 The week three NFL DFS main slate is one where there are a lot of studs with very high salaries. Kudos to Fandall's salary department because it is tough for this week. We want to jam in Justin Jefferson, Tyree Kill, Tony Pards in a great spot. There's always Patrick Mahomes in a very soft matchup. And the problem is we can't play all of them. I'd love to, but we can't. So we got to kind of siphon through the studs for today and decide which guys are the top priorities for NFL DFS in week three. Decide which ones fit in game stacks and try to get, you know, some salary savers we can feel good about across the board. We're going to dive in and break down this week three main slate right now. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast. That's right here on Fandall.com and Fandall Research. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a managing editor of digital media for Fandall Research. Joined here as always by Brandon Goodula. He is a senior managing editor of Fandall Research Brandon week three is looking like a pretty fun one with so many good high salary guys who want to use. How are you doing tonight? Yeah, it is a good one. Could be better if the salaries were a little bit lower. We have some low salaries at different positions. Or like, I guess I should probably say, we have some low salaries at running back that are interesting, which is kind of in the case so far this season. And that just goes against what we historically like to target. So we got to figure out how that impacts us. But frankly, kind of drawn in by some of these tight ends, some of these receivers, these quarterbacks, some of them are in good spots. So I might be dipping into the value range at running back yet again. And I think that we do have routes for doing so. The question is, can we trust those guys? Cause there are some spots where there are concerns for these value backs, whether it be matchup, whether it be touchdowns. There are a lot of different reasons we could have issues with some of these guys. We'll dig in, outline which guys we trust for this week and try to get you ready for the week three main slate. But first air reminder, there is effectively a listener league once again as part of the transition to Fando research for running free plays, free rolls every single week throughout the NFL season. If you want to get entered for the free roll for week number three, go to fando.com slash research. There should be a post in there for the free roll up on the top part of the homepage. You can click on that and get yourself entered for free to play alongside other Fando research consumers. Check it out all over there on a fando.com slash research. We do still have the solo shot going every weekday. What's up, Vecchio for MLB DFS here on the number five or daily fantasy podcast so you'd Austin Swain breaks down USC each weekend as well for to get you ready for USC DFS and of course we have our twice-weekly NFL shows Monday recap Thursday preview which are also up on the Fando YouTube page streaming live there and over on Fando TV plus to get Fando TV plus go to fando.com slash watch or download Fando TV plus on Amazon Fire Apple TV or Roku snap into action. That's NFL season with Fando America's number one sports book right now. New customers get $200 in bonus bets guaranteed when you place a $5 bet. That's $200 in bonus bets when or lose. If you've been thinking about joining Fando, there's no better time to get in on the action. The app is easy to use. There's a wide range of betting options from spreads, player props, totals and more. So visit fando.com and kick off the NFL season. Fando official partner of the NFL must be 21 plus and president in select states. Fando 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 as non-latchrable bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply see terms at sportsbook.fando.com. Gambling problem call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit fando.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 slash chat in Connecticut 1-800-9 with in Indiana 1-800-522-4700 or visit ksgamblinghealth.com in Kansas 1-800-777-770 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 gamblinghelplinema.org or call 800-327-5050 or 24-7-Support in Massachusetts or call 1-877-8-Hope and Why or text Hope and Why in New York. Let's dig in now to this week three NFL DFS main slate and talk about the slate over you for this week. And Brandon, when you look at this slate what is the key thing for you the key decision point when trying to fill out and theorize lineups for this week? So for me, I like to have a specific I like to have a tight core of players first of all. And part of that with the NFL comes down to figuring out position prioritization. And so I don't like to have lineups where I build around let's say Justin Jefferson this week and then just completely obliterate that lineup and then build lineups around Tony Pollard and have basically divergent paths with how I'm building my lineups. I like to figure out am I trying to get overweight on Justin Jefferson Tyreek this week or am I trying to do that with the tight ends? And so for me like I'm trying to kind of replicate my lineups and tweak them as I build out more and more lineups. So I really need to figure out is this the type of week where I see enough from low salary quarterbacks for example and then I don't have to build into my player pool a lot of Patrick Mahomes. Josh Allen is like a contrarian play that kind of stuff. So for me I need to figure out where I feel most comfortable and right now I'm leaning toward once again value running backs. We talk about historically we've talked about not loving value running backs but that's changed over the years as running back usage has changed a bit. There are minimal if any true like 100% feature backs no one's gonna play 100% of the snaps this week. No one's probably gonna play 90% of the snaps this week unless that Dallas game plays close and Tony Pollard's first half snap rate is around 70% this season. So like I don't even think he would get there unless that game is just like back and forth. And so once you account for salary and in these workloads there are some undersalared backs. So I think once again I'm gonna be a little bit light on the higher salaried running backs and try to get access to the tight ends and the receivers who can really alter the slate. I think that's where I'm at as well. And the key thing for me is deciding which of those studs to prioritize. And to me the selection set here is I'm assuming Austin Ecker will not play. So kind of omitting him from this discussion but Justin Jefferson against the Chargers in a game that has a very high total and tight spread which we adore for game stacking. Tyreek Hill potentially with no jam and waddle another high total tight enough spread there as well. Tony Pollard, not the tights great matchup for him. It's decided and then B. John Robinson I guess you could toss in there too at $9,000 in another game that I think is pretty fun for stacking. So it's deciding who do I prioritize among that group. And to me, I think it's gonna be Jefferson like number one and Hill two which means I will be on board with you where I am likely trying to find salary savings at running back for this week. And I think that is going to be the right way to go. Let's keep up the discussion around low salary backs and talk about injuries for week number three, the Browns, sign cream hunt to fill in for the injured and Nick Chubb, Chubb of course done for the year. Reports though do say that Jerome Ford will be the featured back still for this team. They already picked Ford over hunt once in letting hunt walk and Ford stuck around. The problem is they're facing the Titans this week and the Titans are shut down two consecutive lower salary backs Ford $5,600. So his salary is lower than that of Joshua Kelly and Jamal Williams. And maybe there's past catching in there but there is the threat of cream hunt lingering. So how are you viewing Jerome Ford this week at $5,600? I see a case for it. If you're just selling out for a high salary stack of you want Keenan Allen and Justin Jefferson along with Justin Herbert but we talk about finding mistake erasers and Justin Jefferson is one of those guys for sure. So making sure that if you're playing someone like Jerome Ford who, you know he does have anecdotally a big ceiling. We saw some explicit plays from him and I, you know, I always hate when people do this. I always hate when I do it but you know as if you take out that long carry he had where he almost scored the production was solid. It wasn't anything amazing. And up in this matchup being so tough against the Titans it doesn't really get any worse than an overall sort of running back matchup against the Titans. So I think you have to be very selective with how much Jerome Ford you use because the path to an 11 point game is still pretty clear. So maybe I'll lower on him than you are. And this is coming from someone who wanted him a lot on my season long teams and someone like I'm there on. It's just specifically the matchup. You don't really, he's not gonna be Nick Chubb. You know, it's just. And you're taking the right approach and talking about his ceiling. His floor will be fine. But as we know here, floor is an oversold aspect of daily fantasy. You want ceiling, you want guys, you know using Ford may get you a mistake eraser but it also is one less slot in your roster to use someone who could erase other mistakes. Ford, I do think will be pretty clearly back here. 17 routes for him in week number three or two, Pierre Strong ran eight, 16 carries for a targets and forward in that game. So I think he'll be the lead back. It's just, that's a really tough spot to be in for him facing the Titans. So I think of the three value backs would face the Titans between Williams, Kelly and Ford. Ford is the most appealing because of salary is lowest and I trust this offense. Well, I trust this rushing offense more. I should rephrase. I trust this rushing offense more. I think that what I'd rather do though is a Mario Cooper salary is $600 higher than Ford's. So I can get a value player on the Browns and have him be in an infinitely better matchup than what Ford has. So like if I'm gonna save salary in the Browns I think I'd rather go with a Mario Cooper than go with Ford. I'll have Ford in my player pool but I wanna make sure I have a very low lid on it. 15 to 20% because I respect the Titans. I think I'd rather just go a little bit harder to Cooper instead. Yeah. And just to clarify here, the Titans against running backs this season are first in rushing success rate allowed by all of the metrics but they're basically 20 percentage points better than the league average in success rate allowed against running backs. So again, there's a chance he just breaks a long one but even if you give him 18, 20 carries I don't know if that's really tied to 120 rushing yards because of how good this offense or this defense has been. So that's my main concern. And while yes, a featured role 80% snap rate maybe at a $5,600 salary sometimes it's like you're overthinking it not to use it but what's the upside? And the upside is some long carries maybe some touchdowns. Try to get this offense because Nick Chubb is basically the entire identity of that offense. He's the best running back like running back in football. And maybe they really like if they get near the goal lines like let's get forward some touchdowns and like really make everyone believe in that. And it's the kind of stuff we don't really talk about or think about. I could see that happening but, so my final question here is what percentage of your lineups would you afford on? Cause I think it's probably, okay cause it's probably gonna be lower than, well there's a lot of value backs. I don't think it'll be very high rostered because William on