to the top four. I got to prefer the top four, find another way to get some extra salary to get up to digs or Amman Raw most realistically in terms of salary, because I don't want to say like, I can just find 700 to get to Jamar Chase whenever I want, but yeah, Lockett two end zone targets, two downfield targets, one red zone target. This offense really flows through those two. We know that Jackson Smith and Nijik both is going to get more involved, but I think for now we can at least feel good. Lockett salary, I believe was 68 last week because I was in on him pretty solidly. But yeah, for that salary, we know Tyler Lockett has that single game upside of 85 yards easily. I mean, he's got some yards upside, but multi touchdown upside with his end zone work. So I feel pretty good about Lockett. I think he's the easiest player to pair and sort of I guess the easiest player to justify for the Seattle side. I think he's the easiest player to justify in this game beyond game stacks. Do you agree with that? I would say Amman Raw, but considering salary and where I want to spend salary, then Lockett. Okay, let's talk here about Kenneth Walker III. He was not super efficient last week, but got five targets. And I really don't, I kind of thought that I could enter this game to like, okay, I don't need to worry about Kenneth Walker III because Zach Charbonnet is there. But Charbonnet, 24% snap rate, Walker 65%. And again, Walker got five targets, which is kind of weird, honestly. It's a high number. I feel like I should be higher on Walker than I am. Where do you settle in on him? I'm always low on Walker II. Not the best efficiency metrics last year. Five targets on 13 rounds, not super sustainable. I think it's game stacks only. I hate to keep saying that, but a lot of players are game stack dependent. Very few players have such good roles and output that they are just core plays. And for me, basically, if you're not like a core player, where I'm going out of my way to play you, I'm almost exclusively looking to play game stacks. So yeah, I'm gonna have to think long and hard about him. I would say he's the one I'm having the toughest time with in this game, even more so than the short running backs because I feel like I'm okay with just being fine at them. Walker, I'm thinking maybe I'm a bit too low on, based on, again, specifically the five targets last week, that's pretty encouraging. Let's move on now and talk about a couple of offenses that came up short last week. That is the Ravens and the Bengals. Total in this game is back up to 46 and a half. Bengals are favored by three. So neither offense was great last week, but we know they could get into a shootout because we've seen it with them before. And also, the Ravens missing a lot of pieces in their secondary, missing also pieces along their offensive line, which is a downgrade for them. But what's your level of concern with stacking this game given what we saw last week? Not very high. So you're just good to go? Yeah, do we think? Talk about this with golf sometimes, but do we think these two offenses are just bad now? I'm worried about Joe Burroughs' calf. Seems like it did impact him in week one, where he came back from that calf injury and it wasn't a great situation. He didn't look super mobile, didn't look like he could push off as well. So some concern there. And then some concern with the offensive line at Baltimore, given that when I give a hierarchy of importance along the offensive line, it's left tackle one and center two, and those are two linemen who are hurt. So I still wanna stack this game, and I still like Jackson and Burrough, but those two things are, if I'm listing out like paths to destruction, those are the first two things, and probably the only two things I think about. But the salaries are all accounted for that, I think, to me. Accurate. Aside from Jamar Chase. Very fair, very fair. So Lamar at 76, fantastic salary, Burrough 74, I think that, I think we're gonna differ on this, but I have Lamar higher. I'm considering, I'm flip-flopping a lot on that, honestly. The reason I have Burrough higher is because of the offensive line injuries for Baltimore. Sure. But I'm reconsidering it because of Burrough's calf. So I could go either way with that, I think. Mix in 72, I think if I'm, again, game stacks there, I'd consider that. But I think we're both just gonna be on the same page with T. Higgins at a 7,000 salary. Give me anyone coming off of a zero-catch game any week. Great underlying data, though, for him. Isaiah Flowers, even if his roll scale is back, it's gonna scale back. If Mark Andrews is healthy, yeah, what, a 47.5% target share, something like that. There's still room for that to get worse, and still be really, really good. That salary of 66 is great. Andrews, we know, has slight altering upside whenever he's good to go. So we talked about the chiefs being kind of hard to figure out. For the Ravens, it's Lamar, Zay, and Andrews, and you kind of be okay with that. And for the Bengals, they're basically their top four, Burrough, Mixin, Chase, and Higgins, and that's basically it. So it's an easy one to stack. So if you get it wrong, this game's not gonna be 45, 42 with a ton of ancillary touchdowns, I don't think. So it's wild, but I talked about how much I love the Lawrence Ridley-Kelsey game stack. Lamar, Higgins, Andrews is actually just a cheaper version of that, and that feels nuts. That was 59 something left per player. This one's 62, 33 left per player if I do those three. So like, do we like this game more than Chiefs Jaguars? Once you consider salaries and target, what's, target? Oh God. Concentration? Yes. I've got brain fog from COVID still, so we're trying. We're blaming on that, not the fact that I don't know words. We'll go with that. I think, no, I would say that I still prefer the Chiefs game, Chiefs Jags, due to the fact that it's more likely to be a high scoring game. I agree. I always get nervous about divisional games. Sure. Should have been more nervous last week for Cincinnati, but, and it's the thing, I was like, nah, nah, it's week one, it's fine. Joe Burrow, you're fine. So I'd say they're about, they're close. I think the real question is, do you prefer this game or the Lions game for stacking? Well, this is a two quarterback game. Right. I like T more than I like everyone except for Lockett. So I think it's probably, this is two A, that one's two