 12 was a slate to find by some pretty thin plays that you couldn't feel great about. And week 13 looks to be pretty much the opposite, especially at running back. We got a lot of really good options here. Some decent game stacks this week, some receivers I feel good about and a lot to dig into. So let's get you set for the week 13 main NFL DFS slate. Welcome on into the Heat Check Fantasy Podcast powered by Numberfire. That's right here on the FanDual Podcast Network and Numberfire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for Numberfire.com. Joined here as always by Brandon Gedula. He is the managing editor of Numberfire.com. Brandon, we are on to week number 13. I like some key components of the slate. So kind of should to break things down for today. How are you doing? Good. I've been trying to be a better podcast co-host, although I don't, I don't know, a co-host kind of implies like 50-50 and you very clearly host this show. So I don't know what that makes me, but maybe I'm just over thinking. I steer the ship. That's it. But I was trying to be a better co-host and start tweeting out the links because I love, I'm always on Twitter doing my thing. Big Twitter guy, yeah. Big social media guy, big social guy in general. Yeah, that's me. Anyone who knows me knows I'm big on social. But I was trying to tag you as one would and I almost tweeted this out with the tweet saying that I was breaking down the week 13 slate with Jim Gaffigan, which I'm not, it's Jim Sonnis. So that would have been, it would have been news to him, but maybe he would have came on the show and give us some takes. I'm going to go ahead and guess no that he would not have. He's a comedian, right? Is this a double question? He's a comedian, yes. Okay. Did you spell my name wrong or what? The S and the G aren't even that close on the keyboard. I spell, I don't know why I do this. Like I do it reflexively to spell out my Twitter handle because I think my last name is kind of weird, so I just like spell it out. But we've been doing this like six years or whatever. I probably don't need to spell it, but I can do it like reflexively. That can't hurt. I think I'll always need to spell out my name, but let me ask you this. If you type in at J-I-M, what do you think pops up? Jim Halpert. Oh, it's me. I pop up. Next one is Omar Jimenez, which was CNN, went to Northwestern, WNUR sports alum, so I can tweet at Omar, that works. OJ Chopicana. I just type in J-I-M and I always forget that Jim Gaffigan pops up first. Do you follow Jim Gaffigan or what? Yeah. I could tag Jimmy Johnson. Does that work? You could. I mean, tag all the gyms and Jameses and... Whenever I type in at Gadoula, there's a Logan Gadoula who pops up first. I don't know why I don't follow. It's a soccer player. Oh, really? Okay, we possibly for you, so congrats. That makes, yeah. I should honestly not even pop up if you type in Gadoula. But he's not, I don't know. Anyway, I don't know why you don't follow. Anyway, this is weird. I don't know how he got here. Either way, Jim Gaffigan, not here. I am here to break down the week 13 slate. And I think it's a pretty fun one. Am I wrong in being okay with the slate? I like a few games. I am like lukewarm on a few others. And I kind of outright don't like half, half. At least? So I think that's a pretty typical slate for me. That might be like a pessimistic view, but that's kind of my shtick anyway. But we have a few good games to build around. And because some market shares in those games are pretty widespread, such as the buccaneers or the cardinals, maybe it's a good thing that we don't have a whole lot of other games that we feel like we need to get access to because if you wanna play the cardinals, if you wanna play the buccaneers, you're probably gonna have to build lineups with multiple paths within that offense in order to hit big this week. Yeah, I think that that is something to keep in mind for sure. I think it's also a week where I am pretty comfortable not using bringbacks in some situations. We'll talk about the Rams later on. I have no interest in any Jaguar. You could not pay me to use them. I'd rather you leave a blank spot in my roster than allocate salary towards anyone on that terrible team. So like there are options, situations where I may be deviating a bit from the typical process but we'll break that down and get you set for the week 13 slate. But first a quick reminder that we do have a listener league for this podcast and the Fanduel podcast network in general to enter. Go to Fanduel.com slash league slash listener league. Fanduel.com slash league slash listener league to enter. It is a $5 entry with three entries max. There is no rake and which means that Fanduel makes nothing off this contest. Again, Fanduel.com slash league slash listener league to get yourself entered for the week 13 main slate. Also for Thursday, we got the Captain Morgan Pickham for a Thursday night football introducing Captain Morgan's Thursday night Pickham, a completely free to play contest series that gives you four chances to win a share of $10,000. Here's how it works. Fanduel fans will have the chance to answer 10 questions centered around both Captain Morgan and that Thursday's NFL matchup. Fans who answer each or answer the most questions correctly will be eligible to earn their share of the week's $10,000 cash prize. Thursday night football will kick off before you know it. So head to Fanduel.com slash Captain Morgan NFL, Fanduel.com slash Captain Morgan NFL and spice up your game day today. Must be 21 plus two participate for more details. Visit Fanduel.com or download the Fanduel fantasy app, eligibility restrictions apply and don't forget to spice up your game day with Captain Morgan. Also a quick reminder to make sure you are subscribed to the number of fire daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts, hit subscribe, a rundown podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, Google podcast. If you like what you hear, leave a rating interview and of course we are live on YouTube every Monday at 9 a.m. and every Thursday at 10 a.m. If you want to watch a video version for whatever reason, more power to you. Let's also watch you need to hit the like button because that does help us out too. I always forget that one. Smash that like button, smash that like button, smash that slate overview button as we take a look at the slate overview for the week, 13 and main slate to me, Brandon the defining characteristic of this slate is I have running backs I like in every single salary tier which means I can do whatever the bleep I want and feel good about it. So that's the key thing for me. What stands out to you? Yeah, I think it's an extension of that and it's figuring out how to balance then wide receiver because quarterback itself is kind of top heavy, tight end I think, George Kittle's under salary at 6,300 but we still want some salary at tight end. So do we just dive straight into the value tier of wide receiver so like 65 and below? I'm gonna talk more about that and where big games come from from receivers below 7,000 because I think the default my mind goes to is like, okay, I'm gonna play one of the stunt quarterbacks, one of the few that I feel really good about. I'll take some value running back, I wanna get back up at tight end and then even with that, I might be in like the 6,500 and below range at receiver and that can feel good but it can also feel careless if those receivers don't really have true high end upside. I do think one other thing that stands out here is that tight end, there is more value than I thought there was when we talked on Monday when we did the salary scroll because we have two guys, I do think have the upside to like hang with those like other guys, Foster Moreau at $5,000, Gerald Everett at 49. Both those guys project for, you know, six plus targets and they have some yardage juice in non-terrible games, non-terrible offenses. So I think that's worth keeping in mind too is that I actually think there's some good options there. I would like to get to Kittle, obviously but I think that those guys do stand out and that will dictate part of the way I view things for this week. Let's take a look at the injuries and part of the reason why we have some value for this week is there are a lot of these injuries, let's go through them. Daven Cook likely to miss the next two weeks with a dislocated shoulder, Algin or Madison has gotten big work without Cook this year, but his salary accounts for that. It is $8,700. So how do you view Madison with that salary but in a very good match up with Detroit? I view him and this will sound a little outlandish maybe but I view him just below Daven Cook. Like I'm just projecting him as Daven Cook. The issue is that Madison, there are reasons to think that he might not have the full Daven Cook role which I'm sure you could expand upon a little bit better than I could just because of your familiarity with those Vikings. But I think he is very much in play but with that salary, he's not a value play. He might be fairly salary, he might be a little bit too high with that salary but he's just kind of another guy because he's $8,700. So I'm interested, this is not to say I'm not interested but he's not really someone I'm going into the week. If it was even 78, I'd say yeah, I'm just gonna load up on Algin or Madison. I'm kind of treating him like a Daven Cook white this week. And I think that's probably the right way to view things. The problem is that Cook's salary has generally been in the low 8,000s whereas Madison's in the high 8,000s. Now the matchup dictates that that should be higher. And the reason I'm not gonna view him as being the same role he had, the first two games that Cook is that I do think that Kenny and Wang Wu will get some work here. Mike Zimmer has said they wanna get him involved but he didn't downgrade Madison from where he was. He was at 40 and a half, carries plus two X targets per game, the two without Daven, that's absurd. That's the best workload on the slate. I don't think he's gonna get that here because, A, it probably wasn't sustainable to begin with to get seven and a half targets per game, especially in this offense when you've got legit target earners at wide receiver. So I'm downgrading him. And I think that when I look at it, I think 87 is an appropriate salary. After I count for Wang Wu, after I count for the matchup, after I count for everything else, I