YouTube saying salary could be zero and I wouldn't use him against Titans. I think that's fair. Like, you know, I think that's gonna be a discussion point throughout this week especially given we saw with the past couple of backs. So I don't think he's gonna be that popular as a result of that. And because we have other value backs there I don't think he'll be that popular. I think we'll be around to like 25%. Okay, that's fair. Also fun on the Titans. That's not just a two week sample. I mean, it is the one you cited but like they were good last year too. Like I have my model blends a prior with what we've seen so far this year and they're still easily first in rush defense, projected rush defense. So they're very good. Speaking of Cooper, he did his practice Wednesday with shoulder and groin injuries. Cooper played through the groin injury last week and looked pretty good. Our shoulder injury is new. The Browns facing the Titans here, they funnel work towards the passing game. So I still feel like I'm pretty good with Cooper as long as he gets into full practice by Friday. Any other interest in the passing game for you here? Not, not specifically. I think Cooper's the guy. Yeah, I'd agree with that as well. I toyed with the idea of considering to Sean Watson as a salary saver but I think he's a bit too close to Lamar Jackson, Kirk Cousins, Jared Goff to feel good about that despite the fact that he like his rushing work a lot. The Vikings acquired Cam Acres from the Rams for a 2026 pick swap. Cool, Acres has struggled this year but so has Alexander Madison. Acres also played under Vikings head coach, Kevin O'Connell with the Rams back in the day. We don't know whether Acres will be active but we'll talk about this backfield in the bookmakers section. The Saints are thin at running back with Jamal Williams now dealing with a hamstring injury. Alvin Camara is still suspended. Kendra Miller got into full practice on Wednesday. I think they hate Tony Jones. I think that they only used him on, like their pass rate was bananas. Like they came out with a game plan on Monday saying we want to pound this rock and then it's like, oh, we can't because our only option is Tony Jones and Jason Hill. So I think they hate Tony Jones. Kendra Miller full practice Wednesday. Salaries 46 facing the Packers. Any interest in a Kendra Miller dart throw in a thin backfield? I'm gonna say no. Okay. I have interest. How much? I don't know. I kind of want some more reports to come out. The good thing is the Saints have very good beat reporters around the team. Nick Underhill is like one of the, like a top tier beat reporters. We'll probably get decent info on like what to expect from them by Sunday. So I feel like we'll have a good read by Sunday. I don't have a good read right now but I will say my antennas are up because low salary at running back Packers not that good against the rush. I think the Saints offense is fine. They haven't lit it up so far but I really don't mind them. And it's, I think that like the analog here is the Zach Moss situation. Zach Moss doesn't play week one. Deon Jackson looks like booty and Evan Hall gets hurt and they immediately give Zach Moss 100% well 98% snap rate. I don't know if we'll get there for Kendra Miller but I would not be shocked if he immediately gets a good amount of run. He practiced a good amount last week too. So I think the injury is okay. But like my intent is up and I think that's a proper phrasing for me. I think where I'm always coming from with Saints running backs is that this team just gives the ball to anyone near the goal line. That's very true. And I hate that. Absolutely fair. And even at a $4,600 salary an 8,500 yard game with no touchdowns doesn't necessarily move the needle unless you're again using that salary specifically to get like this weird combination that almost nobody else is having of like Jefferson and Tyreek and they both go for like 200 yards. Like Miller over Ford. To be determined. Okay. But like I would say that's something I'm receptive to just to add a curiosity. Let's see here. I remember the buttons to push. So if you go with Kendra Miller with Tyreek Hill and Justin Jefferson let's put in the Dolphins defense. 64, 40 left for Biesel to do quarterback, you know, running back flex receiver tight end. But like if you, you know. I don't know. We'll talk about quarterback upside in salary later. I don't even know if that's enough. Fair enough. I'm gonna stop going here because I'm gonna go down a really bad path. I think it's at least digging into that. And it's not like if you play Miller you have to have both of those guys or anything. It's just, you really gotta think about how it impacts your lineup to potentially based on what we know and based on what we've seen historically from certain teams that someone's not getting you 25 Fandall points or 20 Fandall points even at a low salary. Interested. Again, antennas are up. That's what I'll say. Justice Hill dealing with Turf toe which could hold him out for Baltimore's week three match with the Colts. If, I mean the Ravens had a Melvin Gordon on the roster last week, he was active but did not play a single snap. They also signed Kenyon Drake who was with the team last year and Drake knows it's offense. Well, actually, no, he was different offense because it's Todd Munkin now. But let's say that Hill can't go. We've got Drake and Gordon in town. Any interest in Gus Edwards is $6,200. Talk about another backfield where there's not a lot of single game upside. I'd consider him but I'm considering a lot and it's same as last week. I'm considering a lot of names in like the 6,000 Ranger running back and when you're considering five or six guys, you're not really considering anyone to be like the guy. Now, you know, Zach Moss, I think stands out for both of us. But at a certain point, it's you're kind of rolling the dice. So it goes back to what I said at the top of the show. If I just commit to trying to figure out the value running backs, I'd probably just be really, really overweight on certain quarterbacks and receivers and just kind of build my lineups and tweak them and filter through these value backs and kind of hope for the right combo. So where are you with this backfield? If I'm ranking him out compared to other value backs, like let's assume Justice Hill sits, I'd rank Moss higher still. I know opposing side of a game where the Ravens are pretty heavily favored, but like Moss probably more likely to get passing game work. I think that's pretty enticing. Where he most rated 66 as well. I like him more than Gus at 62 personally. He's pretty close to Jamir Gibbs or Monterey. Stevenson is there. So like I don't think it's like egregious if you want to consider Gus, but I think I'd rank him below all those guys I just named, which probably means I wouldn't get there, but like I wouldn't talk people out of him, I guess is what I would say, but not really there personally, especially with Drake now signing. It's a little bit concerning to me. Same team. Oh, sorry. No, I say that same thing a lot when we talk about golf. It's like I consider this per this this golfer, but that's different than like wanting to play someone. Correct. Same team. Odell Beckham, mispractice Wednesday. Doesn't seem like he's going to be out this week. I think he'll play, I guess, but it is noteworthy. Any value for you and the Ravens past catchers with Odell that bit banged up. Also, apparently, maybe dating Kim Kardashian. I don't know if that factors into the model, but wouldn't for me. I'm sure it would for you. There it is, maybe. Yeah. Not sure that's a positive or a negative bump, but we'll figure that out. Here are the narrative guys who you know. I mean, do like Mark Andrews and Zae Flowers work as getting value or like being value plays? I think that they're both. I think that Andrews is fairly salaried at seventy four and Flowers is a bit under salaried at sixty three. So, yeah, I think that it makes me feel better about those two guys. I think it's a way to phrase it. So then, yeah, I would say Zae probably is. Yeah. There's the guy Andrews got a lot of targets in his in his return. Love to see that. But, yeah, yeah, Zae. And I'm going to use Lamar. So I'll need to use those two guys. If it means stacking is easier, I can just focus on those two. I'll take that. Austin Eckler, mispractice Wednesday with his ankle injury. We'll talk about Joshua Kelly in the bookmaker section. Amon Ross St. Brown practice Wednesday or mispractice Wednesday. He's dealing with potentially turf toe. He played through it for the end of Sunday's game, and he had like a catch either in overtime or before overtime where he looked really good, I thought. The Lions unlikely to have David Montgomery due to a thigh injury. We'll talk about them in the bookmaker section. Aaron Jones just another practice Wednesday due to his hamstring injury. Christian Watson was limited and appears on track to return. If Jones is out again, should we can consider Dusty Dylan or sorry, AJ Dylan, now that his salary is down to 63? And how about the pass catchers if Watson is back? So it's again, it's another name in that salary range where you don't you don't need to consider it. But like it comes back to like, what's the single game upside? The salary is low, but it's not so low that you're getting like free access to to Justin Jefferson or anything. So I'm out as far as the pass catchers go. I think that I think the jury remains out on how sticky the Jordan love efficiency is going to be. Correct. And there's this team is having a pretty lengthy list of players getting targets. So it goes back to the upside. I don't really know if it's there. And so I'm probably out. I think I don't need the value this week at receiver. I agree. Both Jalen Waddell and Sivan Ahmed missed practice on Wednesday for the Dolphins. We'll talk about them in the bookmaker section. DK Metcalf is expected to play this week, despite dealing with a rib injury. He missed or he returned to the game on Sunday. Pete Carroll said Wednesday he expects Metcalf out there. Any interest in DK Metcalf or Tyler Lockett facing a Panthers defense that is missing some key pieces in the secondary? I don't I don't like mind this game as a whole, but I don't know how you bring it back. And if I if I can't bring it back, I don't tend to love receivers. Yeah. And I have enough receivers that I like to want to get to that I don't know if I'm going to jam in some one offs, even though these two guys I've probably said single game offside like a thousand times, but these two can be the wide receiver one any week. You know, wouldn't surprise anybody, but am I too low on them? No, because I think that like I'm OK with a receiver where I don't like the opposing side if it's like a lower salary. Like I'm not super into like any Titans, but I like Amari Cooper a lot at 62. So like that's fine. But 62 is a lot different from Metcalf at 74, Lockett at 73. So I think I'd need a bit more juice on the opposing side to get super jazzed about the Seahawks passing game. Logan Thomas seems likely to miss week three after a pretty nasty concussion on Sunday. The commander's six and a half point underdogs at home against the Bills. What a an absence for Thomas boosts the appeal in Johan Dotson or Terry McLaurin for you. So like I said, a couple of weeks ago, I guess week one, I'm trying not to look at salaries and then make my decisions based on salaries. So if I just look at like the target shares, I know they could climb this team just is spreading it out. There's not a whole lot there. And now seeing McLaurin salary at 71. Well, he's not the target here. He's not the park. Baby, Johan Dotson, fifty eight hundred dollars. Like his target shares. Yeah, I mean, it's it's nineteen percent. Only one deep target so far. But last year, we saw him get a lot of deep work. And he can get red zone work, too. So