B. Sure. But I also can stack both in the same lineup because the positions that I like most don't overlap a lot. Like I can go with some running backs in the Lions Seahawks game, and I can go with pass catchers and quarterbacks in this one. So I think just loading up on both is pretty attractive too. Yeah, you could probably just round out a lineup with those three, those three games and a defense from somewhere. Might be tough to find the value, but like, I think you make that work for sure. I mean, if you do like Walker and like Gibbs. That's true. Yeah, that could work. So as Zay at 66, obviously Andrews coming back does downgrade him. And I feel like people will be on Zay this week, given how good he was last week. So like that tends to be a situation where you can find a lot of let downs, where it's a guy salary increased, high roster rate, and situation is changing with a high usage guy coming back. The counterpoint would be that like, they were actively looking to get the ball in his hands because he, I think they have like, they ran like five screens for him and screens aren't like great, but they show intent. They show, I want the ball in your hands. You are a playmaker for us. And they didn't do that for Rashad Bateman or Odell. So I feel like even Andrews coming back and Zay salary up to 66, I still think that Zay is a quality play. There are those paths to like trappiness. I'm willing to overlook those a bit. What's your level of concern with his role with Andrews being back, likely back? I think it's fine. I mean, 96% route rate, 10 targets, 78 yards, no touchdowns. So not a touchdown to chase there. I think there's, I don't think he's going to be, maybe I just whiff on this, but I don't think he's going to be that popular because of the salary increase. And he didn't go nuclear. It's more of like, oh, the routes were there. The targets were there. I'm as eight, I was 2.7 yards to speak to like the amount of screens he got, but four red zone targets. Like the building blocks were there for an even bigger game, but it didn't really pan out. So I think that the salary is very justified. Any final thoughts in this game before we move on? I think that's it. Okay, let's move to our trends discussion now for week number two. And Brandon, you're starting things off by talking about pace and talking about pass rate because we want plays. You cannot score fantasy points that there is no play. That is the most simple way to explain it. So you're looking at teams who had shifts in the way they approached things in week one versus what they did last year. What did you see when you dug into the data? Yeah, so just kind of looking at which teams had the biggest changes that I noticed or at least sort of most explainable or like sticky, nothing that was completely flukey, changes to their pace, adjusting for game context and pass rate over expectation, which accounts for a lot of different factors. But some of the stuff we might look at and say it doesn't matter. It's not really changing how I'm viewing the slate, but I think it's important that we can kind of track this stuff throughout the year and see what happens. As far as some of the positive trends that I would say the Colts had a really good pace in week one, which you love to see once you account for game context, their pass rate over expectation was just plus 0.6%. So basically two expectation, but a little bit above it which is a lot better than I would have expected. Again, these numbers aim to adjust for game context. So it's not that they were trailing at the end of the game, all that kind of stuff. That's why raw pass rate is a little bit flawed at this point in 2023, but Houston also rated out with a pretty fast pace and a pass rate over expectation almost exactly the same plus 0.5, which again, this adjust for the game script that they were in, they play each other this week. I don't, what? I'm smiling. So like, if it wasn't this game specific, like these two teams specifically, I'd be a little bit more there, but this game could have a little, all right, what do you see it? Nico is 62, Pit Boy is 72. He still didn't get a downfield target because he's not physically allowed to run past the sticks. Richardson is 75. That's a decent little game stack, but I felt very guilty for like kind of being interested in, but you're talking me into it and I kind of hate that. You know, again, divisional game, sure. Good conditions though, obviously. So it's noteworthy. I think these two teams specifically are gonna be, if they play sort of two expectation, even with these rookie passers in terms of pass rate, if they play pretty quickly, don't just go run heavy, try to milk the clock. It's gonna be better for the opposite teams in a lot of situations. But when they play each other, this one could be fun. So- Be a trash vest in a good way. Yeah, Chicago, I got, so you can kind of view this one either way, but Chicago got blown out, raised their pass rate over expectation for minus 14% last year to minus 4.3% this year. So they were better, but I guess it's a plus, but they're never gonna be really past heavy. So anyone who's, again, that's not a game that we're looking at, Chicago and Tampa Bay. At least I'm not very much, I guess we're shot white, but I think Chris Godwin's justifiable at 63, just from like, I'm not gonna say floor, but you know, decent opportunity there. But you know, as far as like DJ Moore goes, I wasn't there for a season long. Seems like I was low on him and I historically have been high on DJ Moore, but I think this team is just probably gonna be them moving forward no matter what. The Titans increased their pass rate over expectation a lot with Deondre Hopkins in the mix, which is I think relevant, almost minus 11 points last year to a plus 2.4. This year, pass rate over expectations not super sticky from just week one, but it is logical that this team would at least throw out more and could put Deondre Hopkins in the mix whenever he's fully good to go. So far as some of the negatives were a little more head scratching things that I saw, I would say the chargers fall into that. They were quick, but not like as fast as I thought with Kellen Moore, their pass rate over expectations. I think that's because they face the Dolphins. Vic Fangio kind of gives you a middle finger and says, run on me. And then the chargers did effectively. So I think that was based on matchup and the