think it's an appropriate salary. So if I get the read by Sunday morning that people will not be on Madison as a result of that salary, then I'd be inclined to buy in. But I don't know if that'll happen. And like if I look at him compared to Jonathan Taylor and Joe Mixon, I think he's lower even after a counting for salary because those guys are higher. Taylor's at 10.5, Mixon is at 9.4. Echler at 9,000, I think I might wind up tipping the scales towards Madison there, but that could also be a mistake. So I think to me it's Taylor Mixon and then either Echler or Madison. If I get the read that any of them will be overlooked due to whatever reasons there may be, I'm okay diving in on them then, but I think that's the way I rank them straight up. Yeah, so it just goes back to like very good play, very justifiable play, not a lock button level play at that salary. I think we have tons of running backs that we can like. I thought he would be pretty popular. I'm seeing some different, like differing things on popularity projections for him. So it'll be interesting to see how that sort of shapes up by Sunday, but yeah, if he's gonna be overlooked, I still think the role is gonna be great enough to go there within this matchup, but if he's chalky, then yeah, I'm gonna find that extra salary to get up to Joe Mixon. Where is he relative to those two, Mixon and Taylor in terms of like projected roster rates? Without divulging state secrets. Yeah. So, all right, I'll just sort it by salary, it'll be easier. Taylor's projected to be the chalkiest most places. Madison's like sub 5% some places, but also like around 15% other places. So I think the sources are saying that, it could either be a really chalky week with Jonathan Taylor that people prioritize, or it could be really flat because we have running back options all throughout. So, I don't wanna linger too long specifically on Madison, but I think this leads into like the, again, the slate overview, the big question, like if you have a feeling that, let's say everyone is sort of capped at like 25% or 20% roster rate and like nobody's really chalky, how does that change the way that you would view Madison and all these other running backs? So if it's flat, I will go with my preference. My preference right up is for Mixon and Taylor. Taylor over Mixon, but you know, those two. And then Eckler after that, I still think Madison's a good play. Again, to be clear, I still think he's a good play, but I'd prefer them if there is no advantage in terms of roster rate, I will go with the guys at first right up and that's Taylor and Mixon to me. Yeah, I just have a hard time believing that people will be scared of in Wang Wu's role. Yeah. People will just look at what Madison's done and just stick with him. So yeah. And to be clear, I'm not scared of that role either. I'm just downgrading him as a result. And downgrading him still makes him a very good play in this matchup, but you know, there is that. Other side of that game is another potential chalky running back. Deandre Swift likely to sit this week due to a shoulder issue. Jamal Williams, the clear backup here. He is $6,500 on FanDuel. Where are you at with Jamal Williams against the Vikings? Love him. He's had a good role. He ran 54% of the routes last week. He might have a very comparable role to Deandre Swift overall. And kind of a, you know, we're divulging secrets. This one's not that much of a secret, but Jamal Williams has been like substantially catastrophically more efficient than Deandre Swift this year. Yeah. It's very upsetting. Cause I love Deandre Swift. I love Deandre Swift too. Yeah. And it's not even because volume discrepancies because you'll see like lower usage backs have better efficiency, but he's had good like rushing usage. And the Vikings rush defense is torn to poo right now. So I think Jamal Williams is a great play. The question is, is he better than Antonio Gibson? Let's talk here about Washington, JD McKissick, mispractice Wednesday due to a concussion. He was carted off on Monday and seems unlikely to play. We'll talk about how this impacts Antonio Gibson in the bookmaker section. We'll also cover the Raiders with Darren Waller missing practice, but I wanna talk about Gibson compared to Williams quickly. I'm having a hard time. I'm leaning Gibson because I like that offense more and I like that game more, but it's a very, very slight gap. And I think it's similar to the Madison thing where if I get the read that one of them will be under roster relative to the other, I'll just take the lower rostered one. I wanna be in on both, but I think typically I don't care about roster rates that are running back because it is a less volatile position, especially for value backs. Value backs where popular tend to hit at a very high rate. So I don't care too much, but if I can pivot without losing like volume projection and like upside, I'm okay doing that this week. And I think we can actually do that with both of Madison and with these two guys. So that's where I'm at. What about you? I think you know the answer. It's the age old question. Pork can on those those, right? Fair. I think that these two are in such that their roles are so much better than their salaries to the point where I think that I will lock them in to our head to head and into my main lineup. I think that they both have paths to ceilings with touchdown equity and just for at least for Williams overall efficiency. I really think that my main lineup will have both of them. But if I had to pick one, I do think I would lean with Jamal Williams just because Antonio Gibson doesn't, I don't know. I'm always worried about his injuries for jumping back up and you know, I don't think Jared Patterson's gonna have much of a role but I think I would lean with Jamal Williams because we've seen him be so efficient and he's stepping into this bigger role. Yeah, that's fair. I just think the offense is better and I think that's why I lean Gibson, but it's a lean like both a lot. So I will let roster rates influence where I go, not dictate where I go, but influence where I go on this one. Only reason I might not go with the pork can on those dose is that I love James Conner. He's $73 and I can't use all three and get to Jonathan Taylor. So I'm sacrificing something. I can't use Taylor, Conner, Gibson, and Jamal Williams in the same lineup. So somebody's gotta get the squeeze. I have not decided yet, so we'll figure that out later, but we'll see. Reason James Conner, go ahead. No, I think that's the thing is I think it could be viable based on some stuff I'm gonna talk about with receiver. Yeah, I do think it is too. The reason James Conner is greatest because Kyler Murray likely back, limited in practice on Wednesday as was Deandre Hopkins. We are going to talk about them in the trend section to let you know how to handle the Cardinals once they're at full help. On the other side, Justin Fields, mispractice Wednesday, Andy Dalton, or he was limited in practice on Wednesday, but Andy Dalton got the first team reps according to Matt Nagy. I'm gonna guess Dalton starts. Like that's my baseline assumption right now. I think you're talking about that in the trend section as well, correct? Yeah, that game is so sort of either way that I have some stuff on, whichever quarterbacks play that kind of stuff. So it'll be more of a holistic look because that game is one of the best of the week. I think almost regardless of who starts weirdly. Probably. Michael Hasty got in a limited session on Wednesday. That's his first practice this week nine. Debo Samuel will likely miss this one due to his groin injury. So Hasty likely back, how does that alter your view of Eli Mitchell at $7600? I think it bumps him out of like primary play territory. He would have one question mark and some other backs have basically zero. So I think that's enough for me to want to divest from Eli Mitchell. I think he's overall fine. Like it's not to say, hey, definitely don't touch him, but I don't like this game a lot because I don't like what I'm seeing from Seattle's offense at all. So now again, we could see San Francisco just do what Washington did and run like 900 plays and get Eli Mitchell like 30 carries. I wouldn't be surprised by that, but I don't really want to sort of build default lineups around games that I think might just be very one sided. Especially when we have Leonard Fournette at $7700 right above Mitchell and Fournette has a better role because he has more passing game work, better offense, better game. I think that that just tilts the scales pretty heavily towards Fournette in that salary range. I was going to say something else, but let's talk about Darrell Henderson. Go for it, say it. Nope, nope, nope, nope. The Reims were without both Odell Beckham and Darrell Henderson on Wednesday. Both are expected to play. We'll talk about the Reims in the trend section. But I do want to talk about this backfield here quickly. If Henderson were to sit, how heavy would you be in on Sony Michelle at $5300? They just keep coming. These options are so hard to narrow things down. I haven't even given this that much thought just because of what we've had at running back. But we've seen him have basically no yardage upside. He's really only had one game with more than 10 carries and that was against Tampa Bay. So that's not super fair. I don't know if the receiving work would ever be there for Michelle to the point that I would trust it entirely. It's been there a bit when he's gotten chances. He had four against the box. He did. He has one, two, three, two has passed four. I could see it, but then how does Michelle rate out for you compared to Gibson and Williams? So if I give him the Darrell Henderson role, which is underwhelming, maybe it's the running back. Who can say? Anyway, that's what I was trying to not to say earlier. Anyway, if I give him the Henderson role, he's a $1,000 discount from Gibson. Yes. I think I prefer Gibson still. Think I prefer Jamal. He just hasn't been good. I would like, I think that's Michelle would be a second tier running back play. Second tier running back play for me still means decently heavy exposure, but I'm not going to put him up. I don't think I'd put him above Gibson. I don't think I put him above Williams because their salaries are so low. I might put him above Connors because like that is a legit discount from 73 to 53, but I think that's where he'd be for me somewhere in there. Okay, so