although he hasn't gotten the high level of work yet, that's something that like he will get long term. So I think that like Dotson is very, very interesting at fifty eight. As far as like, if you think about like receivers in that range you have upside, he's that he fits that well. You know, there's there's yardage juice there. He can score touchdowns. His quarterback is playing decent so far. Like I think that's enough. Yeah, he's one of the biggest over performers in terms of touchdowns last year. And I know you said he has one deep target, which for you is sixteen plus yards downfield. He has six downfield targets of ten plus yards. Yeah, eight point eight yard eight odd. Yeah, I would say that. Receivers really, really fascinating this week. There are plays throughout the salary tier. It gets a little tricky below six thousand. So Dotson deserves a shot. That's a good call. OK, the Chiefs were that Isaiah Pacheco, Kaderius, Tony and Richard James of practice on Wednesday. Pacheco is a hamstring contusion. That's a bruise, right? I don't know. These are big words to me. Tony dealing with a toe injury. Would removing either Pacheco or Tony increase your interest in the non-Kelsey pieces for the Chiefs offense? It's just going to lead to more work for like everybody. And it's going to get all spread out, especially his big favorites. I think it's just I don't really think it's it's there. Like who bet like I just don't. I can't answer the question who benefits like I can't like I can't. Like what's Sky Morse salary? He's 56. Like that's fine. But like it's not. It's still I still wouldn't be like slobbering to get there. Let's say Pacheco is OK. Because again, it's a hamstring contusion, which is weird. Would you have interest there at 57 against a terrible Bears defense? I feel like I mean, he's still he's never going to play like an 85, 90 percent snap rate, at least in the regular season. They're not going to give him tons of work. They're going to spread it out. He's going to come off the field. If I had him in season long and I like I just lost Nick Chubb, I'd be like, let's go and plug him in, feel good. I don't really know if he's the type of play in DFS right now with this workload. So I want to, you know, construct lineups around. So I'm out. Pacheco or Jerome Ford, Pacheco. Pacheco or Kendra Miller. I feel so if like if Miller is the only running back, his work, his snap rate can't be worse than Pacheco's, which is like capped at like. So accounting for that salary, I'd probably just go Miller. OK, I would need some positive reports on Miller, but I think we might get them. So if we get the positive reports, I'll I'll be there. OK, let's dig in now to our bookmaker section for week number three and talk about the big shootout in Minneapolis for the Vikings and the Chargers total there has come down one point, but is still at 53 and a half. No other game higher than 48 and a half spread. It is pretty tight here bouncing back and forth between the two sides. The Chargers now fair by one and a half. And like we talk a lot about how we can have concerns around certain games for stacking. I don't have a lot around this game, honestly, which could be concerning because both these teams are the dumbest teams in football, like 31 and 32, as far as like intelligence, like they just play the dumbest games. But they can move the ball. Both the defense that struggled to open this year. So how do you feel about this game? I play them all. Gary Oldman game shout out to Al Smizzle. I forgot about that. Yeah, wow, that's been a while reference. I was like, where do I remember that phrase from? Once he said, yeah, OK, yeah, play all the dudes. Yeah, yeah, it's a two QB game. Love, Justin Herbert. Love, Kirk Cousins. We'll talk about cousins in terms of, you know, fitting those sort of upside mold for this week, despite not rushing the ball much at all. Assuming no Echler, I play Kelly. I. Talk to me about Alexander Madison real quick. No, you do that. Don't put that on me. So then Justin Jefferson, Keenan Allen, Mike Williams, Jordan Addison, all viable. Addison of a bit, I think it's salaries too high. It's 68. So it's a question of how much juice do we give him as a result of the game environment? Because like he's still running a bit behind KJ Osborn, I believe, at least based on Thursday night snaps, but also like it's his first year of his career. So like that could change very quickly, especially because he's playing very well. Yeah. So like he's probably earned more work in that offense. Sure. So I don't know. I I wouldn't like you sometimes ask like how many lines do you need to get there? That's like 30 to 40 line up, I think. Just because there are other receivers, I like a lot in that range in his work. Like he did play 71 percent of the snaps on Thursday, which is pretty good. I know he's behind Osborn, but like that's still pretty good. So I feel like I'd rather just go Jefferson and Hawkinson, though, and just kind of load up on them and then, you know, try to hit the right combos around them. I'm going to have enough of the quarterbacks in this game where I would just want to filter in multiple just options with game stacks. So he's going to be in the player pool. Would you play KJ Osborn? Uh, it's fifty six hundred dollars, probably. So like when I was doing RIP to you, the salary scroll on on Monday, I was like, I guess I could go KJ Osborn. No, I shouldn't talk myself out of it like immediately. He has six targets per game, but that's a 14 percent target share. Maybe that's sticky because like they can't run because they're bad at that. Addison doesn't have a 31 percent deep target share despite the limited snaps. So like maybe I should be higher on him, just a higher salary than I'd like. So I probably don't want to get to Osborn. I think I kind of want to keep it tight here. Go Herbert with Mike Williams and Keenan Allen and then go cousins. I'm not totally, totally sure I'll get there. I should, but I'm not totally. I can't say a hundred percent that I will. But I think I'd rather go with like Hawkinson and Jefferson and just kind of maybe some Addison and use that as like the just make my core here tight within game stacks. No arguments. I'm just going to say if I'm rounded out lineups and I have sixty eight or fifty six, those two guys in this game environment have more appeal than again, some one offs in like bad games. And where do you feel about Addison compared to Amari Cooper at sixty two? I prefer Cooper for like just this sort of head to head kind of lineup. But if I'm looking for true ceiling and thinking about game stacks and how it all works out, odds are what my top lineups are just going to be built around these quarterbacks or this game and Addison, because the salary is, you know, objectively too high, it's going to keep people off of him. Yeah. And he has, I'll say it again, big single game upside based on how good he is. So I get that. I would not talk to you about Alexander Madison, but I will talk to you about Joshua Kelly. If we assume that where sets Kelly's salary is sixty one hundred dollars and obviously didn't do anything last week, but that's to be expected in that matchup. His snap right was seventy nine percent. And I think they've shown they trust him both in the work they gave him in week one, but also the snap right they gave him in week two. He had a target in that game, I think like on the first drive is like, OK, cool. If you can get around this matchup and then they never threw it in again the rest of the game. So I think that Kelly, like if you're talking to me about the backs in the six thousand range, so talking about Mostert, from Andre, Zach Moss, I would be tempted to put Joshua Kelly one of that group. I would probably put Zach Moss a hair above him. But like, I think that Kelly's not in that tier for the six thousand range. How do you settle in on him at sixty one? Yeah, like the the underlying workload that we saw could have been better, but because it wasn't better. The salary is low. So, you know, just rest up. Austin gets him, you know, much, much deserved rest here because I don't want to consider him in this game environment, frankly. But coming off an injury at ninety eight hundred dollars, he would definitely have five touchdowns. He would. He won't won't practice all week. Right. Game time decision and then play. Of your report, pregame that his ankle is like barely like hanging on by a thread, you know. Sixty one percent snap rate for touchdowns. Yeah. But no, Kelly's a great call. And again, I'm going to stack this game as many ways as I can almost. So based on that, I'm going to have more exposure to him. Even if I may be in a vacuum, would rather get to remandre or most or or or Moss. And single word Madison, yeah, or nay, I shouldn't have put the single word disclaimer on it. Nay. OK. We're going to say maybe was that like your I thought I heard an M in there first. Well, again, I'm going to stack this game and everyone clearly does not care for acting or a lot of some people, I should say. Yeah, which is horrible to think about. But I could, you know, I'm going to say yay because he's game stacks only. And I can say that because. Would that change of acres is active or no? Because I think acres stinks, too. So like it's I. Yeah, I don't think that, especially coming off that game and stuff that happened after that. That's what I thought, too. I kind of feel like, yeah, they're going to try to get Madison. Throw a bone. Yeah. Especially in a great match up. So maybe I should be higher like four game stacks. Yes, I'll do it. Yeah. And I must act this game. So my answer to that after, you know, two minutes is yay. OK, I'm yayish. Yayish is one word. Let's go to another high total with a tight spread. That is in Detroit's Lyon three and a half point favorites against the Falcons total is forty six and a half. I took the over when it was forty five and a half earlier on this week. I think I still show value. Let me check. I have the total for this game. I think I like forty nine. Yeah, forty nine point five. So still high second highest of the week. So what could go wrong there? The Falcons passing game sucks. They don't throw the ball at all and they're not super efficient when they do. But Detroit has plenty of guys who want to use potentially some injuries to wiggle things down a bit there. So is this a game you feel good stacking? Do I feel good stacking? No. And the reason for that is the non-Detroit offense in this matchup. All the way you phrase that. Not not name and names, but it's not Detroit. Bijan Robinson is phenomenal and I love watching him play. Salary of nine thousand leaves, really no room for error, which is a positive if you just look at it from a again, similar to the Addison conversation. Well, he's not going to fit the optimizers. The value is going to look worse because the projected like median outcome isn't going to look as great. But this dude's got multi touchdown upside if he has at least two touches because he could just house anything. But as far as stacking goes, I can't say that it's really stackable because if I'm stacking it, I'm kind of throwing my hands up and saying, sure, Drake London can have a decent game or sure. Kyle Pitts is like, I can I can say that. But that's again, a little bit different than saying like that I want to stack it. So I guess technically it is stackable, but with a lot of conditions on that. How exposed do you want to be to Robinson at nine thousand dollars? Because it's a very high salary. And to say where you want to get to some high salary receiver. So like there is a pretty lofty opportunity cost using Robinson. So where do you settle in as far as like how much you want of him? I mean, it's a one QB game because golf's in the consideration set. And if I'm playing like a golf, I'm on Ross St. Brown stack, I would consider it. But I think he might