matchup is entirely different this week. So does that mean you're in on the chargers passing offense, especially with Eckler banged up? I respect the Titans defense a lot. So yeah, Mike Williams in 67 is probably good, I would think, but like I'm not going to Herbert's because I respect this defense a lot. So your ideal situation here is that the chargers throw it more than expectation but don't do a whole lot with it. And then their salaries go down 100%. And hopefully they're on the main slate for week three. We haven't looked that far ahead. But yeah, that's what I hope for. Thank you. Cincinnati pretty run heavy. Conditions weren't great, but wouldn't you account for that game and the fact that, again, this accounts for the fact they were trailing. So what were they expected to throw out? They were minus 4.3%, which is the same as the Bears in week one. Just kind of funny that that number worked out, gives credence to the fact that maybe Joe Burrow's not 100%. Detroit, their pass rate of expectation was minus 7% percentage points in their win. I promise said percents got the Steiner math in my head. But they really fed David Montgomery. You could also make the case that that was their game plan to keep the ball away from the Chiefs, but something to monitor at least, especially whenever you love Jared Goff. I don't mind Jared Goff, but whenever it comes to like stackability and playing Jared Goff in DFS, you kind of want that volume to be a little bit more elevated. And also if they're gonna be able to run the ball and kind of keep things away, then that makes it bad for the opponents. But just to put a bow on this one, fastest games this week, based on week one pace, India to Houston, Jim's favorite game of the week, apparently. Chicago at Tampa Bay, which I'm not doing anything with, really outside of minimal, like similar shot white, maybe Chris Godwin, Seattle, Detroit and Kansas City, Jacksonville. So that's very nice to see some of those games that we talked about in the bookmaker section jump out. But anything stand out to you, I guess we kind of went over a little bit more during the trend than we typically do, but anything jump out? I'll have many stacks of Indy Houston. I hate Michael Pittman using him in DFS because he doesn't get deep targets. He did 11 overall targets in part because of the thing you mentioned where they did throw a bit more than you thought they would. He's indoors facing a defense that I respect in Houston, but also likely missing Jaylen Petrie, who's a very good player in the secondary. So maybe that helps him. And then Nico Collins to bring back. Nico looked really good in week one. I thought Stroud looked good throwing to him too. So I think that's fine for many stacks. I do like Rashad White. I do like Chris Godwin enough. And I do like Mike Evans 71. No interest for you and Evan 71? I wouldn't say no interest, but we're getting up there in salary. I think for me to want to play Mike Evans, I got to bring it back. Which bears players are you bringing it back with? I mean, just, I would just go DJ more. Like he's out there and like he's talented, he's 61, so whatever. But I feel like I'm okay going just with the standalone play. Any Justin Fields? Nope. It burns me, it burns me. Oh well. All right, let's dive into my first trend. Talking about the offenses that fell flat in week one, the good offenses. And we got a lot of teams that are good offenses that did not do well in week number one. So I wanted to see what happened last year and see how teams performed when they struggled out the gate. And I'm going to do this via my model, which shows how each team underperformed, how much they underperformed relative to expectation based on the opposing match. That's flawed because it does have perfect knowledge of which defense we're good if you don't have right now. But I think it helps. We kind of generally know which defense are good. Last year in week one, nine teams released point two expected points per dropback below expectation in early down passing efficiency. Looking at that because we care more about passing efficiency and early down numbers aren't as spiky as late down efficiency numbers. Across all teams, the R squared value between week one passing efficiency relative to expectation week two is 0.008. So very little relationship from week one to week two in such a small sample. And that's even knowing again retroactively how good each defense is. Of the nine teams that struggled most, five of them actually exceeded expectations in early down passing efficiency in week number two. Two of those teams last year were the Browns and Bills were 0.3 points above expectation per dropback despite big struggles in week one. So overall stickiness a week one numbers is not very high and teams that struggled most can bounce back even when they struggled pretty mightily in week one, they can bounce back in a big way in week two. This to me means we shouldn't fret too much about offenses that struggled in week one if we had high expectations for them coming into this year. We talked about the Ravens and Bengals already but it also applies to the Buffalo Bills in a pretty big way. So let's talk with the Bills here specifically. Any qualms on your end about targeting them given the let down they have on Monday nights? No, I think so like sometimes for us we're talking so much about the data that we don't think about like the emotions of things but to see Aaron Rodgers go out early, I'm not saying like this is what happened but it's gotta be strange that you hype yourself up. Weird vibe. For like this divisional matchup trying to set the tone he just goes out after a handful of plays. You probably think, okay, this game is just in like in the bag, the jets come out, just hit you in the mouth. Like that stuff matters. It's really freaking good. Like yeah, like that stuff, it matters and it's hard to account for and you think, oh well, these numbers relative to, you know, expectation or whatever but that's again, I think that's gotta be a strange thing. I would be astonished if the bills come out and struggle against the Raiders this week. I know that the Raiders slay full D. Ely, then we're Broncos offense but I think Josh Allen is, like we got value at running back. We wanna talk about using that at tight end. We gotta talk about using that for Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes. These guys have 40 point