maybe this is where we need to draw a line in the sand. I know we're pacing toward a long intro to this show, but how many running backs do you think you're going to play this week? I gotta start cuttings guys out. Gibson, Williams, Conner, Nixon, Taylor, those five are locked in. Yeah. And then we get to Echler, Madison, Lenny, Cordero, maybe I'll bring backs, I guess. So like, I met seven firm yeses without Michelle. Or five firm yeses, seven total yeses. Sorry, eight total yeses because Len, sorry. David Montgomery at all? Probably not this week, no. Moscazkin, no. Why would I use someone with no yardage upside but I can instead use guys who get yards? I mean, it's just, yeah, like there's nothing wrong with Michelle if he's a full go, but we're then looking at being almost 10 running backs deep. And that works for some people if you're building hundreds and hundreds of lineups. But I think for a lot of people when you're building tighter cores, I gotta ask that question is like, is Michelle gonna do enough to get there? Like instead of the top five or five, honestly? I can see him being six. I think he's six. Somewhere four to six for me. I think he's six. The biggest issue is that Jonathan Taylor's salary is a little bit prohibitive because of what we have at receiver in the low end. Yeah. So I'd really have to... Yeah. I was gonna say if you give Michelle Taylor but that means you're passing up one of Gibson or Williams or Connor, that's kind of tough. So it's a worthwhile question for sure. We'll talk more about the Rams later on. Daniel Jones, able to practice Wednesday sounds like there's a good shot. Mike Glennon starts with a giant. So we did see Glennon once this year. He was fine. He was whatever. But it's a very low total game. So are you out on even Seyquan Barkley if Glennon starts this game? I think so. We just named all these running backs in good spots. This is not a particularly good spot. I used Seyquan last week but that's because there are a few options. Yeah. So I think it's, yeah. I think that I can be picky this week and there are reasons to be picking with him, I think right now. So yeah, I'll take that. Other side here, Davante Parker returned to practice for the Dolphins on Wednesday. Not guaranteed to return. And this game is pretty bad. But his salary is $5,400. Would you take a run at him if he were to be activated? It would depend on who's healthy and even then probably not. Who's healthy for whom, you mean? Well, wait, who are we talking about? Davante Parker. Oh, I was ahead. Sorry, I was ahead. Oh, sorry. No, I was reading. I got a lot of stuff open. I thought we were on to- Too many tabs. I told you. I told you the tabs are an issue. No, the tabs are the problem. Here we go, we solved it. The tabs are the issue. Yeah, if Parker's healthy, I think that he is one of the few low salary receivers with a good situation. So yes, I would very strongly consider him. And I'd probably rather play Davante Parker. I don't have a 2v2, I don't even have a question, let alone have a 2v2 pulled up. Davante Parker over Marvin Jones straight up, right? Yeah. Parker plus Connor or Sony Michelle plus, like, I don't know, who's this? Oh, I don't know. Davante Smith? No. Oh, sorry. No, it'd be like the low 7000. It'd be like, so Keenan. Keenan, I think it's a fair 2v2. Yeah, I think it's fair. I'd agree with that. I don't tend to use receivers in like terrible, terrible games. I can make an exception with a high usage guy in a decent matchup. I think the offense is fine. So I think that would be the one exception I can make. This is not a Damien Harris situation, play me. Jalen Hurts and Miles Sanders were limited on Wednesday for the Eagles. Hurts and Sanders seem like they're on track to play. Jordan Howard mispracticed with a knee injury. They said that he will be evaluated on Thursdays. It's not like he still could play. Boston Scott did not practice, but it was due to an illness rather than an injury. So great matchup here with the Jets. They're banged up. I don't know who will play. Where are we at with his Eagles team right now? So this is the one I was reading the head on. I wanted to be prepped for. I knew Jordan Howard was 64. I heard you said 54. I assumed you meant 64. Jordan Howard is 64? Yeah. I know. It's because all he does is score touchdowns. So. So he's old James Conner. James Conner became the best running back in football. That's why I said it depends because we could get any combination really of these backs. And I think that if, I didn't think Miles Sanders was gonna play. I didn't either. And then he practiced. Yeah. So I was prepping for Boston Scott who was sick. But I was also thinking, well, if no Sanders, Howard doesn't seem ready to return. I was getting prepped for Boston Scott. Scott probably is gonna play if he was just ill. But if we have like all three of them, it's a no. If we have two of them, I think it's probably a no. If we get one of these guys by himself, that's why I said it would depend. So I know. Forgive me, my make-up is so early on the Easter side. It's not your fault. It's Habs' fault. It's fine. Well, it's spreadsheets. I want to have data and so I don't just like say random stuff. So I was pulling up the eagle splits and I just didn't hear the question. One-eyed Jack on YouTube says don't blame the tabs. One-eyed Jack, I beg to differ. I always blame the tabs for everything. Like. Okay, so you have World Hunger. It's the tabs fault. You don't have tabs open, but you don't listen to me very often. So what's your- That's because I don't care. Like it's not because of the tabs, it's because of indifference. Like, let's be honest here. It's totally that. Yeah, I could see that. Speaking of not caring, let's talk about the jets. Corey Davis in his practice Wednesday, he missed last week's game due to a groin injury. He said he feels better than he did last week though. So potentially he could still go. The jets get the Eagles. It's not a bad spot for a lot of more. It's also not like the worst game on the planet, but they want to pound the rock. Is there enough here for you to get some more at $6,100? So I mean, he's going to run routes. He's going to get targets. It's just a matter of how we view this game overall. And I don't know if it's high enough for me to like want to build around, which it definitely is not to build around. But I don't even know if I'd get there quite with like mini stacks, although if it came down to it, and I had like the low 6,000s left for two receivers, and I could go with Devontae Smith and Elijah Moore. I think I could do way worse than a mini stack to round out lineups, but I don't anticipate playing Elijah Moore in one offs. Yeah. And I think the problem is if I have like 63 and only one slot, I'm going to Devontae Smith. I'm going to use like a guy in a run first offense in this game. I'm going to go with the guy who's, you know, got a better quarterback situation right now with Devontae Smith. So I would go with Devontae there. I think Christian Kirk actually is kind of in this discussion too at 62. I know the market shares are spread out and kind of weird, but he's good. Odell's at 6,000 if he plays. So, you know, I think that's where I'd be at. Okay. Let's dive into the bookmaker section for this week. Talk about some gains with the high totals. One of the more interesting games here is Chargers versus the Bengals. Total is 50 and a half. It's a three point spread in Cincinnati's favor. The Chargers struggle against the rush. The Bengals can be beaten through the air. So how are you viewing this game for stacking? I like this game a little bit. I love the Justin Herbert, Keenan Allen stack. I think that's a great stack this week for reasonable salaries on both guys. Keenan Allen has a 30% target share in five individual games. That's pretty awesome. I don't know where exactly that stacks up, but it's got to be toward the league lead. He's up to a 31% target share in their post-buy games. He's one of my favorite outright receivers this week. I love Joe Mixon. I like the other side with Mixon and Eckler. So I could go running back, running back and be very different in that situation, but I don't know if I'm quite gonna get to Joe Burrow. So this is more of a one quarterback game. Is that how you see it too? At face value, yes. Like logically you should do Herbert with Keenan and Mixon as like the bring back. However, I don't know like it feels like, I hate the word feels like it's stupid. It feels like there have been a lot of spots this year where the logical way to sack a game has been the incorrect way to sack a game and the game has gone off. So although my default would be Herbert with Keenan and Mixon, I do want to get to Burrow, Chase or Higgins with Eckler as the bring back as opposed to the receivers. So logically, yes, I agree with you. That's the way I want to go. But I think that like as the secondary stack within this game stack, I do want to make sure I have exposure to the Bengals passing game and the Chargers run game. Yeah, like I think this, that's what makes this game one of the best. And, you know, overall, yeah, there are multiple ways that this could go, but two or three options within an offense is still pretty narrow for a stack to hit. I think this is one of the best games. I'm just glad that you formally recognized T Higgins as a person. It was begrudgingly, yes, as a human being who exists on this planet. I will say his name. Say my name. Fine, I will, T. Where does this game rank for you stackability-wise? Worst? I think it's first for me, too. Yeah, okay. Solely for the fact that the Buccaneers are really impossible to figure out. And then we have the Falcons on the other side, which- That's my bigger issue with that game is the Falcons, honestly. But yeah, I think this is the top game. I don't think we'll be alone in that, but if we really fix it on this game and stack it every which way, I think that can give us some leverage. I do think that the mix-in Echler stack is fun because the Mike White game, where he targeted Michael Carter and Ty Johnson to combine like 37 times was against the Bengals. Like they encourage you to throw the backs against them. So I think that that creates a lot for Echler. We talked about Higgins. Where are you with Mike Williams? Because I tried so hard to like talk myself into him this morning and wound up talking myself more into Keenan Allen. So I think that like if I have 10 Herbert