be game stacks only because I really want this game to be the game and I'm kind of banking on it being the game for Robinson to pay off that salary. Yeah. I know you can't just again find four hundred dollars, but Pollard or Bijan Robinson this week, yeah, in a vacuum, in a non-game stack contextual conversation, you're in that backfield. Right. That's the biggest concern is I think Robinson might. I give everyone there and Jones comp, but this is different. So I gave him that comp after week one. I agree with you, Holy. And then he went out and just torched. He did, yes. But he has that out years involved in the red zone. This team runs the ball so much that other players are going to get involved naturally. So I wouldn't talk a single person out of playing Bijan Robinson. And I will play him a little bit, but he's not going to be someone that I got on my way to plug in first in my lineups because of the salary and because of the potential concerns with the red zone work right now. Different comp for you. And this one is going to sound very stupid because they're the most different players of all time. I think he's similar to like old school Derek Henry, where you kind of ask what are the odds he burned me for not using him and kind of use that as a way to guide your your your roster rates. And I would say when you consider Algier, I think the odds he burns me for not using around like 15 percent and that that fits is like game stacks only for me. So that's probably the guiding light I would use there. The opposing side is more fun. Actually, I'm not going to use Drake one. I'll say that quick. I refuse, but I'll use pits because tight end is the worst. And it'd be so funny if he scored this week. It's literally just because they could be funny. That's the only reason that's the best justification I can give you for pits is it would be funny if you went off. Don't say that. Don't say that we can build a case for Kyle pits. But I mean, he runs a lot of routes like that's the case. And he's in a game that I want to stack runs a lot of rounds for targets for game. But a catch rate over expectation of minus 20.6 percentage points. So is that on him or is that on other so we so we don't know. But those four targets could be leading to more than twenty nine and a half yards per game. So that's the case at such a low salary in a game that could be a bit of a shootout. And I haven't checked whether this morning as of Thursday, but as of like Wednesday afternoon, there were some windy games, potentially windy games, but they're all bad games. So if I still if I sort by total, like my total in my model, the there are five games of the wind speed of at least 10 miles per hour. Four of them are the four lowest totals for me. That's that's a correlation equals causation situation, because the wind is in the model. But like it's the quarterbacks. There are Josh Allen, Sam Howell, Deshaun Watson, Ryan Tannehill, Jordan Love, Derek Carr, Zach Wilson, Mac Jones. Like it's not impacting a lot as far as like teams we actually want to use. Right. But it still takes out potential value plays at tight end, for example. So I think my approach to tight end is am I stacking this game? Can I use the tight end in it? Cool. That'll probably be reported more often than it is cow pits. But like I think that's the way I want to go. Like that's why I'll get to Hawkinson is because I just and I'll get to Andrew's because like I'm just going to use like let the game stack guide where I go at tight end or the quarterback stack, etc. Let's talk about the other side as far as running back. Jameer Gibbs likely getting a bump here with no David Montgomery. Looking at the Lions after Montgomery left on Sunday, snaps were 17 to 10 in favor of Jameer Gibbs. Gibbs finished that game with nine targets, which was a very good number. And he did split work with Craig Reynolds. But I feel like we saw enough there to feel OK about Gibbs and seven thousand dollars. He is fine from a sour perspective, getting exposure to this game. He's going to get targets. And I know people say that's more of a full PPR thing. But on fan dual, past catching matters a lot as well. So I'm going to go back to Gibbs this week. That's going to I'm going to regret that at some point. But I do feel like just based on the past catching, based on the bump and projected early downwork, I think there's enough here to go back to him. What say you on Jameer Gibbs at seven thousand dollars, assuming there is no Montgomery. Yeah, if there's no Montgomery, he's one of my favorite plays. The salaries there. Good good game environment overall. We're talking about it in this section for a reason indoors. We know that the the potential is there. His his rushing metrics haven't been great yet. But it's a two game sample and I would be astonished if we look at the end of the season and say, well, I guess he's not very good. And he has been targeted on the second highest route targeted on the second highest percentage of his routes among all running backs. He's like point one points behind Javante way. So he's basically just getting used in a very unique way. And anytime we get a legitimate past catcher at running back, you got to take advantage because if there's no Montgomery for multiple weeks, which maybe is the case Gibbs salary, probably not going to be lower than this until Montgomery returns. That's fair. The good way to look at it, too, is who's salary is lower than it will be going for. That's actually a really good way to look at it. Let's talk about the past catchers very quickly here. The non Falcons guys because not a lot of passes to catch there. Amon Ross, St. Brown 79 has this turf toe injury. I think if he's a full go by Friday, that that salary is way low. Like might be hard to get to you in Jefferson lineups. But like I feel like I want to try to make it work. Reynolds is too high at seven thousand dollars. Like what are we doing? So to me, it's about Amon Ross and Laporta. What about you for the Lions past catchers? Didn't that happen for Reynolds in like other weeks, too? I like I love Josh Reynolds and I'm just sad I can't use him. So I'm tilting. Yeah, I love Amon Ross, St. Brown, assuming he's full in practice by Friday and is not limited. I think that based on his like market shares right now, they're kind of low. He's been physically been in and out of line up. I know for a fact he's gone in and out of line up sometimes. But yeah, don't know quite how often, but everything's kind of limited. And once again, he's going to be an 8000 receiver. You know, once he's healthy. So and he's still looked good, despite the fact he's been banged up. So I value that personally. Final game in the bookmaker section is the Broncos at the Dolphins. Second highest total here back up to 48 and a half was briefly 47 and a half back up to 48 and a half. Dolphins favor by six and a half. So the Broncos implied total is still above 20. We know to use Terry kill, like no discussion there. Raheem Mostert's probably pretty interesting at 66 as well. But Jalen Waddle's injury could open up questions around to a tongue of Iloa because of decreased efficiency and the Broncos market shares are vomit. How are you viewing this game for DFS? Yeah, Mostert and Hill to the biggest overperformers in terms of fandal points versus expected fandal points. But they have the ability to make that happen. So I'm not going to question that too much. The only question is how much hill can you get, really? I think that's the main concern, not is he viable? He's very viable. Mostert, should he just be the play in like the low? Like he Mostert in this offense or Zach Moss, if you're building like one line up. Shouldn't just be Mostert at this point. Yeah, I mean offense. Yeah. So. Yeah, I think that's fair because like Savan Ahmed's banged up. I think they'll eventually get a chain more involved. But like I think their actions kind of say that he's not there yet. He will be eventually probably, but like he's not there yet. Moster last week, 18 carries one target in that game with Ahmed leaving early two out of six red zone chances. So this red zone role is fine. Snapper, it's pretty good at 72 and 74 percent. So probably should go Mostert. I think that's that's fair. What about the other any other passcatchers here for Miami that you'd be looking at? Well, we just got a question over on YouTube from One Eye Jack Productions. Can I interest you in Durham's smite this week? If you go to my Slack archive to Brandon now from 9.30 this morning, it was just a screenshot of Durham's smite. So I was 48 runs a lot of routes. Tight end is the worst. If I'm just using tight ends and games that I'm looking to stack, I'll have stacks of this game. So I do feel like smith is is viable. It's not because I think that smith is like good. It's because tight end is the worst. And I might as well use a guy on an offense we like who's missing a key piece and runs a lot of routes for $4,800. So I'm going to use him like, yeah, I'll use him. What about you? Yeah, I'm fine. I'm fine with that. But you said you want to use tight ends and games you're going to stack. So yeah, how are you stacking this game? It's probably Jim Ante Williams, the 61. He hasn't looked very good so far. But he's getting passing game work, which I like six and three targets in the two games for a total of 19 yards. My gosh. Yeah, he's the player with a slightly higher target per route rate than Jumeir Gibbs. Oh, interesting. OK, I didn't realize that. They had said in week one that he was on a snap count and he played 28 snaps there. I believe he played the exact same number in week two as well. So that didn't rise, but he's $6,100. I feel like like maybe you go to Jude the dude at 61. But like, I think the Broncos are going to be a nightmare from a target share perspective this year. So yeah, I think it's really more about Javante. And like when I'm talking about Smythe, it's more so. I'm using that passing game. Yeah. And so like because I'm using Hill, it makes sense to use Smythe. I think it's more so than like game stacks. I'd probably two of them. Because I'm not using any Broncos. I don't think there's a case to be made for it, frankly. I think with unless unless it's your plan. Tyree is going to go nuts and Javante is going to get like 10 targets. Yeah. I think with two, I would need Waddle to go, which I don't think he will. Just because like there are other guys who don't run a lot, who I like more this week. Cousins there, golf is there. Herbert doesn't run a lot. So I like him more. So I think two would probably not going to crack the player pool for me, assuming Waddle doesn't go. Yeah, I'm not quite there, but you know, there are, frankly, quarterbacks on the slate. Like, would it surprise me if two threw for 350 and four? No, no. But again, that's a threshold for a non rushing quarterback to be in a perfect lineup is 350 yards and four touchdowns. I feel like it's more likely we get that from. Golf cousins. I know I see you. I feel like it's more likely to come from one of them playing indoors, too, which helps not as much humidity for them as will have in Miami this week, which I think works both ways. It hurts defense, too. So it's not like, you know, this game will go under because of humidity, but like, you know, I just like domes. So let's dig in now to our trends discussion for week number three. And Brandon, you alluded to this before. You're talking about quarterback upside and the tools we need to find upside that position. So what did you see when you dug into the data? Yeah. So I know sometimes our trends can get kind of like complicated and then hard to apply. So I tried to keep this one a little bit simpler and look at like the actual hit rates of quarterbacks based just on salary, because, you know, perfect lineup sometimes can have the one quarterback at a low, low salary who had a big game. And, you know, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's how you should be building your lineups. But salary, of course, can tell us a lot about production. And I think this week specifically, because we have someone over 9000 with a salary of Patrick Mahomes at 92. It's fairly rare, all things considered. Josh Allen, tough matchup. But boy, he's got upside in any matchup. Justin Fields might be getting a little more carefree. That whole team is it's got some stuff going on. Who knows what's true, what's not. But quarterbacks in the games that we're talking about already is like game stacks, it waddles back to has got that upside. So again, I just wanted to kind of like keep this one simple and look at the probabilities because it's going to be tempting to look for low salary quarterbacks any week. But there is a bit of a risk. So obviously, there's a clear relationship between salary and Fandall points scored and I bucketed quarterbacks into salary tiers since the start of 2018. So if you're 82 or 88, you're just an $8000 quarterback. I just kind of kept it simple like that. So since 2018 quarterbacks with a salary of over of 9000 or higher had a 25 Fandall point game 40% of the time. That number for the $8000 quarterbacks is 30%. And it's 15% for 7k quarterbacks. So that means your odds of getting 25 Fandall points from an 8k QB versus a 7k QB is basically double. As far as the 6000 range goes, it's 5%, which makes sense because there's just not a whole lot of high upside plays that are just rushed into great matchups. That gets accounted for. But that means that quarterback at a 9k salary is eight times more likely to get to 25 Fandall points. And so shouldn't really shock anyone. But we know that quarterback, especially for people who come from a season long background, know that you can kind of play matchups and you can account for that. The salaries do fluctuate based on matchups. So it's a little bit tricky sometimes. But if you turn to value, like projected value and by value, I mean your Fandall points divided by your salary, you know, times a thousand to kind of make it an actual number that's that's easy to think about. You look at value value should be probably something that everyone who plays DFS already knows, but for anyone who doesn't, that's a way you can look at things. So 21 Fandall points at a seven thousand dollar salary is three times value, three X value. So it'd be the same as 24 Fandall points at an 8000 salary. Three times values pretty rare to find at QB. You're probably only considering options with like a 2.25 or maybe a 2.5 projection, 2.5 is really strong. It's usually like the top five quarterbacks on a given slate. So I'll cherry pick it and stick to even just the 2.5X projected quarterbacks based on number fires, historical projections. So these are the best QBs in these salary tiers. So we're weeding out the guys we were not really considering in the first place. As far as the well projected quarterbacks go, the rates that they got to 25 plus Fandall points at nine thousand, it's 43 percent. So it's three percentage points higher than the full sample at 8000, it's 35 percent. So that's five points higher than the full sample, seven K, it's 20 percent. So another five points above the full sample and at six K, it's still five percent. So it's the same. So I say this because like we talked about Anthony Richardson just in week one, and we're not going to get quarterbacks in this salary tier very often with a six in front of their salary. But other than that, replaceability gets really hard. And it's still pretty predictable. So players with a seven thousand dollar salary have passed to ceilings whenever there's a path to a ceiling. But the names that fit this week in the seven thousand range are Kirk Cousins, Trevor Lawrence and nearly Jared Gough. He's projected for like 2.45 with his value at number fire right now. I still think that, yes, you can cherry pick or sorry, you can nitpick like Mahomes and Allen to Justin Fields right now. But these guys have big ceilings. And so if you're going to look at a slate like this to me, there's like 10 quarterbacks that I could consider. A few of them flow to the top. But whenever it comes to quarterbacks and like finding upside, you generally have to allocate salary. And that's tricky because we have Justin Jefferson, Tyree Kill, the tight ends this week. So how are you viewing quarterback as a whole? Because we don't, we kind of just talk about that toward the player pick section with quarterback. Do you think there's a lot of high upside guys or are you kind of ruling out Mahomes, a Josh Allen this week in terms of upside? And you're actually considering, you know, Jared Gough or I know you're a little bit lower on Kirk Cousins. But how are you feeling like I'm just annoyed. I don't want to use Cousins when I know he'll be popular, which he will this week. Sure. Like if I look at Rotogruinder's roster a projections, Cousins is number one. Jared Gough is around 1%. So if I'm going to get that kind of gap, I'd rather I'd use golf. I'd rather use golf. I also don't know why golf is so low. But that's like, what's the difference between Kirk Cousins and Jared Gough, assuming a man Ross St. Brown plays? One's in the best game of the week against a team that can actually score. And one is against the team that wants to get out of their lines. Get out of there and score on the Lions. Anyway, get out of there as quickly as possible. That's the that's the Falcons way. Their pace is like slightly below average. You run pace numbers. I use your pace numbers from my model. They put totals being super high. They look dog. They want to just run the ball. Doesn't matter. It's like a non terrible pace. I think this game goes over. So like, I don't know. Overall, getting back to your question for quarterback this week. I feel like Mahomes and Allen can still torture you for not using them, but like the odds they do so are lower because of script for Mahomes and match up for Allen. So like, I'm more OK spending down, but I rather spend down for Lamar Jackson. Like, I think it comes down to that. So I am more receptive to pocket passers than usual, but that does not mean that I'm going to rank them first. I'm going to rank Lamar first. That's the one thing I am certain about this week is Lamar Jackson will be my number one quarterback. Like a single entry lineup, I'm using Lamar. So that's where I'm at. Yeah. And again, I think what I also just found in this is obviously overall higher salaries correlate with higher Fandall point outputs, but someone like Justin Herbert probably should be considered like a huge tier above. I don't want to say Kirk Cousins because he's very close to getting to the 8000 salary. But like, if we're open to, I don't know, Trevor Lawrence, Jared Goff, like, obviously there's a salary gap there. But like, I think historically I would underrate someone like Herbert because I just like Lamar and then I'll try to get down and match Herbert. But again, like these guys are like twice as likely to get a big game as someone in the 7000 range, even whenever you look just at the best projected in the 7000 range. So I do like Herbert too, but I like Lamar a lot. I think those are my player picks this week. Anyway, my first trend is talking about the red zone workloads for running backs because I did a trend last week on talking about stickiness of running back stats between week one and week two. And the stickiest stat was a snap rate, obviously, but the second stickiest is actually a red zone workload. So now that we have two weeks of data, I wanted to dig into the red zone workloads of backs for this week's main slate and identify positives and negatives. This I'm looking at the percentage of team carries or targets a back has gotten inside the 20. So this counts like, it accounts like pass rate and stuff like that. So you throw a lot and the back's not getting targets, that's accounted for in this number. It's not perfect because goal line data is obviously better, but that's a very small sample. So it's a good fill in, I think. And it does raise some red flags for certain guys. In general, an elite mark for a red zone workload is 45%. Anything above 40% is very good. Derek Henry, 50% through two weeks. That's a positive. If you want to use a Mark Cooper and bring it back, you can do so. Tony Pollard, 44% red zone workload. Kenneth Walker, Brian Robinson and Zach Moss all top 40% in their relevant games. So, Pollard, Walker, Robinson, Moss and Henry are the green flags as far as red zone workload. More pertinent for me though is the guys who haven't got much red zone work. The two big ones are Travis Etienne and James Cook. Etienne, 15% red zone share through two games. Cook is at 4%. That's one out of 25 through two games. James Cook's snap rate in the red zone is 32%. It goes down to 23% from 12 yards and in and 14% on seven plays, three yards and in. So he'll get yardage as he showed last week, but he'll be dependent on big plays to get his touchdowns. Even at $6,900, that hurts Cook's profile quite a bit. It's not quite as grim for Etienne. His snap rate inside the 20 is 68%. It's actually 80% inside the 12 and he's played two out of three snaps, played one out of two snaps inside the three. So he'll lose the work tank, Bigsby, but Bigsby had some pretty costly mistakes in week one. So I think the red zone role for Etienne is not as bad as Cook's and I'm more accepted to Etienne at $8,000. Other guy worth flagging as a negative here is Givante Williams. I think he's interesting this week, but his red zone share is 11%. His red zone snap rate is 26%. That does not disqualify him because his salary is low at 61, but it does hurt. So I want to talk to you about Cook specifically because he's the biggest red flag here. His role in his production have been pretty good so far and his salary is nice at 69, but does this push him out of play for you? Knowing touchdowns will be tough and any other takeaways from looking at the red zone workloads. Yeah, I mean, we always struggle with Buffalo running backs. Shout out to Dev and single digits. Maybe it's just a matter, like a function of the offense. Red zone, you know, just touchdown opportunities are pretty limited with this team. That is something that we need to take account of. Curious where you have Dalvin Cook's number? I don't care. Okay. I can get it for you, but like Dalvin Cook inside the red zone has a 50% rush here. I skipped over him when looking at the guys with 40% because I'm not going to use him, so I bother. Like Dean and Pierce is 40%, but I'd rather get by a bus. I was just curious. Is Breece going to play for sure? Yeah. He's been like limited in practice the past couple of weeks, but I don't care, like he's going to play. I always lean on you for study and who never practices until Friday because... Dusty Cook. But yeah, for James Cook, I don't think I can quite justify it. And it's a bit scary just in the sense of... I think he's good. I think he's fine, you know, as a player. But then, I know you like Dotson in this game. Is that the only... I think Diggs is under salary, it's 8,000. You know how much I hate using Stefan Diggs. But I'd rather use a Mon-Rah. So I guess, where's Gabe the Babe? 67. That's a little high, too. I'd rather go Addison, frankly. Probably. So that might be my breaking point. I prefer Michael Pitboy at 67. Sorry, see, Pittman, sorry. Pittman at 67. Then both those guys, though. So yeah. Let's move on to your second trend. You're talking about zone defense, because we saw this in week one. Justin Herbert facing the Dolphins. Adot was low. Faced the Titans in week two. His Adot was the third highest it's been his entire career. So you're looking at the impact of defense and what it does to big plays. Adot, I think it's a very irrelevant topic. Go ahead. Yeah, we always, like, whenever we find, like, league-wide or