upside and if they scored 40 fantasy points no one would blink an eye. Or bat an eye I should say. Yeah. Stefan Diggs, it sounds like I'm clearly higher on him than you are but 33% target share for him in week one. He was the guy moving that offense. Six downfield targets, two red zone targets, one end zone target, two and a half yards per out run. Last year in a regular season, he had a 28% target share. So a little bit elevated but still kind of pacing for double digit targets. I don't think that this team is gonna go from a let down loss to letting off the gas if they get out ahead. So I love Diggs. I think James Cooke is hard to get a good comp for him. It felt like he was on the field constantly but the snap rate wasn't nearly as high as I thought it would have been once everything settled but I think he's very much in play at a salary of 66. Like Don Cankades in consideration. So I think you have a lot of ways to go. So I'm not low on the bills at all. Me neither. They're totally fine. I think that I can add Devonta Adams or even maybe Josh Jacobs as a bring back too. So I think it's full steam ahead of them. Not hugely concerned. They're playing the Jets. That's a really tough defense. So I think that they're totally fine for me. Let's move on to your second trend. Talking about tight ends. Good luck. Tell me what you see here. Yeah, I wanted to look at like the state of tight end for this week's main slate. Tight end usually is bad. Tight end a week one was pretty horrendous. Just two tight ends cleared 10 fandal points. Hunter Henry and Hayden Hearst, the double H boys. Not quite the triple H boys, but if you combine them maybe they're the quad H tandem, but that's bad. And that's what we're looking at at tight end. And if that's what we get at tight end week after week, we don't need to allocate much salary. So basically a race, Travis Kelsey, Mark Andrews again from this main slate. You probably don't need to do a whole lot. There's no TG Hawkins in either. So then who's the next Darren Waller at 66, George Kittle 62. There was a report this week that Waller's hamstring injury is like chronic. So like it's just really good at the top. Yeah, you got three cues at the top of the fandal pool with Kelsey Andrews and Waller. And George Quittle, four cues. So look, if that's what we're getting at tight end, you can save salary. You don't need to kind of get there, but it's the upside of the elite guys that might feel forgotten already because of what we got in week one. Both Kelsey and Andrews limited in practice on Wednesday. If they're full by Friday, things could get really different. In 2022, Kelsey put up at least 15 fandal points nine times. George Kittle did it five times because he had crazy scoring season. Mark Andrews did it four times and nobody else did it more than twice. Just five players at the position did it more than once other than those guys. So, you know, we talk optimal lineup sometimes and optimal lineups are definitely flawed, but especially when you're cherry picking the tight ends you scored and maybe had a little bit more yardage than expected. But you know, Kelsey was an optimal once, Andrews was in it twice, Kittle was in it once, Hawkinson was in it twice. So that's a third of last year's regular season optimals that an elite guy, you know, made it. Even on the full slates Thursday through Monday or if it was like Saturday, Sunday, whatever the slate was, like the full slate, tight ends with a 6,000 salary were in the optimum six out of 18 as well. That's a third. And basically, you can gotta look at that two ways. One is only a third of the time it does an elite guy get there, but you're also saying, well, take 20 other tight ends compared to those four or five guys who make it. So the hit rate, like the cherry pick rate is just pretty high for the guys who make it. If you look at main slates where Kelsey and Andrews were both off of it, there were four of them, Tayson Hill made it once, but the other tight ends were salaried at 47 or 4,800. And the average salary of tight ends on full slates with both was 59, 40. So basically when both of them are on there, you really gotta have some ceiling based on how consistently these guys score. So, and then just to put a, you know, put a bow on this one, no tight end of week one had better than a 92% route rate. 56 yards led the position. Six had target shares of at least 20%, but three of those had fewer than 20 yards. So you gotta kind of make a decision by Sunday. Again, maybe both these guys are hurt and that we don't have this conversation. But I think this is relevant anyway, because then it's, there's not a whole lot there at tight end, but Kelsey and Andrews could demolish the slate. My Sims have it that way. It's not a big shock. What are your thoughts on Kelsey and Andrews in terms of what percentage of your lineups might have those guys? And are you fearful that these guys actually have those big ceilings when they're coming off of injuries? Fearful, yes. Is it fearful enough for me to not use them? No. And I think that it takes it where like, I would want to be in like 70% range of having either Kelsey or Andrews and 70% of my lineups and probably pushes that down to 60%. And the other 40% to me, I'm going to live in this range towards the bottom. Dalton, Kincaid to 52. Colkman looks a lot like Max Verstappen and it's kind of bothering me. They look like twins. That's upsetting. Anyway, Sam LaPorta 51, Luke Musgrave 5000, Jake Ferguson 5000 as well. I think that range is great. And if there's no Hopkins, a Conquo at 47 as well. So I either want to spend up to get the elite guys or spend down for guys whose role could be better than we think. Like specifically those three rookies, I think kind of the main guys there, but trusting rookie tight ends always gone pretty well for us. So why would I ever go wrong this time around, right? Yeah. Yeah. So Kelsey and, I don't know, take your pick. Like Rashad White or... It'll be Kelsey and Rashad White. I don't know what the combination will be. So yeah. Unless it's Eckler, or sorry, Agh, McCaffrey. I need to get, I need to make sure I shovel hit, I need to force him into some lineups, honestly. Cause like his workload was insane and the defense is not threatening. So I need to force him into lineups. But Kelsey and Andrews are priorities this week. Let's move to my second trend here and talk about running backs. Cause we have