lineups, I want six Keenan and then two each of Mike Williams and Dawson Echler. That is a lot different than it would have been previously where I would have gone like four and four with Mike Will and Keenan. I can't go higher than two, I don't think. What about you? So over his past eight games, single game target shares, how many do you think he's had above 20%? In the past, how many games? Eight. Because he was 26, 25, 26, the first three. So he had eight last week, but I'm not sure if that was enough to get 20. That was 18.2%. Okay, so they threw a lot because they were down. But he had like five, five, six. I've stared at his game logs a lot. Five, five, six, something around there. So probably none, honestly. One back in week five, he had a 38% target share. So we bought back in after a dip in week four. I was like, okay, that was a blip, but ever since then hasn't quite been the same. And it's not really route related either. He's still running routes, playing snaps. It's just that he's not getting the ball. And if it's a health thing, it makes sense, but you also can't really bank on looking at like 13, 14, 18% target shares, which are low for a receiver, especially one who relies on bigger plays too. Like, you know, you want volume with those, with the downfield targets. It's really hard for me to look at this, like this stretch and say, okay, this is the week where he's gonna flip the switch and just be awesome again. Yeah. And last week with those eight targets, none of those were deep. He did have three deep targets in week 11, but like the reason I still wanna be there is because I still think that that like 10 target, a buck 60 game is within his range of outcomes. So I still wanna be there, but in a very limited fashion. Yeah. And that's the thing is if you wanna, if you put this game first, you wanna stack it every which way you can get there. If you're trying to stack every other game, stack this game a little bit, I don't think Michael Williams is involved in those. Yeah. Like let's say you have five game sacks this game. I'm leaning on Keenan, leaning on Keenan and Nixon in that situation. I'd agree that for sure. The bucks 10 and a half point favorites on the road against Atlanta, the total is 15 and a half though, which means the Falcons imply total is not terrible at 20 plus Antonio Brown still not back at practice. He is unlikely to play according to Bruce Arians. So where are we at with this Bucks offense? Is Kyle Pitts the loan bring back or Cordero Patterson, despite a tough matchup? Where are we at on this game? So this one's tough because we saw Rob Gronkowski return and just dominate. He had almost half of their air yards despite having Mike Evans in this offense. 29% target share, two red zone targets, one end zone target Leonard Fornette also had two red zone targets. Cameron Brate had two red zone targets as well. Like that left one each for Chris Godwin and Mike Evans. So they put up a ton of points. I don't want to overreact to one week of like, oh, well, Mike Evans and Chris Godwin didn't have the results but they're weak. It's not one week. And it's not just the results being low. It's the market shares being really dispersed, especially in the red zone now with Gronk back if they're going to throw it a Leonard Fornette. Cameron Brate, I had what I thought was like a firecracker tweet about Adam Thelan's career red zone touchdown rate on a per target basis. And he was like third since 1994. Cameron Brate was also on that list. Mike Evans was on that list. Like he was like 11th, Gronk was first obviously, but like they're still involving other options. They're going to get, you know, Scotty Miller, like a target, Tyler Johnson a target. And I know that's like that's nitpicking, but when it's already off of four or five other legitimate target shares, like this is, it's so tough. Yeah. That's why this game for me is hard to rank number one from a stack ability standpoint. Yeah, I think that keeps it from being number one, but it still might be number two. It's two or three for me because even with the spread out target shares, I know upside is still there. Floor is not good. Upside is still there. Looking back at their matchup in week two between these two teams, Mike Evans, 75 yards, two touchdowns, Chris Godwin 62 and one. That was with Antonio Brown being healthy. Only three targets for him, but he was healthy he played. I think Godwin's matchup is pretty good. I hate Godwin's target shares with, with Gronkowski, but I know the juice in those targets is pretty good. So like I'm looking at Brady, like let's do the same exercise where we had the 10 Herber lines. Let's do 10 Brady distribution for me is tough. Are you going to include four net in this? Cause that's typically a gym thing to do. Okay. Again, I, if I had one Brady line, it might be stacked with four net to be fully honest. I would say 10 Brady lineups. I want to go with three Lenny, three Lenny, three Gronk and two each of Evans and Godwin. I don't know. I thought it was going to be three Lenny, three Lenny and then one more Lenny or a. For good measure. Yeah, that's fair. Although I could, okay. Scratch that. It's two Lenny, three each of Evans and Godwin, two of Gronk, but I'll have some Lenny sprinkled in as like a double in there as well. I did that last week and it didn't work out. The Lenny part did, the rest didn't, but, you know. I would honestly go like four Gronk. That's fair. Just because if, again, it wasn't, so my issue with Gronk like at times has been, he's been overperforming to such a massive degree that he was bound to like regress. His, he actually underperformed his expected Fandal points last week. He's getting really good usage. The usage, the 78% of the routes, 84% of the snaps. Like if you give me that in this matchup in a dome, he's going to like, I don't, this is kind of stuff we don't say. Like he's going to score a touchdown, if not two. Like he's going to have a good role. It's really hard not to put him first. So I would say like four Gronk, especially because tight end relative to the receivers, I can, I can roster other receivers with maybe some, some question marks. Like just give me Jamar Chase then, against the Chargers. I know the Chargers have that perception of like, being really good against the downfield pass. And like, they're efficient, but they're 20th and passing ADOT allowed. Like they're, they're, they're good at defending it, but Jamar Chase is also good at converting on those. So I don't want to overreact and say like, oh, no Jamar Chase, just because of this, you know, the efficiency that they have, they still allow that some down to a passing, some good ADOTs and, you know, get the ball to Jamar Chase, it's, they're going to be able to do it. So I would put Gronk first, and then I'd probably say like, what's up even with six, maybe two each of the other guys. Okay, that's fair. The most overused GIF on like DFS Twitter is the Aaron Paul one of, he can't keep getting away with this. You are not allowed to use that GIF if Gronk scores twice on Sunday, because he can, because he keeps getting used to like commensurate with that. So just, just saying you can't use that GIF if Gronk goes off on Sunday, because it's legit and very well could happen. Other total that's high for this week, but so like my numbers like this game, your numbers like this game, I'm very scared of this game. That is Washington versus Vegas total is 49 and a half. It's a two and a half point spread in favor of the Raiders. Darren Walder and JD McKissack, both missed practice on Wednesday, which could narrow the usage distribution for both teams. So we have some guys who work in this game, but it's not driven by superstars. I don't want to use either quarterback. How ambitious do you think you'll be in stacking this game? I think it can be fairly ambitious because the way to stack it is not like that difficult. If we're not considering quarterbacks, then it's really what Antonio Gibson, Terry McLaurin, what's Logan Thomas's salary? I don't actually know. 56, that's pretty solid. He's got a good tight end matchup. And then it's potentially Darren Walder, but maybe more realistically, Foster Monroe and Hunter Renfrow. I don't think I'll get the Josh Jacobs just because I have other running backs to go to, but it's like, okay, they're all low, like affordable to roster mini stacks. So I don't need to really overthink it. Yeah. Like I can do a Gibson, Monroe stack in a heartbeat. That's totally fine. The question is my comfort level with like McLaurin, given that Washington is in full on establishing mode right now, the Raiders also might be, they said that they wanted to in Thanksgiving. They did go pretty run heavy in that game too. So like maybe this game goes under because of that. But again, like my stuff likes this game a lot. So, and that's with a downward adjustment for the Raiders due to Henry Ruggs being out. So like I'm adjusting down for that and it still likes this game a lot. And I don't, it makes me uncomfortable to like this game. Let's talk about it from a one-off perspective. You don't have Monroe, don't have Renfrow, don't have Jacobs, but Terry McLaurin versus Keenan Allen. Keenan. Terry McLaurin versus DeAndre Hopkins. Probably McLaurin because Hopkins could return to like a 15% target share. Terry McLaurin versus Marquis Brown. Marquis. I agree. Terry McLaurin versus Brandon Ayuk at 7,000. Ayuk. Lockett. McLaurin. Yeah. I think that's the issue that I have is that there are other guys, like I think he's oversalvied for the role that they currently play. So although I can stack this game, I don't know. I don't know why I just like feel underwhelmed by it for some reason. It's because like you said, there aren't superstars. There aren't like splash play options on either side really aside from McLaurin. But there are potentially two viable low salary tight ends. You know, if you want to make the case for Josh Jacobs, I think you could. Yeah, yeah. Two mid tier running backs. You have kind of high, you know, quote unquote high floor from a target share standpoint receivers. Like I don't think, I understand your concerns and I'm concerned of those same things, but I don't really think it's a situation where it's like, well, let's not play. I was gonna say Hunter Renfrow, but I think Hunter Renfrow has a good play this week. All things considered to get access to get access out of the low salary at receiver and back up to some