slate-wide trends rather than just, you know, team-specific stuff. This one, I think, is relevant. We've seen a substantial shift in recent seasons in terms of defense is just playing more zone coverage. It does matter. It does have an impact. So I want to start using it a little bit more, not as the end all VR or anything. But according to next-gen stats, zone coverage rates were around 65% in each season from 2018 to 2020. And then over the past three seasons, shot up to 69%, 71%, and now 72% to start this season. So we're trending towards, you know, slightly a six-year high and that's just basically been climbing. Now, whenever I back-tested the data and didn't account for, like, is a team just generally good at defense or anything in the first place, there's a pretty clear relationship between the amount of zone coverage that you run and two specific stats. Average depth of target allowed and expected completion percentage. So basically the quality of the throws that are put out there against the defense. Now, I've tried and failed and tried and failed and tried and failed to look at stats and matchup data leading into games to try to predict when a wide receiver is gonna break out. I did, like, past one game, past two, three, four, all the different stats. It's really, really hard and it comes down to who's maximizing their per-target efficiency in a particular game. But with that said, if we can kind of learn two stats that are somewhat sticky and those two stats are pretty relevant for, you know, ADOT is tied to target volatility and expected completion rate is just tied to, you know, in-game catch rate, that stuff's important. I think it's pretty sick. So teams on the main slate running the highest percentage of zone defense so far this season, the Colts, they're getting the Ravens, maybe bumps down Lamar a little bit for me if they kind of keep Lamar a little bit suppressed, a little more horizontal this week. The Packers, against the Saiyans, not really relevant. The Vikings running a lot of zone don't love that. And not all of these teams so far have really low ADOTs a lot or anything. It's just what the data says is over a full year, it should sort of line up. Don't love that so much, but it's not gonna get me away from the Chargers just because the game environment is gonna trump the zone coverage numbers for me. The Jaguars against Texans don't really care about that, but the Bears against the Chiefs might be another reason that we can just kind of hope that the Chiefs don't erupt this week. But on the flip side, the highest rate of man defense so far, the Cowboys not gonna really make the Cardinals very playable, but the Chargers. So let's cook with my guy, Kirk Cousins, you could have said Justin Jefferson there and you chose Kirk Cousins. It's called, yeah, it's subverting your expectation there. You did, congrats. The Saints against the Packers, so maybe if you wanna kind of take a swipe at some Packers receivers, probably a decent week to do it, but I'm not, the Falcons. So my guy, Sam La Porta, I don't know. That's fair, yeah, that's fine. And then the Chiefs. You could have said like Marv or something, like Marv and I probably left the stream, but yeah. And then the Chiefs, I guess at some point we should just briefly discuss if there's any interest in Justin Fields just kind of popping off, but. I'll talk about the Chiefs in a second, in my second trend, so we can do that there. So to recap, the Chiefs and Chargers get some heavy zone teams, don't love that, but the Vikings and the Lions get some man coverage teams. I think that helps. And two guys that I talked about having good value projections to begin with, Kirk Cousins, Jared Goff and the quarterback conversation. So what's sort of your overall thought on using just zone and man coverage as a process, but also what it means for this week? Yeah, I think in general we should factor in defensive philosophy, because as we saw with, again, they keep going back to this, but like Herbert in week one, it matters. It does influence, I think it matters more with like the Chargers than those, because Kelly Moore seems to be willing to play things the way the opposing defense wants to, which also plays into the Joshua Kelly thing this week, because if the Vikings play a lot of like zone defense, Brian Flores says, F you run on me, like that kind of thing, like that would lead itself to a lot of Joshua Kelly. So I think that's actually beneficial for Josh Kelly. So I think it matters in that regard. Only like, with difference I have, is I like to look at like the number of times the defense runs too high safeties, because that's kind of like the keep things underneath, dare you to run type approach. And that's one area where the Colts don't do it at all, despite the fact they run a lot of zone defense, they don't run too high safeties hardly ever, against Trevor Lawrence and CJ Stroud and both those quarterbacks played pretty well in those games. So I have no concerns with Lamar in that regard, especially for a guy like Zay Flowers who can get some maybe downfield work. So no concerns there. I do think that overall, looking at air yards allowed per target, I mean, number one right there is the Titans, facing Amari Cooper at 11.5. So, and like both Derek Carr and Justin Herbert had like outlier numbers in terms of their ADOT and their game space and Titans. So I think that's actually pretty good for Cooper as well. But I think in general, we should put more stock into air yards allowed by opposing defenses, the philosophy, their defense and stuff like that. And I think this is a good route to looking at it. Yeah, because again, you're not gonna be able to predict based on recent target shares, like who's gonna catch, have like a 40% catch rate over expectation, score twice on like, there are limited targets. But if you're putting yourself in a position where a team should allow a higher catch rate, not just based on what they have allowed, but what they should probably be allowing downfield targets, like I think I need to use that more. So I'm gonna try to track this better throughout the season. I need to add that to my sheet. I think it's a good call. Okay, let's talk about my second trend here, which is talking about the Cowboys and Chiefs as big favorites because they've got the two highest implied totals on this slate, but they're both big favorites. And that leaves open the risk they could forgo, giving their studs big usage late to save them. We saw that in the Cowboys first week where they blew out the Giants and we didn't see a lot of CD-Lam and Tony Power in that game. So I wanna dig in to see how these teams have typically operated as big favorites in the past. Starting with the Chiefs, they've been favored by seven and a half or more points in 14 games since the start of 2021. It's a large sample on the Chiefs. That's almost a full season in the past two years. They're absurd. Only five of those games hit the over, five out of 14, a lot of that was due to the opponents. The Chiefs themselves averaged 27.6 points per game, plenty enough to be appealing. Patrick Mahones has on average exceeded his fan-to-point projection at Number Fire. Thank you to you for pulling that data from me. He has historically outperformed that projection by 0.6 points. His pass attempts declined slightly from 38.3 in all games to 37.7 in the spans. Not a huge decrease, but enough. Rush attempts also declined a bit. He just makes up for it with efficiency through the air. Travis Kelsey has underperformed his projection though. So Kelsey with a salary this week in the 8,000 range, $8,000 where we wanna save salary, that might be a little bit tough to get to. Kelsey at 13.2 fan-to-point per game versus 15 projected points. So Mahones' key stacking partner gets dinged and I would not be surprised that applies to this week as well. Running back position is super spread out and now Isaiah Pacheco has banged up. I think you could get to see Yehra McKinnon if Pacheco is out, but that's not perfect either. So the Chiefs kinda unappealing, even Mahones does tend to perform well in these situations. The Cowboys are different though, at least at running backs. Since the start of last year, the Cowboys have been favored by seven or more points in four games, so a small sample, but Tony Pollard averaged 18.1 fan-to-points per game in those and a lot of those were playing alongside Zeke. Zeke also outperformed expectations. So the running backs have been awesome despite the heavy spreads. Dak plate add to his projection, so did CD lamb, but the backs were fantastic. So that's kind of the one counterpoint to just me saying, I wanna get to Diggs or Hill or Jefferson in every lineup is Pollard probably gonna do well despite the heavy spread. He gets a ton of red zone work last week against the Jets. That game didn't get out of hand really till the fourth quarter, but like he played a lot in that game. The rest of both these teams is fine at best though. So how are you feeling about the Chiefs and Cowboys in this spot? Yeah, I hate to do this to my Chiefs, but they're still just basically my homes in Kelsey at this point. And if I'm not there, if I'm not 100% sold on them, and you could really say that about like any team, it was like they have their quarterback and maybe someone else, but we talked about their like tertiary and quaternary options and they're not really appealing to us. Maybe Pacheco, if you kinda wanna get access to this game in different ways, sure. If he's full by Friday, yeah. But like I'm not that tempted. I haven't really seen a lot on Travis Kelsey's workload and if it's going to be completely full. Yeah, he was subbing out quite a bit in week two. Like he's still got a lot of targets, but like he was very clearly not 100%. Yeah, I guess he wasn't on the, well, he's not even showing up here for me, but on the injury report or the practice report. But yeah, the route rate was 55%. We know we got targets, but you want him on the field at this salary. So, and also if he comes out on the field and limited snaps and he's getting just peppered, it makes it a little bit easier to account for him on a particular play. But I think I'm out. I think the best play of either team here, like you said is Tony Pollard. We historically allocate a lot of salary to running backs. We just haven't had a lot of running backs on the Slates with great workloads and great matchups. Unless Pollard just is limited to like a 60%, like 65, 70% snap rate even across close games, then he's over salary in that sense, but I don't really view that view it that way. He was really involved in the first half of week one, although that was a complete blowout. So I think that Pollard is the best case against selling out for Jefferson, Hill, Kelsey this week. I give you a hundred lineups. How many Jefferson, how many Hill, how many Pollard, assuming you cannot make both, you can, I think you can fit two in one line if you work hard enough. Let's assume you can't use two in one lineup. How are you allocating those 100? Probably like 40, 40, 20 with a 20 on Hill. Oh, interesting, okay. I was thinking 50, 40, 10 with Jefferson 50, 40 Hill, 10 Pollard. Interesting. Maybe I should be higher on Pollard. Like I had him in my player picks initially and then I changed it, I probably should be higher on Pollard. You're right. It's one of those situations where it's really easy to get tempted by the value backs, but all these guys are gonna give us 12 points. You're right. So 50, 25, 25, what about that? Dramatic shift for me, but like. With 50 on Pollard now? No, 50, Jefferson, just splitting up Hill a bit. But you're probably gonna have one of each of those guys in every lineup, right? I don't know how you don't. Yeah. I mean, I know how you don't. It's easy not to. I think you make it work. Just find a way. Love finds a way. And I love Tony Pollard, Justin Jackson, the Tyree