one week of data on most running backs, sparring injuries. So it's important to know which of that data matters for backs. So I want to look at the relationship between two pieces of data for running backs between week one and week two. Last year, there were 31 running backs who played at least 40% of their team snaps in both week one and week two. Far and away, the stickiest number, as you'd expect with Snapshare, the R squared value from week one to week two for Snapshare was 0.25, definitely a very fine number, which means there was a high tie between Snapshare and week one and Snapshare and week two. So the players played Snaps in week one. You'd expect the same week two and vice versa, which is a concern for Jameer Gibbs, what could possibly go wrong. Second highest R squared was actually between a player's red zone share. That is the percentage of carries or targets inside the red zone the player received for that team. I think that's probably a bit fluky. I'm not sure that should actually be a sticky as a graded out, but it does mean that if a player lost out on work close to the goal line in week one, AKA Travis ETN, that should at least be a red flag week two. The rest in order were carries being most sticky followed by targets and then yards and scrimmage and adjust opportunities. So I love adjust opportunities, which carries plus two X targets shows the true value of players workload, but it's not all that sticky from week one to week two. So it's important for me to not over utilize that number specifically when deciding which players to lean on here. I also think the yards from scrimmage point matters because even if a player didn't beast out in week one, we shouldn't assume they'll struggle in week two. I'll have the five players in this sample with 31 players who topped 100 yards from scrimmage in week two. Only one had 77 or more the week before and three of those guys had less than 60. So takeaways here would be that snaps are the stickiest metrics to look at. A lack of red zone work in week one is at least noteworthy, I would say. And we shouldn't overreact to poor yardage outputs in week one when trying to assess week two, which is me justify more Rashad White. So any alterations to how you view the slate or some players based on this intel? No, I mean, it makes sense, but I'm gonna list off some. I was debating first half versus just total, but I'll be in total here. Total snap rates for running backs for week one. The leader was Christian McCaffrey at 85%. He was at 90% in the first half. I don't think we have any qualms with Christian McCaffrey of anything. Like you said, probably a little low on him because, look, if he's gonna be the only golfer, I always did it once before, and if he's gonna be the only player, the only running back in the 90% snap range, that means he's a priority because that gap is massive. But second, James Conner, 83%. Nope. So, but I wanted to say this, I wanted to say this because you're saying snap rates, Sticky. You've been muted, congrats. I muted your mic, I refused to hear the rest of your argument. I unmuted it, you're fine, go ahead. I'm just saying, if we see that snap rate is Sticky, James Conner, 83%, 24 adjusted opportunities, nothing. Nope, not against that defensive line. Josh Jacobs, 80%. Sure. I liked Jacobs this week in game stacks. Travis ETN, 80%. The red zone share is also a factor with him, but like the targets were good, so. And Rashad White, 79.4%, both of the red zone carries. I'll cut it off there, but because David Montgomery's next, then we think that'll probably go down based on reports, but so it sounds like we're in on Rashad White. Josh Jacobs, 75%. It's not bad. In a possible high scoring game, I liked that a lot. Yeah, and we know he'll probably be on the field if they do fall down because he does get passing game work too. So, yeah. Okay, so basically does that put, at some point we gotta try to rank the running backs in the 6,000 range. Is Rashad White at the top of the list for you? I think he's my favorite running back on the entire slate, considering it's salary. I think he's standing out to me among all of those names we've been talking about in the 6,000 range. Yeah, like they're rushing offenses abysmal, so he could fail, but everyone could fail. Eat RVs. Weather for this week, nothing. There are no games with wins above six miles per hour. So check back for changes in that, but also changes if there are ones that being like heavy rain like we saw last week, but otherwise good to go. Let's dive in now to our positional plays. Four week number two on the Fanduel main slate. Brandon, when you look at quarterback for week number two, who stands out to you on Fanduel? Yeah, we got a lot of overlap overall, but one name I'm not backing away from is Trevor Lawrence at a salary of 7,800. This game could be really, really good against the Chiefs. 32 attempts in week one, 241 yards to touchdowns with a pretty clear preference of Calvin Ridley in terms of stacking candidates. So that makes it a lot easier as well. And Lawrence, very athletic. Seven rush attempts. One of those was in the red zone like that. So really no concerns here. I expect the Chiefs offense to put up points with Travis Kelsey back. And if not, that was a pretty abrupt, like, hey, we're not gonna have Travis Kelsey for our opener. Probably screws with your offense a little bit. They'll have more efficiency this week, almost guaranteed. And my second love, Lamar Jackson, love Lamar. I think that the upside is very, very clear. You know, week one, a let down, handed off all of the touchdowns. I get that, but only 22 pass attempts, completed a ton of them, 169 yards, 7.7 yards per attempt. Low A-dot, but I'm all right with that. And ran six times for 38 yards. So I think that getting Mark Andrews healthy, and even if not, you know, Zay flowers pretty good. And without JK Dobbins, maybe a few more rush attempts for Lamar. So I think that he's a standout play for me this week. Yeah, only concern for me with Lamar is the offensive line. Everything else lines up pretty well for him. Lawrence is also my top quarterback here because he's a slight home on underdog. If you look at roster rates compared to quarterbacks in perfect lineups, that's a big gap where we are not as willing to use guys who are slight dogs as we should be. It's not a super negative scripts. They're not like playing catch up the entire game, but