better running backs. Yeah. When I look at like the player pool and I see Mike Williams by Hunter Renfrow, I'm like, why would I use this guy over this guy? Yeah, it's Mike Williams is like six foot nine. I know he's not, but whatever. Hunter Renfrow is like five foot three. Like why would I use, but like I should, I know that I should. I know, I know what I should do, kids. I get it, but I don't wanna. Yeah, it goes Mike Williams, Hunter Renfrow, Devonte Smith and you're like, two of these guys could have like 25 yard A-dots and one guy's gonna have a five yard A-dot, but although his A-dots been better on top of that. Five is an increase from week 11. So I guess there's that. Also we get like the Clemson Clemson Bama thing. How did Mike Williams and Hunter Renfrow play on the same football team? Anyway, whatever, I don't know. I just, I don't wanna use it. I don't wanna use it. I don't, like that's the thing with like McClaren too is like, the salary's kinda high. I don't know, they don't wanna run. He's a good football player. I just like, I just, it's tough. I don't know. You don't have to use them, but I think that I'm more inclined to play Hunter Renfrow at his salary than McClaren based on the other options I have, but also because I know we have value at running back and potentially at tight end, but it's hard to get back up to like 7,000 from 64 at receiver. If you build receiver last, which I typically end up doing. I typically build it first because it's a key part of my game stacks, I guess. So that's why I wind up there, but, you know. I usually do quarterback receiver or tight end stack. Bring back. Then my running backs, then fill in my defense and maybe a tight end if I don't have one and then I leave receiver for like mini stacks. Yeah. I build out like my skeletons of like, okay, Herbert Kenan Mixon, Herbert Kenan Chase, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I wanted to fill in receiver pretty quickly, but yeah, like the last slot's almost always receiver. Okay. Let's move now to our trends discussion for week number 13. A lot of broad stuff here. And you want to look at the, how often non-elite receivers have big games. And I think this is important this week because we can get to really good stud running backs. We can get to stud tight ends. We can allocate a lot of salary in those places, but that would likely force us to use some 5,000 range wide receivers, which kind of ain't great. So you're going to dig into the numbers of how often those guys hits. What did you find? Yeah. So I did a stacking study this off season and basically found that you need like around 17 and a half fandal points from a receiver, regardless of salary almost to make like a Sunday million winning lineup. It's the biggest change that Jim and I have made this year is that we kind of disregard floor because it doesn't really exist. And we want ceiling, we want guys who can make up for mistakes. Now, rostering low salary receivers in theory get us up to like a Jonathan Taylor who can definitely erase some mistakes, but we still want ceilings from these lower salaried receivers. And I wanted to figure out like what are the odds and what goes into like a big game from lower salaried receivers. So unsurprisingly, if you list things out since 2013 with fandal salaries and results for wide receivers, it's pretty linear. Higher salaries mean better overall fandal points, higher frequency of 17 and a half point games. That makes sense. But if you, so then as you go lower, obviously that those odds get lower and lower and lower. So I wanted to make the cutoff reasonable and look at receivers that we would actually consider below sub like below 7,000. So I made a cutoff of guys who were projected by a number of fire for at least eight fandal points. So it's like your Marvin Jones, your Van Jefferson's like this week, the guys that we're talking about is like considerations. Those guys get to 17 and a half fandal points in 18% of their games indoors, it's 21%, 17% outdoors just cause outdoor games make up the majority of games. But what I found next is going to shock you, Jim. Absolutely not. But if you tear out receivers from like 65 to 6,900 these guys have hit 17 and a half fandal points in 17% of their games against non outlier defenses. So non top six, non bottom six and indoors is 27%. So he's like, okay, this is great. Let's just target guys playing indoors with salaries of 65 and above. 65 and above does not really like a value salary. And against like bottom 60 defenses outdoors or indoors or sorry, outdoors it's 7%. So like you can really nitpick matchups the lower you go. And I think that's the main takeaway for me for this entire mini study that I did. The bump up indoor matchups for sure, you'd be wary of tough past defenses even for guys in that 6,500 and above range on the tier below 6,000 to 64. These guys are down to a 15% hit rate. So it's already dropping pretty noticeably 15% like combine that with the probability of hitting on your other guys in your lineups. Like if you multiply out probabilities things get really low, really fast. That's one thing I've learned in my foray into math because it's not my background, but like it goes down. So of course we want to look at said golfers again. I'm still in like PGA mode, but wide receivers below 6,000 from 55 to 59. Again, projected for solid outputs. These guys have hit 17 and a half Fandall points in just 12% of their game. So it's dropping pretty noticeably, which is to be expected. But again, this is still that tier of guys that we consider again, it's 17% from 65 plus. Like 5 percentage points is pretty noticeable. Indoors against bottom six past the offenses though it's up to 26%. So it's a big jump if you really look at games indoors, which we've talked about indoor games, not a huge surprise, but tangibly make a difference for fantasy output against bottom six past the offenses that helps outdoors over all these numbers dropped to 11% from 17% for the whole subset. So like what I'm finding here is things you have to get nitpickier and I'll finish up quickly. But as far as like matchups go, receivers in the 6,000 range got to 17 and a half Fandall points at a higher rate against non out like average opponents than bottom six opponents, which I think goes back to the, the guys like 6,500 and above, they're not as matchup sensitive as the guys who are true values. For totals, there's really not a huge impact on big game frequency for the 6,000 receivers based on over under splits. Of course, bigger is always better, but for receivers in the 5,000 range over under seems to matter a lot more. Receivers in the 5,000 range have big game odds of 11% in games with totals below 40, 44, it's 10% between 40, 44 and a half and 47 and a half. It's 11%, 48 plus it's up to 12%. Like you have to get nitpickier and nitpickier and I know this is a lot to take in, but what this boils down to for this week is that the receivers with salaries below 6,500 or 6,500 or below with implied team totals even 20 points, which isn't that awesome. And who face bottom half adjusted past defense is not even bottom six. It's Chase Claypool, Hunter Renfrow who's also in a dome, Devonte Smith, Christian Kirk, Otto Beckham who's in a dome and all these guys are 6,000 and above. So 5,000 or 6,000 and below, we have Van Jefferson, Rashad Bateman and Devonte Parker. Like the Marvin Jones, the other guys that we might consider, they get thrown out. And the history says this matters for these lower salaried, lower projected, lower volume receivers. So I think all this gets me away from building around the low salaried receivers and trying to get up to a little bit more balance, which is why I'm much more open to a Jamal Williams, Antonio Gibson combo. So that I'm not playing Rashad Bateman and Devonte Parker just to make my lineups work. Those guys, they're in the consideration but like I just, I don't do a good enough job of nitpicking the low value receivers. Yeah, I probably should do that too. I'm okay with crossing off Marv, so I'm glad that we came to that conclusion. Happy to do that. I think the big takeaway for me is that it increases my, it confirms my priors to just use O'Dell or Van Jefferson. Yes. So I think that that's where I wind up. You were talking about like matchups and the matchup for Rashad Bateman is not great. He's also not shown the best yardage upside. So although he even makes his list, even like him kind of a hard sell for me. So you have a narrow list and I think we can narrow that list down even more, which is I think furthers your point of we should probably avoid this range this week. Like in general, yes, this week specifically even more yes, right? Yeah, and the reason I wanted to look into it this week specifically is because it was so relevant with Jonathan Taylor, Joe Mixon, but like that puts Elijah Moore off this list. Sorry, Austin Swam are our peer, but no Russell Gage this week. Dustle Gage? Yeah, Marv's out. There's just not a whole lot down here and it can feel like all it takes is one. And again, Devonte Parker I still consider, but this list gets really narrow really quickly, even on a week where you'd think that it would be a little bit better based on how many games we have. Yeah, I think Parker, Jefferson, O'Dell. And then you're back up into the mid like low 6,000s and that's not really, but like are there any other 5,000 range receivers you even like, if Corey Davis were to get in a full practice Friday I could consider him at 59, just because like the target shares when he's healthy tend to be so good, but like Kaderi Stone didn't practice terrible game. A.J. Green actually, I could talk myself in A.J. Green very easily. I forgot he was in here. A.J. Green, someone I'll talk about in my next trend, but yeah, this is honestly basically an anti-marve thing. Good. This is what I learned. But this is also, we like to do this sometimes because then it applies to other weeks and we can keep this in the back of our minds and just say, maybe don't like, don't chase like Leviskish and all. I know we don't have that issue. I know we don't have that issue. Can we like, can we make him the fake player now that T Higgins has become a real person again? Can we confirm Leviskish and all exists? Like Josh Reynolds, man. Like, I can't play Josh Reynolds. Josh Reynolds has double the artist upside of Leviskish and all. How dare you? He does. I know, but like I'm saying, I don't want you to