Kill. Yeah. Okay. Weather for this week, as alluded to before, most of the wind is in games that we don't like anyway. So there are five games right now on a 12 game main slate with wind speeds of 10 plus miles per hour. First one is Colts and Ravens. That's kind of a bummer, but Lamar's played in wind a lot and hasn't been a huge judgment for him. So I'm still okay with that one, but I would note it for Michael Pittman for say, Flowers, Mark Andrews, et cetera, et cetera. Still do like them, but keeping on the wind there. Other ones, bills that commanders, Titans at Browns, Saints Packers, Patriots Jets right now, nothing above 15 miles per hour. But I would check back on that later because it could be a downgrade to my Amari Cooper plans. Stuff like that. But I would check back on those later. Colts and Ravens of us know where they won with some potential weather there. Let's now go position by position and break down our here of fan dual plays for week number three, starting off with you, Brandon, at quarterback. Which guys are you prioritizing in week number three? Going Lamar, $8,200 salary against the Colts. Two very different games so far for him. And week one without Mark Andrews, 22 attempts, 169 yards, terrible EPA numbers, really, really low ADOT against the Houston team that is second right now in ADOT allowed. But in week two, opened it up, threw it downfield more with Andrews back, 237 yards and two touchdowns, great EPA numbers. Run the ball, 54 yards. If there's even more injuries in this backfield, just more reason to think that Lamar continues to run and finally gets into the end zone. And yeah, it's just a good overall matchup. Colts 26th in completion rate over expectation allowed and allowing a high ADOT as well. And then I love Kirk Cousins. I'm sticking with it, $7,800 salary. Talked about like the odds of $7,000 quarterbacks getting you 25 plus fandal points. It's noticeably lower than guys with salaries that are higher than this. But in the right matchups, which he has, the rate does go up. And Cousins just frankly, this game, high pace, high pass rate, I just love it. And we know who to stack them with, at least primarily and secondarily. But just the best game of the week, Charger's not a good pass defense, allowing a ton of downfield work, not stopping the downfield work, just not gonna overthink it. I know he has to maximize his efficiency, but I don't really see a way that this game is, I talk about the, you know, visualizing the scoreboard at the end of the first quarter and having to be like 0-0 or 3-0. I don't really see that one happening this week. We see it a lot with Charger's game specifically. I don't think so for this week. I agree with that. My first love at quarterback is also Lamar Jackson. Lamar Jackson facing the Colts this week, $8,200. And Jackson like looked good last week, not to be like a tape row, but like he looked good. I thought last week teams have been able to move the ball pretty effectively against the Colts so far this year. And those quarterbacks have been Trevor Lawrence, who's very good, but then CJ Stroud, who I thought looked good, but like, I like CJ Stroud, but like did he look good because he's CJ Stroud or because of the Colts, he didn't have his left tackle. Lamar probably wouldn't have his left tackle this week either. So like, I think we can attack this defense. Lamar in a game where the spread is tight enough to imply it won't be a total blowout and he's the one guy in a good spot who can run a bit. And I think that's pretty appealing for this week. My second love, I'm just going to do it. I'm going to go Jared Goff. Yeah. I'm going to audible on the fly. I had Herbert in there and I do like Herbert. I think he's very fun now that they're willing to let him rip it a bit, but it's a situation where we're willing to use quarterbacks who don't run this week. One of them and Kirk Cousins will likely have a very high roster rate. Jared Goff probably will not because people justifiably are not super on him. This will change if Amon Ross St. Brown can't go, by the way. I would not be as on-gough in that situation, but like Goff, facing the Falcons, defense hasn't really been tested as of yet. I have them projected to rank 29th in past defense for this week, not factoring in matchup, just like accounting for injuries and stuff like that. So very bad past defense. I don't see a lot of differences between him and Kirk Cousins. So pace is different. You're right there. But like, I think there are enough similarities where I'm okay pivoting to Jared Goff in single entry in order to make my line-ups different, say some salary and stuff like that. It could be very dumb and it could work against me, but like, whatever, I've made dumber plays in my past. I'm just gonna say on-gough sounds like French for being way too hyped on someone. It's a French for being way too hyped on someone for being in vogue, because I'm gonna go with in vogue. Hater. Hater. Let's go to running back. Who stands out to you there? I'm going Pollard, yes, we have a lot of value backs, but if they're, like I said, I'm trying not to look at salary and say, oh, I wanna play this player because of this salary. I wanna play players because I really want to play them and then only not play them if they're like egregiously over-salaryed. As far as Pollard goes, he's kind of the one featured back, like true, true featured back without any real concerns. The biggest concern is the blowout, and it's just, I'm not always gonna look at a large spread and say, oh, this is a blowout whether he's not gonna play in the second half. The Cardinals are a little bit scrappy, at least. And so that could mean that Pollard plays a full game, 63% snap rate for him on the season, but in the first half, it's over 70%, including an 81% first half snap rate in week one. Arizona's been kind of decent against the rush. I'm not gonna put too much stock into that, but they've let up eight catch on 10 targets and two touchdowns to backs out of the backfield. Really small sample, hard to know what to do with that, but I don't really envision a way that Tony Pollard escapes this game without production. It's just gonna kind of flow through him to some large degree. Second love, assuming David Montgomery's out, it's gonna be Jimiour Gibbs. Love the salary, it's 7,000. Gibbs, the rushing metrics so far, like I said, not as good as I would have thought based on how explosive he kind of looks, but Atlanta's just kind of averaged against the rush so far this season. And Gibbs, we know as the sample grows, he's gonna look really good. 48% snap rate last week, not accounting for the fact that Montgomery left early. I think you had him at, what, 17 out of 27 snaps? So they played on the field at the same time for a couple. I did not count up total snaps, but it was 17 to 10 favoring Gibbs, but I believe they were on the field for a couple of plays overlapping. Because they'll put Gibbs on the field, do some stuff with him, but seven catches, nine targets, 57% route rate, and as I mentioned already, just the second highest target per route rate among running backs. You gotta love to see that with room to grow for his role. And then third love, it probably should be Raheem Mostert over Zach Moss, but I think Zach Moss works, especially because we wanna play Lamar and bring it back to some degree, but just a really hard role to nitpick with what he had on week two. 98% snap rate, it was 55 total snaps, 18 carries for targets, over 100 skrimmage yards. Baltimore's rush defense from a success rate basis, which is my favorite metric, especially early in the season. Cause it just, that sample grows and grows and grows with every carry and doesn't get blown up one way or the other with long rushes or like fumbles, anything like that. So I think Moss is a, I don't wanna say a safe play, but he feels like a pretty safe play with his workload and that salary. Yeah, I agree with that. I also have Gibbs and Moss in mind, so I'll make the case for Raheem Mostert in a second, but let's start with Gibbs again. It's just like, this is the kind of profile we want for a running back where they catch passes, they're in a fantastic game, the spread is relatively tight. That checks all the key boxes for me at running back and Gibbs does all that, nine targets last week. He had a 48% snap rate, even with Montgomery playing most of that game. Now I would expect Craig Reynolds and Zonovan Knight to frustrate us at some point on Sunday, but I just want backs to catch passes even on a fandal, a half PPR site. It is smart to use running backs who catch passes. So I like Gibbs a lot and I think it's wise to use it even though we know there are paths to disappointment here. I have Moss as my second player pick when we talk about Raheem Mostert and kind of appealing him, playing a lot of snaps. He's in an offense we wanna use, potentially could get a bit more work in the passing game if there's no jail and waddle. And I feel like we've seen enough from him relative to the rest of the backfield. Savon Ahmed has banged up. They have not trusted Devon A-Chain as of yet. Mostert has some burners still despite the fact he is 79 years old. So Mostert to me, I think is appealing. I'd probably lean him a hair remoss. I think he talked me into that as being like the better play, but I do like both those guys for this week. I think my favorite value for this week is gonna wind up being Joshua Kelly. Kelly's salary is $6,100. If we assume Austin Eckler does sit once again, it's kind of hard not to like Kelly. He played a bunch of snaps last week and ran a ton of routes, but just had a tough match for the Titans. And he gets the Vikings this time around. Brian Flores is similar to Vic Fangio where he wants you to run the ball against him. The rush defense of the Vikings has been awful so far this year, which is why Deandre Swift was able to go for 16,000 yards against them last week. So Kelly, salary comes down, gets a better matchup, played a lot of snaps last week. I feel like it makes sense to go back to him despite the disappointment last week. But again, relative to expectations, I wouldn't view it as being a downgrade, just kind of a situation where he was in a bad matchup, much better matchup, low salary exposure to this game. So Joshua Kelly to me, I think deserves to be our top value play for week number three. Let's move now to wide receiver, Brandon. When you look at wide receiver for week number three, which guys are you trying to target this week? I'm on Ross St. Brown, just love him as a player. And I think that there's clear reasons to think that his workload gets just better throughout the year. 24% target share, so eight targets per game, 86 and a half yards per game so far. Again, could definitely be better for someone as good as he is. But take David Montgomery off the field, they got him a lot of work whenever he was on the field. I feel like a few extra passes go to St. Brown. They may have to throw more too, because Montgomery is like a decent runner and I might just not have the ability to roll. It's part of why I like off too. Yeah, so some extra plays going to St. Brown. Atlanta has limited downhill passing so far, but running a lot of man should have a good matchup across the board, because he's just very good, as long as he's healthy. So really check in on St. Brown's health throughout the week. Second love, someone who's gonna be hard to fit my lineups potentially, but I think deserve some attention in terms of like mini stack potential. And at quarterback, we haven't really discussed this Trevor Lawrence, but Calvin really, again, I talked about not loving receivers in one-off situations. I don't think that this is a true one-off situation. I think there are ways that you can bring it back. Ball to pop. Yeah, with Houston, but Ridley at a $7,500 salary is really appealing. 