they might have throw a bit more. Like you said, obvious stacking partner with Calvin Ridley. He mentioned the seven rush attempts. Five of those were designed rush attempts. Two of those were sneaks. So that's one thing. But that was tied for second behind Anthony Richardson for most in the league last week. He's $7,800. So increased efficiency, maybe increased rushing propensity. That's pretty sick for Trevor Lawrence. I put Joe Burrow seconds. I do like Lamar. The offensive line issues are why I put Burrow above him. The calf injury could be a thing. And maybe we'll look back and realize like, man, I shouldn't have been so high on Joe Burrow early in the season, but the Ravens are missing key pieces inside their secondary. Burrow has obvious stack candidates who got good usage despite the bad output in week number one. The salary for Burrow is 74, which feels way too low for his upside. So I think Joe Burrow really does great out well at $7,400. Let's move to Ruddy back. Who are you checking out there? So I kind of have two higher salary guys here, which is strange based on the fact that I'm okay with a lot of backs in the 6,000 range or lower. But I think that's telling because I think it's, I think we're shot wide stands out to me most, but other than that, I'm kind of guessing and I don't want to get overexposed to too many of those backs down there. But I want to shout out Tony Pollard. I know it's a, you know, tough matchup, but the Jets did allow a pretty high rushing success rate in week one. Pollard had a 64% snap rate in week one, but 81% in the first half, I think that's going to get a little bit forgotten. You know, we know it was a blow up, but we, you know, the extent to which he was actually involved in the first half kind of got a dig for seven red zone carries. So 70% there, 64% route participation, three targets. So a lot of building blocks to just Pollard being a great play week in, week out. And we know that he has the ability to do more with his opportunities than a lot of running backs. Second love, Josh Jacobs. He might honestly be hired like, he's my number two here because we just go by salary, but I should probably really like Jacobs, especially if Myers is out for this week, but $7,500 salary is really reasonable. I know that they're underdogs, but sometimes that's not the worst thing for running backs. I think that can be a little bit overstated based on the research that we've done. 80% snap rate, 19 carries five in the red zone, 71 yards, three targets on 14 routes. So a good target per route rate there. And I think that getting access to a full time back in a good game is never a bad thing, especially for this salary. And my third love, I'm gonna go with Jimmy or Gibbs at 58. What's up? No, I like it, I have him too. So I was, I felt very nervous doing it. So I feel better knowing that you're doing it too. I think logically I should put Isaiah Pacheco in the same tier, if not above him. However, I think Pacheco sort of maxed out with his workload. He got some extra targets, but they were without Travis Kelsey. You could argue that he's due for more because he entered training camp with like, it was like shoulder and like a hip injury or something. Like he had two injuries that he was fighting with coming through camp. So maybe they ramped him up because of that, but like, you know, yeah. I mean, that's me playing devil's advocates. I think his max snap rate last year was 56%. Was that when he should have won VP for me? No, that would have been the, that was week 10. And this year, week one. 46%? Yeah, 47%. So like there is room, but it's not like he's gone from 30% to 70%. But Jumeir Gibbs, probably still gonna be the 1B, but super explosive. We know he can catch passes. Nine routes and two targets. Love that. Just honestly looks really good and we don't do a lot of like film scouting, but. I did go through all of his snaps on next gen stats last night. He's awesome. And they're basically saying he's gonna get more involved. Maybe we get blanked. Like maybe we get faked out here and he just doesn't really change his workload, but for the salary, you can kind of embrace it a little bit more this week. I agree. My first love is James Cook. We even talked a lot about him, but we talked about the bill's offense and liking them. Cook had a 60% snap rate in week one, which is not great, but it's also good enough. He had 12 carries and six targets in that game, which is very good workload. They're facing the Raiders. They're the 25th ranked rush defense by my model, which includes a prior entering the year and then also data from week number one. I won exposure to this offense and James Cook gets me that for a pretty low salary. So I think a lot of things line up well enough where Cook deserves to be firmly in our player pool for this week. I've caught value, I think, on the entire side of the New York shot, White. His salary this week is $6,200 and White is on an awful rush offense. Like the bucks were historically bad last year, but does that matter where they're facing these Chicago bearers who got shredded all of last year and in week number one as well? White in week one, as you mentioned, 79% snap rate. He had 17 carries and two targets. His salary again, $6,200 at home against a pretty rough bearers defense. So White just winds up checking a lot of key boxes for me and fits with my overall roster construction where I want to spend down at running back in order to get access to Travis Kelsey, Calvin Ridley guys in those high scoring games. So to me, once you consider all things, salary, matchup, snap rate, Richard White winds up being my favorite play across any position on the main slate. Number three for me is going to be Jameer Gibbs as well. I do think you could talk about David Montgomery here. So let's just give the case for Monty at 63 in this exact same game because you could also see a situation where they keep Gibbs's workload the same which case Montgomery is going to be at home four and a half point favorite against a non-threatening defense. I think that's enough to make him pretty viable. So I like Montgomery, I like Gibbs. One guy we have not mentioned yet is Kyron Williams, the matchup sucks, it's awful. But he was like a featured back in the first half for the Rams. So I will have shares of Kyron Williams as well at 59. And I think that he's, I might like him more than Pacheco despite the matchup. Sorry. How