care. A receiver who checks a lot of these boxes but not the projection box, got some deep work last week, got seven targets is in a good game. Zay Jones at 53. I looked at him. I couldn't talk myself into it. He does check some of the boxes though. Some, not enough, but not enough. Okay, fair enough. And so like a Zay Jones, someone I would have considered before I looked at this. Yep. I think I got to cross them off. Let's move now to my first trend to talk about the workload as some of the mid range running backs to help sort out our rankings of these guys. Cause like we got a lot of dudes here who are pretty good. There are a lot of them. So let's decide how to rank them. We'll call the mid range here, 6,000 to 79. It's a big range, but using multiple players here can help me, you know, get up and stay out of that bad range at receiver for this week. So the two key standouts to me here are James Connor and Antonio Gibson. Connor is $73 to face the Bears. This will be his first game with Kyler Murray with no Chase Edmonds. The first three games without Chase Edmonds, there was no Kyler. That's awesome. In the three games without Edmonds, Connor is at 27.3 carious plus 2x targets per game. He has 112 yards of scrimmage per game. His red zone role has been very good. 44% red zone share in that time. I love all that. That's why I'm okay. Potentially putting him above Gibson and Williams this week. Gibson showed out a Monday night. He's had great usage since the team's bi-week. He is at 30 carious plus 2x targets per game with 106.3 yards of scrimmage per game. 53% red zone share. Both of those guys are on offense as I'm decently high on this week. So I want to be in on those too. Jamal Williams moving into a bigger role with Deandre Swift, likely out. Williams had 15 caries and five targets with Swift leaving early on Thanksgiving. Now they have extra risks. They played Thursday, they're at home, facing a Vikings defense that might get Michael Pierce back this week but still missing a bunch of key run defenders. I'm fine putting him below Connor and Gibson due to the offense he's on but that's the one difference for me. All the other guys have some sort of imperfection. Lenny Kamloos working the red zone and then we scored like 63 touchdowns last week but he can lose some work in the red zone. Eli Mitchell, Mitage Michael Hasey back. Tough matchup for Cordero Patterson. Saquon Barkley might play with Mike Lennon. David Montgomery is like yardage upside. Josh Jacobs has yardage upside but it was just a one game sample. I think they're all in play. So I'm not saying don't use any of those guys but I wouldn't cross any of them but I think that to me I have to prioritize. And to me, I go Connor one, Gibson two, Williams three, Lenny four, and then I think I cut off there if we're gonna make a cut off because I gotta choose some works. I wanna get to Mixon. I wanna get to Taylor, potentially Sonny Michelle. So overall takeaway for me, number one, this range is great. I like a lot of guys here. Overall takeaway number two is Connor, Gibson, Williams, Lenny. Where do you disagree with me? Really just the order. I agree on the top four. I have Jamal, Connor, Gibson, Fournet which is a combination of salary and everything else. So like that's factored in. If not, I would just have Fournet first but it's unrealistic that I'll play more Leonard Fournet than Jamal Williams and Antonio Gibson. I would also play James Connor over Fournet more frequently but like I agree with you it's a good range and then we need to nitpick here. I think that's sort of the point of this week in these top two trends is like nitpick. Like don't just throw in, say Juan Barclay, don't throw in Eli Mitchell, don't throw in Marvin Jones or like Elijah Moore even if you're not sold on the situations. So that's kind of the key takeaway for me but again, I rank them Jamal, Connor, Gibson and Fournet. We're talking, let's talk cash games briefly. My current inclination and this frightens me is to go with no Jonathan Taylor and go with Connor, Gibson and Williams. I think if I were to change that. No you are there. What? You are there now? You weren't there an hour ago when we started the show? No, I think I was. I think I might have been spoken. I was saying that it was tough to pass him up and it is still tough. That's still very true. If I were to change that, it would be adding Taylor. That'd be the one thing that I would change. But I think for right now, it's the three value backs. Connor, Williams, Gibson, it scares me to not go Taylor but I think for right now those are my three. Are you in agreement there? That's gonna be my base assumption lineup for now unless we really get some news. I would consider Sony Michelle but I think I'm more inclined to go the other way and include Jonathan Taylor than Sony Michelle on a cash game lineup. I think I agree. So let's move to your second trend to talk about part of why James Connor is appealing that is because he is getting his quarterback back and also he's a top stack in Canada with Kyler. So talk me through the Cardinals with Kyler Murray and Deandre Hopkins back plus some talk on the Bears quarterback situation. Yeah, this whole game is kind of up in the air so it could go many different ways. I guess four different ways with the starting quarterback combinations but F.B. Maastricht who could say but this is the fastest game on the main slate according to my data which looks at your passes and run plays on plays where your pre-snap win probability is between 20 and 80%. So weeds out garbage time looks at pace there. So again, this is the fastest game we get on the main slate. Of course, with the quarterback splits we do see differences of how these offenses operate. The Cardinals so far in games started and finished by Kyler Murray, their eighth in pace, 12th in pass rate in games without him, their second in pace which is kind of surprising but 18th in pass rate. So their offense doesn't really change a whole lot in terms of overall pass rate, overall pace but the efficiency obviously is the big difference there. So we obviously want Kyler for the efficiency. We don't have to worry too much about how this offense operates from a top-down perspective regardless of Murray's status. As for the Bears, very different usage based on whether it's Justin Fields or Andy Dalton under center. In games started by Dalton, they would rank 22nd this season in pace which is not good but it's also not an outlier in terms of slowness but their eighth in pass rate. With Fields starting, they're up to second in a would-be pace but dead last in pass rate. So very, very different offenses based on who's starting for the Bears. Now again, going back to the efficiency thing, we want Kyler Murray, he's at 0.34 passing unexpected points for drop-back. Colt McCoy is at 0.21, both have been really good. The NFL average is 0.10. So like McCoy's been twice as good as the NFL average. That's relevant but of course, Murray is a big jump up. The Bears again, faster with Fields but super run heavy and I would prefer then that Andy Dalton starts as a result so that they don't try to run the ball in grind clock. I don't think there is likely to do that with Andy Dalton based on what we've seen from him. He's been more efficient, 0.17 passing unexpected points for drop-back from Andy Dalton. Fields overall is at a minus 0.15 but 0.08 in three games since week eight. So he's been about league average since week eight. Dalton still about twice as good overall. So I'm into the Cardinals offense to the point where I don't really care who starts for the Bears. I do prefer that it's Andy Dalton but in their games with both Kyler Murray and DeAndre Hopkins playing, this does account for just one game with Zach Hertz but I don't wanna look just at one game necessarily. Hopkins leads the team with 22% of the targets. He's got 30% of the red zone targets and 30% of the downfield targets. Zach Hertz is second at 18% of the targets with good red zone and downfield work. Christian Kirk's at 17%, AJ Green's at 16%, Ron Delmore's 15%. So this is like kind of tough to figure out. Hopkins obviously is the primary way to go but I don't think he's worth it at the salary necessarily. I think Zach Hertz makes a lot of sense. Sounds like you're into AJ Green, which I love just from a process standpoint from Jim but what's your confidence level in Murray in his first game back and can you trust literally any of these past catchers this week? So it's high right now, my confidence level is high. It would go down if he were to not get into full practice by Friday. That would be the one thing that could decrease it. So keeping on that, I'm just noting that right now but right now it's very high because I think that he's had, he was supposed to be a one to three week injury according to Jay Glazer. It has been four weeks now. So he was practicing before they're by. So I think we're good to go. Maybe that's overconfident but I think that's okay. With Hopkins, he didn't practice before they're by so a tiny bit less confident there. However, his market shares were better than I remembered them being because I ran the same numbers you did to see what he looked like in that time. And actually like 22% with a 30% deep target share tied to Kyler is not that bad for $7,200. So again, if he gets into full practice by Friday I will have some new lineups with Kyler but I still think my default stack will be James Conner just because I'm getting access to most of the yards, very, very likely every touchdown that they score unless we'd a Ranomino Benjamin one or like a Rondale Moore rushing touchdown. So I think that's like my default right now is Kyler with Conner. I think AJ Green works like a one-off. I don't know if I'd stack him with Kyler cause I don't know if I have that much like enthusiasm around him but like, I think the stacks with Kyler are Hopkins and Conner. The one-off plays are almost everyone here just because I think this offense is good enough to justify that despite the fact the market shares are bad. Yeah, and in that game with Hopkins and Erts together Hopkins had a 32% target share. He had nine Erts tied with Christian Kirk with five which is an 18% target share. And then more Chase Edmonds who's obviously not relevant for this conversation and AJ Green had three each which was 11%. So I think they're still in play for one-offs. I just never feel good with stacking this team from a confidence standpoint. And honestly, if I get to Kyler which I know I will by Sunday if I'd see what good reports from his practice I might go with Zach Erts number one because he feels tight end and his role has actually been quite good. Yeah, and he's played well. That helps too. So I think that works. With the bear side of things I feel like for me, like Alan Robinson this practice again Wednesday I feel like I'm going either Darna Amunia as the bring back or no one. What about you? Would you consider Montgomery because you're typically are okay bringing it back with running backs? I'm okay with bringing it back with running backs. I just don't know if I can use him over Gibson and Jamal. Yeah, I think Mooney's the clear option. I might be with you where if it's not him it might be nobody but that's not going to prevent me from stacking Kyler Murray if we're just playing Kyler Murray by himself. Which I would maybe consider in a cash game. Yeah, I think that's fine. Yeah, so there's enough to like with the Cardinals. I think there might be some concerns if we get Justin Fields starting though or it would lower me on that game because they would want to be so run heavy. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Can't get to commit. I know commit had a pretty good usage day on Thanksgiving, but I just don't think I'm there yet. There are too many other tight ends. I think if I had 10 Kyler lineups I'd have Mooney and five the rest no bring back. And I think that that same construction is in play with the Rams. Let's talk with them for the second trend here because we talked Monday about liking the Rams pass catchers. They are 13 point favorites against the Jags. Obviously that's a smidge concerning when we want competitive games so we can have faith in both sides. So I want to look into the Rams and what they do when they're up big in a game. They are pretty one heavy. They've ran 108 plays this year when they've been up by two scores in second half that is according to sharp football stats and their pass rate in those plays is 36%. League average in that spot is 40%. So the Rams more run heavy more run heavy than the average team. They have still managed to pay off the passing game pieces though. The Rams have won four games by double digits and all four Matthew Stafford has had at least 24 fan dual points. Cooper cup has topped 20 fan dual points in all three. He has topped 26 twice in those games. Darrell Henderson has scored 21 plus points twice didn't play in one of those games against the Buccaneers. So those guys have been good. Cup Henderson Stafford have all been good. The secondary piece has been punished a bit. Van Jefferson has averaged 8.7 fan dual points in those games. Robert Woods was at 11.4. Tyler Higby 8.0. It is worth noting that only two of those games happened after Deshaun Jackson's role decrease. None of them were after Woods' injury. So it's possible that Van and O'Dell are still viable because you take Robert Woods out of the equation and maybe that helps things out a bit. I think the bigger takeaway though is that Stafford cup stacks are on the menu and we can't justify a bring back. I know Stafford is banged up but like he still had the deep ball in his arsenal on Sunday and like he looked fine in those deep passes. He wasn't as aggressive and like didn't look as good but when you're at home facing the Jags I have more confidence there because the personnel is not as scary as it is with the teams they faced a lot recently in San Francisco and Tennessee. I would love Michelle if you were to play. It's a good spot for Henderson. It's just like he's so boring. Like the yard is upside is not great relative to James Conner who I love. Leonard Fournette who I love. All those guys are right there. So like he's paid off but like, oh, he's. I wish I could love him hard. It's very hard. So I think I'm on the rands. Specifically Stafford Cup even with some script concerns here. What about you? Yeah, I mean, I like Cooper Cup. I think it's unrealistic to sit here and say or it's unfair to sit here and say like I'm gonna have a ton of Cooper Cup because I realistically won't and I would rather take the value with Van Jefferson and Odell Beckham. I think Stafford is in the conversation for the top quarterback play. Sure. I don't know if he's quite there but I think he's in that consideration because yes, we want games to be tighter. Games aren't always like blowouts from the get-go. They're rarely blots from the start and the way that this team moves the ball best is just through efficient passing which they should have access to this week. So I liked the 49ers when they played the Jaguars from just a passing efficiency standpoint. I think that should be there for Matthew Stafford. Again, I have nothing against Cooper Cup. I think that he can get there but realistically I'm gonna, let's say Austin Eckler and Odell Beckham or Cup and let's do Mixon and Odell or Cup and Gibson. I go Cup and Gibson actually. Yeah. And I don't usually say that I typically skew towards the high-salary backs but it's just because we have Gibson down there, Jamal Williams down there. So other two V2s would work. Yeah. So yeah, I mean, still I don't think I'll have 50% Cooper Cup or anything crazy like that where he's like a true building block but I'm not really worried about the spread here. Yeah. I think that like, so realistically my exposure levels at receiver are naturally just lower than they are at running back, which is the way it should be because it's volatile position. But like I would say Cooper Cup realistically will probably be in my top five in exposure at receiver. Maybe Van might be like one. I think that all three of these guys will be quote unquote core plays for me. Maybe I want to see where Odell's health is at but Odell doesn't play. Van, I just might, well buddy, a lot of Van then but I think all three of these guys will be pretty much staples for me. Yeah. And the thing for Cup two is relative to the rest of receiver, like Debo's not gonna play. They may have Justin Jefferson a full thousand below him in salary at 8,000. And then it's down to Chris Godwin at 76. I think both Cup and Jefferson are really good plays this week. I think so too, for sure. But again, salary itself doesn't explain ceiling. But as I mentioned, it does a pretty good job of like capturing what to expect. So Cup really has, I'd say Cup and Jefferson and if we get a classic Jamar Chase game, classic rookie game, they're the three guys whose ceilings I think I worry about. So I'm just like doing a hypothetical line up here with those three value backs in it. I can use Cooper Cup and so 6850 left for my two remaining receiver slots. So that's a perfect example this week of like I think that having that and knowing how bleak the low salary at receiver really truly is from a process standpoint, I think I need to be more okay trusting the value at running back and not thinking too far down. And that's gonna put like guys like Hunter Renfrow on the menu for sure. Sorry. I know. I know. I think the, can I just ask you about Henderson quick? Cause like I'm just always lower on him than everyone. Where are you at? Cause you don't have to say in like blinders that I do. Yeah, particularly like love him. If he's not scoring, he's not hurting you. And even when he does score, he's not really hurting you. The salary is 75, not like 65. If it was, you know, closer to 65, I'd be like, okay, well, who goes for 22, which he can do if he scores once or twice, then that's a conversation. But at 75, like he doesn't have a path to 30 with the yardage output he's producing. You said it, not me, I agree, but I'll let you say it, not me. I mean, that's a high ceiling, but like we're not gonna get like a Joe Nixon game from. Or a Lenny. Or like a Lenny. I mean, the only thing you could say with, you could have a Lenny game if they score six times in the Jaguars and he has four of them or three of them. Yeah, like it happened. That's it. He does red zone chairs only 28%. That's the thing is like, yeah, cause, yeah. So I wouldn't have any Henderson. Okay. Thank you. I feel validated now. Weather for this week, there is a chance some rain in wind in Chicago for the bears and cardinals. I don't care about rain too much, but currently a 14 mile per hour wind. So high enough for I wanna check back on that one on Sunday. Rain could also roll into Cincinnati for their game against the Chargers. Winds at just 10 miles per hour. Check back on that one later as well. With that said, let's dive into our positional plays for week number 13, Brandon at quarterback. Who are you turning to this week? I'm gonna go with Kyler Murray at 83. I'd rather be too early than too late on Kyler. I think that's kind of the thing for me is he could dominate at 83 and then I'm gonna be kicking myself. And it's not even really just like a FOMO thing, but like, look, they're nine and two. They could keep resting him up if they needed to. Colt McCoy's been playing well enough, but it's like, it's a great passing matchup. Like, I don't know, just 24th against the pass according to the number of fireworks metrics, 26th in downfield yards per target allowed. Kyler's been the best downfield passer in football based on adjusted yards per attempt. 