26% target share, 40% air yard share in this offense. Five downfield targets per game. If you get into an F red zone targets per game. So I like to wait targets a little bit extra if they're downfield or if they're in the red zone. And if you do that for like the average Vandal points that are tied to those, he has a weighted target total of 14 and a half targets per game, which rank him fourth among receivers on the main slate behind Tyreek Hill, who's at 17.7. Justin Jefferson is at 16 and a half. And then Chris O'Lave, who's just ahead of him at 14.6. But Ridley, pretty solid matchup here. I think that he easily could be a top three wide out on this slate. Not that that should surprise anyone based on the salary, but don't really don't want to overlook him. On my third love, I'm going to say Michael Thomas here. $5,800 salary against the Packers in two games with Derek Carr under center. Thomas is at a 25.4% target share. It's eight and a half per game. Pretty respectable ADOT of nine and a half yards. He's getting some downfield looks, getting red zone looks. He's got two red zone looks per game. It's 11 and a half weighted targets. You know, not a great matchup, but a low salary. And I would not be surprised if, you know, he has a multi-touchdown game at some point just because of what he can do. And it seems like he has a bit of a rapport with Carr so far. Yeah, I've liked I've seen so far from him like he looks fine too. Thomas or Dotson at the same salary? I'm going to say Thomas is my preferred play. However, I might wind up with more Dotson because of the game environment. I think that's kind of a cop out, but I think it's true. That's where I settle in as well. Like, I think Dotson has a bigger path to playing in a shootout, which is appealing. So I think both are fine. I like Thomas, but I think I lean towards Dotson there. My first love and receiver is Justin Jefferson. He stacks well with Joshua Kelly. That's the main appeal of Justin Jefferson. Nothing else is appealing about him, just that he stacks well with Joshua Kelly at running back. But if I'm talking about Jefferson versus Tyreek Hill, Jefferson is indoors, higher total, tighter spread. I still think Hill is in that tier, obviously, but like if I'm choosing between the two, I should probably go with the factors I care a lot about, which is those. 29% target share so far with Jefferson. He has 46% of the deep work. And this is the big thing. I love guys who can get me 20 points without a touchdown because it's basically Christian McCaffrey and nobody else. But Justin Jefferson, zero touchdowns so far this year, has 19.4 and 19.5 fandal points. Oh, buddy. I think we're on, like he's gonna drop a 40 burger within the next month and it might be on Sunday. So I like Jefferson a lot. Two quick things. He was the poster boy for regression this year to score more. He hasn't scored yet through two games. Tyreek Hill has three touchdowns through two games. At some point, Justin Jefferson is gonna score. Over under 40 fandal points for Jefferson on Sunday. It's a little high. I'd say slightly under. Okay. Hater. My second one is Nico Collins. They're pretty big underdogs. And as you know, we don't like chasing this, but I think the Texans should be able to move the football here pretty well. Collins so far has 10 targets per game with a 45% deep target share. I think he and CJ Stroud look really good together. Like I was watching that game back, mostly for Zach Maw stuff, but like they looked like they had to film. I know, I'm the worst. But like you are chasing a negative script, but I think it's fine in the situation. I also don't mind tanked L at 54. I think you could consider Robert Woods too. Like, will you hate yourself? Yes. Should you hate yourself? Probably. But like it's 58. He got a lot of targets super late in that game. So I don't think his target total was fully indicative of his role, but like Nico is fun. Stacks pretty well. If you want to go with Calvin Ridley, which I think is a good call or Travis Etn, who's also a guy we probably haven't discussed enough on the show. So I like Collins and then potentially tanked out. My third love is a Mari Cooper, of course, did not practice Wednesday. So keep tabs on that. But he has a 25% target share in two games. He has 44% of the deep targets, which is 3.4 deep targets per game. So Deshaun sucks, but he's de-gaffing it, which is fine, like that helps. Cooper, a 29% red zone target share, facing the Titans who funnel a lot of work towards the pass. Maybe if people are using Jerome Ford, they won't use a Mari Cooper. So I think he's pretty appealing. Of the guys in the low total games, I think Cooper is my favorite wide receiver for this week. Tiedent, what are you focusing on there? Love Hawkinson, want to get some Kelsey somehow, but if I'm picking one, it's going to be Mark Andrews. The return in week two could have gone better, but 82% route rate, eight targets on 27 routes. 45 yards in a touchdown, but a really low catch rate over expectation, minus 13.8 points. So it's a really good target share. One of the highest target per route rate numbers for a tight end. I know it's just one game, but that's going to stay elevated. The Colts have kind of led up some extra catches to the position. And so again, we talked last week about Tiedent upside with Kelsey and Andrews on the slate. That's still true. It's hard to remember all of these things and really focus on this stuff, but these guys can have 20 point games and really know what their Titans can and that matters. And the salary of 7,400, very reasonable. Another name in that Texans game that I don't mind is Dalton Schultz, just because if you're not playing one of the three studs at tight end, might as well save some salary, $4,800 salary for Dalton Schultz. Results not great, 19 yards per game, but five and a half targets per game. Catch rate over expectation of minus 15.4%. I think he's like decent as a tight end and he's getting some work. He's on the field. They should be passing a lot and get some downfield work, three downfield targets out of 11 total targets. So that's tied for fifth among targets who were active or tight ends who were active in both games so far. So could do a lot worse if you're not rostering one of the big three this week. Yeah, I prefer Dermot Spieth at 48, but like I think that Schultz is fully defensible. So no pushback from me there. My first love is also Mark Andrews. Salary came down to 74 for this week. He led the Ravens with eight targets this past week. He didn't like go nuts, but like he, Kelsey and Hawkinson are all like in the same tier from a projection perspective. And Andrews has the lowest salary and not as good of a game environment as Hawkinson, but like still pretty good. Andrews, lowest salary the bunch. So I like Andrews a lot, especially because I will have a lot of Lamar so I will inherently have a lot of Andrews as well. My second love is Sam Laporta, $5,200. It's lowest salary to access to a good game. I think if you're talking about guys who get you that this week, it's kind of Joshua Kelly, Sam Laporta. Gibbs is probably under salary, not lowest salary, but under salary. And then the quarterbacks with Goff and Cousins. So it's not a huge number of guys who get you there, but Laporta has won 17% target share across two games. He's shown some yardage juice, which I do like as well. So I think Laporta is my favorite lower salary tight end for week three. Defense, your favorite, what you got there? I prefer yours, but because we only pick one, I figured I'd at least mix it up. I'm gonna go with the Jets, 39. I know that they're home underdogs, but I'm not afraid of the New England offense at all. They're 26 and adjusted passing offense according to Number Fires metrics. Don't mind the Browns either at 43, but below 4,000, I think it's the Jets and then another AFC East team that you're about to talk about. That's the Miami Dolphins taking on the Denver Broncos whose offense is weird. That's the word I'll use for it. I know they put up some points, but they've looked odd doing it. Dolphins are favored, they're at home. They've got a good pass rush. They've got a good defensive, very smart defense according to Brandon. Most important piece, it is a Vic Fangio revenge game facing off against his former employer in the Denver Broncos. What more could you possibly want? I also don't mind the Titans, the Chargers, the Vikings when I'm not using Chargers and Vikings because pace benefits or defenses benefit from pace as well. So if I'm not using Kelly, Jefferson in like the five lineups out of 1600 I do, I'll go to Chargers and Vikings, but. Yeah, quick reminder, majority of Fandal points come from sacks and turnovers, so. And Russell Wilson will occasionally give up both those. So that's the Dolphins. Appeal in them and of course again, the Vic Fangio revenge game. Any final thoughts from you, Brandon, as we wrap up things for week number three in DFS? I think the thing that stands out to me yet again, we're gonna have some slates that don't really fit this and there's gonna be pretty obvious, narrow ways that you have to build, but there's a lot of ways you can go. You can build around like Pollard and Bijan and be low on the receivers. You can like be different. You're not gonna get too many weeks where you're being different by playing like Mahomes and Josh Allen. So a lot of different ways to go. I think that I need to get access to the receivers, make sure I get some Tony Pollard, but other than that, really narrow down the value running backs that I am most comfortable with. So like you would say, can you say rank them? Yep. All right. Just do a puck. I know, right? This is a year eight or whatever. No, it's our ninth NFL season. So yeah, nine years doing a podcast together, figured out, not nine years, nine NFL seasons doing a podcast together. We've figured each other out. I think you want to go through the value running backs. After all the data is in as far as injury reports and stuff like that. So figure out where we are on Kendray Miller. Again, I want to bring his name up one more time. Read the reports on what his expected workload is for the Saints. Can you justify him at 46? Dig into expectations for Jamir Gibbs. Try to pin down whether Javante Williams workload will go up. Will Jerome Ford get past catching work? There's still a lot of data left to be brought in this week. Once that data is all in, then hand-write them and decide priorities among the value backs because you could probably cross off some of the ones you don't feel as good about. Like maybe you cross off Jerome Ford, maybe you cross off Isaiah Pacheco, anyone else like that. So taking that data, hand-rank them and go from there. That is all that we have here for this week on the Heat Check Fantasy Podcast. As mentioned though, UFC and MLB also in the same podcast feed. Find those by searching for the number fire daily fantasy podcast feed. Wherever you get your podcast, you can also find the NFL podcast on the Fandall YouTube page and on Fandall TV Plus. If you want some betting insights for Thursday night's game, Tom Becchio preview that with prime Tom Tom, talking 49ers and giants. That's in the covering the spread podcast feed and Fandall TV Plus. And then also we'll have our week four or week three NFL betting show later on today on Thursday with myself and Dr. Ed Feng. Brandon! Brandon! If people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? On Twitter at Godulla13, G-D-U-L-A-1-3. Kind of scared myself with how loud I said it, so I said it twice. I'm on Twitter at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow Fandall Research at Fandall Research. Want to thank you all for tuning in for today. Good luck to you with your NFL DFS lineups for week number three. We'll talk to you once again on Monday to wrap it all up. This has been the Heat Check Fantasy Podcast right here on the Fandall Podcast Network.