confident are you that that stays the same though? Pretty confident cause I hate Cam Akers. And he played well. So like if they didn't hate Cam Akers and want to like bury him like beneath the back of the facility, maybe I'd have less confidence, but like I'm pretty confident that he's going to keep that role. So maybe I should have put Kyron Williams here. Really bad matchup, but... They should at least give Cam Akers the Clyde Edwards-y layer start. No. And just make everyone fearful. Fearful of 21 carries for like 17 yards? No, just fearful that like... Yeah, make us fearful that... Yes. Like you're checking your pulse in like seven minutes into the first quarter. I mean, you see CEH out there, you know, on Thursday night and it's like, oh no, did we get it all? Like did we all get it wrong? Or are they on backs? Yeah, I was in a restaurant for the beginning of that game and like my heart's saying it was bad. And he played 14 snaps. I'm going to make Kyron my official third player pick. Okay. I like Gibbs too, but you talked about him. So we're going to go with Kyron Williams, my third player pick. Receiver. Oh gosh, Brandon, why are you doing this to me? Do you hate me? I think you do. Go ahead. You don't like... You really don't like Stefan Diggs? What can I say? Why? What am I missing? I grew up in Minnesota. Maybe that's it. Oh my gosh. And you love Gabe Davis. I bet that... This is, that's disgusting. I'll be myself. Don't worry. I'm muting myself. You're right. I'll be myself in punishment. Diggs was absolutely peppered on Monday night football. 13 targets, 10 catches, 102 yards and a touchdown, 33% target share, almost 45% of the air yards, both of the red zone targets. His numbers were great last year. I know that they have some other mouths that they can like feed, but Diggs is the guy. His salary is very reasonable and this game could be pretty good. So I'm not going to overthink it. I'm just getting there. Second love, T. Higgins, $7,000 salary is very good for the underlying workload that he had in week one. Ran every single route, 17.2 yard ADOT on his eight targets. Of those eight targets, five were at least 10 yards downfield. He had an end zone target, third among receivers in air yards after week one. I know we're not going to be alone in like hyping up the bounce back, but it's going to get better. And then my third love, Puka Nakua. I think that the salary of 5,800 is very reasonable. I think he's going to be a bit popular, but I don't think we need to worry about that because it's not just chasing a big game receiver. His workload was phenomenal, 40% target share. So there's room for that to scale back and still be good, 15 targets. So again, he was one of two receivers with at least the 40% target share just to put that into context in week one. I'm 119 yards on 10 catches, had some downfield targets, five of them, red zone target, really efficient. So I'm fine with it. I know you're going to yell at me for this one. Kind of don't even want to bring it up, but I don't think he's the only grams receiver that we could consider. Oh no, I think 2-2 is fine. Okay, 2-2 out. Well, 5,500. He's playing indoors, he won't blow away. We're good. I don't know if it's seven. Eight targets and six of those were downfields. That's more than nine Nakua. And Matthew Stafford looked good. Like he looked healthy. So sure, I don't disagree with that at all. I don't want to touch guys who were in the middle of the field for that team. So like no Tyler Higbee because Fred Warner is like the best player on the planet. So like that should funnel more work to guys like Nakua and Atwell, who played a lot on the outside. So fun of either of those guys. My first love is Devonte Adams. I like the mid-range a lot at receiver this week. Likely know Jukobi Myers. Even with Myers getting a 38% target share in week one, Adams is still at 34%. So that's bananas. Jimmy Garoppolo is fine enough as a quarterback to keep that offense competitive in this game. I don't like chasing a negative script, but I think that they'll do enough to be viable in this game. I agree with you on Josh Jacobs as well. So check back on Adams with a foot injury, but I do like him. You mentioned T, I like T a lot. I'm going to talk about Debo Samuel briefly though as being a player at 69. Didn't do a ton last week, but his workload is very good. All three of him, Ayuk and Kittle had a target share of at least 20%. Debo did still get some rushing work as well. And we know he can get a lot of high value touches because of that. So honestly, a Debo Puka stack is pretty fun. A Debo Kyren stack is pretty fun. If I want like a lower salary stack again, that's okay. I'm not totally opposed to that. So Debo Samuel 69. I think Higgins is a tiny bit above for me, but I do like Debo as well. Finally, Tyler Lockett at 65. Missed some time last week for a concussion check, but he actually was clear to that. So good to go. Seahawks ran like five plays. So they should get a boost here because Jared Goff will require three plays to score. They're playing indoors in a game with a massive total. So it's a non-threatening defense back on the Tyler Lockett train again this week. Tight end. Who stands out to you there? So I've been messing around with some lineups. I know I've mentioned like some higher salary running backs, receivers, but you can still build around them and get some like Kelsey and Andrews. So I'm sticking with Kelsey here as my number one guy. Didn't get to see him in the opener. Honestly, probably don't even need to like lay out the case for Kelsey much more than the fact that he's playing and it's on the main slate, but my simulation model has his odds to get to 15 Fandal points at 43.7% for this week. Nobody else is close. Mark Andrews, he's at like 35%. That's cause I'm high on Andrews, but yeah, and the Jaguar is a lot of pretty high A-dot to tight ends a week one. So I'm just gonna leave it at that. I think there's a lot of other ways you can go at tight end and that kind of, I don't love getting exposure to a lot of different tight ends cause then you're really banking on hitting the right combo with the rest of your lineups, but Sam LaPorta does stand out to me. I like this game well enough. Salaries, 5100, home favorite with a good implied team total in that debut for him, five targets. We caught all of them 39 yards, low A-dot under four yards, but 83% snap rate, 61% route rate. Just have them on the field again. If you can't play Kelsey and Andrews in every lineup, I don't, maybe you're hiring the Kittle than I am. No. Okay. Just making sure. But if I'm not playing one of those two, I'm pretty much being, I'm living in the 52 for Kincaid or lower. So skipping over the second tier. Same, because I think the second tier workload is comparable enough to the guys in the low 6,000 range and the high 5,000 range rather just go there. I think the thought process for me at tight end is I'm not using Kelsey or Andrews. I just asked myself, which offenses do I expect to be most in the passing game this week? And like, what I mean from that is if you look back at past perfect lineups, a lot of the tight ends are tied to teammates who are wide receivers. They're tied to teammates who are tight ends. They're tied to opposing wide receivers, opposing quarterbacks, stuff like that. So LaPorta makes a lot of sense in that perspective because we liked that game. We liked Jared Goff as a pocket passer. So we liked that like passing offense in general. So I think that he makes a lot of sense. Same thing could be true for Kincaid. He's my second love. We'll talk about Kelsey first though. Kelsey, I'm fond of Mark Andrews as well. I think last week showed how much volume Kelsey should get when he's healthy. There aren't a lot of high-sourced receivers in this slate. There's enough value at running back. So it's a perfect set of where I can get to Kelsey without having as high of an opportunity cost we typically have. So it's the best week to use Kelsey and Andrews we've had in a long time, I think. My second love is Kincaid as mentioned. I do like Sam LaPorta and I do like Luke Musgrave a lot this week. But I think Kincaid's offense is best by a hair over LaPorta's. Kincaid had a good role in week one. He ran around on 32 of 46 drop backs. Didn't have a lot of target depth but gets a much better matchup this week, especially if Chandler Jones does not go once again for the Raiders. Should be able to keep Josh Allen inside the pocket. So I want to get to, like you said, either Kelsey or Andrews or one of the lower-sourced rookies for this week because all three of Musgrave, Kincaid and LaPorta had very good roles in week one. Defense, where are you going there? I'm going with the Bucks. 4,100 is their salary against the Bears. I like the matchup against the Bears. Last week, it worked out. Four sacks, a pick six, given up to the Packers. I don't want to say stack them with Prashad White because the running back defense stacks a bit overrated. But the salaries work out and the majority of Fandle points come from sacks and in turnovers. So going against Justin Fields, not the worst matchup there. I agree with that. I have Houston because their salary is low at 34. Now they're underdogs by a point in this game but like you said, it's a high-paced game and pace is good because it leads to more play volume. You can't get sacks turnovers without plays. Again, logical but true. They are slight favorites in my model against the Colts this week. I bet their money line earlier on at plus 106. They're facing a rookie quarterback who complete a lot of passes but still didn't have great efficiency metrics last week. So for $3,400, I think that they're actually really, really fun. I will sacks that game too but like that's not mutually exclusive. So I think that the bucks great out pretty well. Like you mentioned, I don't mind. I don't mind them. Don't mind taking shots of the Lions because the Seahawks offensive line issues. I think that could be kind of interesting. So a lot of mid-range and lower tier defense do great out pretty well for this week. Any final thoughts for you Brandon? Before we close up shop for week number two. I was just looking through the slate again and here's a couple of games that could be really bleak. Green Bay on end up, Washington Denver. Maybe even Chargers Titans. Just a lot of games without much to go off of. But on the flip side, a lot of games that have, well, the one name I don't think we even mentioned that is appealing to me is Seguin Barkley. Yeah. Salary is 88. Great first half snap rate last week of 86%. We know what Seguin can do. He's probably the player I'm most fearful of not having enough exposure to. Yeah, I think that's very fair. Cause I'll make myself get some McCaffrey, but I'm more likely to overlook Seguin and that's very scary. I think to me it's just make sure you sit down and rank the value play running backs. Decide who you want to prioritize. You can use the guys who are not top on your list, but like decide, I think we're shot white, but like actually go through that process of ranking out those running backs, deciding who you like most, because I think that the key to this week is finding a way to get to Kelsey and Andrews, get to those high salary tight ends, so you don't have to deal with the muck at the rest of the position. That is all that we have here for today on the heat check fantasy podcast, but plenty of other stuff on the FanDuel podcast network for this weekend. Mention prime time Tom that is up right now for Thursday night between the Vikings and the Eagles. If you want some betting insights in that game, be it Tom Vecchio, that's in the covering the spread podcast feed and FanDuel TV plus betting show for college football week. Three is up with myself and Dr. Ed Feng. NFL betting preview with myself and Ed is coming up later on today on covering the spread. And then of course solo shot still with Tom Vecchio as well right here in the number fire daily fantasy podcast. Make sure you're subscribed there and also check out these shows on the FanDuel YouTube page and on FanDuel TV plus. Brandon, if people have questions for you on X, where can they find you there? On X. You have drugs? That's what it sounds like. That's what I gotta say now, right? I'm on X. That would explain a lot on this show. I didn't even think about it until I said it, but yeah. At Godula 13, GDULA13. I am on X at Jim Sonnis. J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow FanDuel Research at FanDuel Research. Don't forget the FanDuel Research free play as well. FanDuel.com slash research. Good luck to all of you in week number two with the main slate and other slates. We'll talk to you once again Monday to wrap it all up. This has been the heat check fantasy podcast right here on the FanDuel Podcast Network.