27th to pressure rate, like, I'm not gonna, I don't wanna overthink this one and I'm gonna allocate salary to quarterback and that's gonna include Kyler Murray, but it's also going to include Tom Brady at 81. I don't love the lower salary quarterbacks, which is generally a trend for us this whole season. I would consider Joe Burrow plenty if I really had to, but Brady's coming off a down game, which is usually a good sign for popularity numbers. Their implied team total is 30.75. Atlanta is terrible against the pass. It's indoors. And the way that he would have a big game is by throwing three or four touchdowns. So it's a efficiency-based. I don't care so much about the spread. Yeah, and so my two are Kyler and Justin Herbert. Tom Brady was very, very, very close to being the write-up for me. Is Matthew Stafford in the conversation or is he a tier? Okay. I think he's like fourth. I think he's similar to Brady in a lot of ways. Yeah, okay. What about for you? Yeah, I think he's probably a tier below and I know that that sounds like it's always fun to have low salary quarterbacks, but I really can't make the case for any guys this week, aside from maybe Burrow. Yeah, I'd go Stafford over Burrow. Do you agree there? Yeah. Okay, cool. So the reason that I like Kyler is I'm kind of hoping people avoid him in his first game back, like he said, rather be two early than two late. The Bears defense also is sneakily not great right now. They rank 24th against the pass. Khalil Mack is out. Akeem Hicks did not practice once again on Wednesday. That's a good spot for Kyler. Stack with James Conner to avoid the market share issues. Justin Herbert, slight underdog in a game with a big total. We tend to see the public under rosters, slight underdog quarterbacks. Herbert is at this week. He has shown big upside. He has 30 plus fandal points four times this year, which kind of shocked me, I guess, to see that number being that high. He said 35 plus twice already. The Bengals rank 15th against the pass. I know who to stack him with. It's mostly Kenan, but also Echler and some Mike Williams. So I think that makes him a pretty easy sell for me. Let's move to running back. What you got there? I'm gonna go with Joe Nixon, just being a little more realistic where I don't think I can hammer Jonathan Taylor into my lineups and I'm fine, quote unquote settling on Joe Nixon what his role is right now at 9400. The chargers are 30 second and rushing net expected points per carry and success rate allowed to running backs. They're 31st and adjusted fandal points per carry allowed to running backs. He's got an elite workload. Not really gonna overthink it and not gonna kick myself if I can't get to Taylor. I still have James Conner though at 73. Is just not a surprise if you listened to any of the show before this, but since week nine, he's played on 80% of the team snaps with 17.3 carries, five targets per game. 60% of the red zone carries. This offense should be able to move the ball. Potentially if Murray's not like 1,000% healthy they might not run him near the goal line which would just help James Conner with the touchdown equity. And then I love Jamal Williams as well. 15 carries, five targets last week on 67% of the snaps even with the Andre Swift playing a bit we're in 54% of the routes. So he could have virtually the same role including some receiving as the Andre Swift and as I mentioned before, he's been really efficient. Is it Russia this year? Yeah, I think that I agree with you on most of that stuff. With Nixon, I go slightly in favor of Taylor despite the salary gap because Taylor's like building blocks for upside are stupid, 145 yards per game since the snaps went up. He is at a 62% red zone share in that time. Nobody else in their most relevant sample on the sleigh is above 53%. And that's Antonio Gibson at three game sample. Like if we're looking at larger samples nobody else is above... Nobody's above 38% on the full season aside from... Nixon's at 42% if you lop off the game where he was limited. I'm just saying like full season in games where guys played that was the number that I looked up. Derek Henry was at like 44% but obviously he's hurt so. Yeah, he was at, yeah a lot. But Taylor's at 63%, it's stupid. 62, 63, I wrote that down on it. 63% red zone share, it's insane. Houston's 21st against the Rush. If I don't go with three value slash mid range backs in my cash game lineup it would be to put Taylor in there because like his floor stealing combo is unreal. My number two love is James Connor. Bears are 22nd against the Rush. He's had a tremendous roll of no admins we discussed before. 44% red zone share for him in that time. Getting Kyler back. Noah Keem Hicks at practice Wednesday. I think that he is just a phenomenal play once again. My third guy will be either Antonia Gibson or Jamal Williams. I want to let roster rates dictate where I go between these two. I'm gonna have a lot of both but like if I have one lineup like a high dollar single entry thing I will let the roster rate dictate where I go. It's for Gibson, he's had an upgraded roll recently. I could get upgraded more if JD McKissit can't go. Williams has a great role with no DeAndre Swift. He's facing a brutal Rush defense. Again, I will let the public dictate where I go in like a high dollar single entry line between these two guys if I'm not using both in the same lineup. Let's move to- Yes or no question. Daryl Henderson, let's say he gets ruled out right now. Does Sonya Michelle make your three loves? Yes, but I don't know who I take out. Okay, I tried. I tried. Yeah, I don't know. You? No. Okay, that's fair. It's tough. It's a good week. Yeah, good week. I got choices. All right, go to receive what you got. I got Keenan Allen. I probably should consider Cooper Cup here now that I've really thought about it more but Keenan Allen 7,300, nothing bad to say about him. 30% target share in five games this season, 27% overall and since their buy he's up to 31% target share. 31% of his routes have led to a target. That's top four in that sample. 17% red zone share, I guess that's the one knock because you'd want that to be a little bit higher if it could be but I'm not gonna nitpick any of that in a game that I like. And I think every other 7,000 receiver has somewhat of a question mark aside from Allen or he has the fewest question marks for me. Maybe Marky's Brown doesn't really have a question mark aside from the, well, total I guess but. Yeah. And Jamar Chase, I think are the three guys that are really be eyeing primarily but I love Hunter Renfro as well. 6,400 salary, I know it's weird to have him in this but I really think that I'll be in this range as Jim laid out like kind of realistically what you're looking at at receiver. He's gonna be featured if even if Darren Waller plays he's not gonna be 100%. Hunter Renfro has already been featured. The stealing's not as capped as it used to be. His average 0.6 downfield targets per game with a 6.3 yard ADOT but he has three downfield targets in the past three games as ADOT is 7.2 in that span which is still about three and a half yards shy of the NFL average for receivers but we know that that's part of what Hunter Renfro does. He's just very involved near the goal line. He has a team high red zone target share in end zone target share. Again, I don't, it doesn't really matter if Darren Waller plays or not. I like Hunter Renfro and I'm gonna have Otto Beckham as my third love. The reports are these gonna play so I'm not that concerned. I don't wanna get careless at receiver which is why I'm capping it at 6,000 although I love Van Jefferson plenty but Beckham tied for a team high 10 targets last week. He's now been targeted on 26% of his routes with the Rams Cup for context is at 27.7%. Last week, Beckham actually led in that stat not gonna overthink it. Again, I'm trusting the reports that he's healthy. Of course, if he's out, I'll just pivot to Van but I love O'dowell if he plays. Yeah, I think that's, it's really hard to dip to not like any of the Rams guys. From my receiver loves, I wanna talk about two guys who I think are really good as one offs and also maybe as pivots off of other stuff. One is Justin Jefferson. If people get to Alexander Madison a lot they're probably not gonna use Justin Jefferson and I think that he is a really fun pivot. It is a repeat divisional matchup. Jefferson went for a buck 24 against him in the first meeting. His target share for the full year is up to 25%. He has 40% of the deep targets, 28% of the red zone, dome game, $8,000. Wanna get a read on where people will be on him but if they're in on Madison, probably lower on Jefferson I think that he is a pretty strong play this week. Another guy I like we have not discussed is Tyler Lockett. I know Russ missed some throws pretty badly on Monday. I don't think he uses bad of perception though. He's at 0.12 passing that expected points per drop back. He's getting further moved from that finger injury. He did hit Lockett on some deep throws there and Lockett in three games with Russ back has four, four and three deep targets in those games. The 49ers ranked 28th and passing that expected points per attempt loud on deep passes. They do let up some efficiency on those deep throws. Kind of thing Lockett works. I'd want him in a stack with Kittle or in a stack with Iuk. Maybe Mitchell would probably not as much there especially with hasty being back but I think that Lockett is someone I wanna make sure I don't gloss over in a decent range in the upper 6,000 range. My third love is Van. I mean, should be obvious why he does get it dinged a bit if they get ahead just because like his target share is not as high but in the game since Deshaun Jackson's rolled right up he is at 41% of the team's deep targets. He had four last week without out playing massive role. He does have some bust in him for sure but so does everyone else. So I think that he has a much clearer path to a ceiling game indoors, high efficiency spot. It's gonna keep on going, it worked last week so I'm gonna keep on going. Like I know it's frustrating to talk with the same dudes over and over but like if it keeps working, you know, whatever, who cares. So let's go to tight end. What are you going with there? Gonna get wild here, go someone off the wall with George Kittle at 6,300. The Saturday's just way too low without Debo, Samuel. 20% target share in four games since returning with one red zone target per game, 0.75. End zone targets for games with three and those four. The volume should be really safe without Debo. And then my second love is gonna be Foster Moreau assuming no Darren Waller. He had an 18% target share in week seven without Waller. 82% route rate, two red zone targets and Henry Ruggs played in that game. Last week with Waller playing 17 snaps, Moreau still played 90%. Had a 66% route rate with five targets. Just one catch for three yards. So I do hope that people look at that and dislike it but he's kind of like in week seven he treated him like Darren Waller, if not better than Darren Waller. So I would love Moreau at 5,000 if we don't get Waller. Yeah, I think that Moreau works really well. The other lower salary guy I like is Gerald Everett. He is $4900. He has actually led the team in targets since Russ's return. He's had a 23% target share, which is seven per game. And he's actually produced on that volume too. He's had double digit fan dual points in two out of three games. And for $4900, I will take that. So Everett, I think is, I would go Moreau over Everett because I like that game more and I'm more inclined to stack them. I prefer Lockett on this team, whereas Moreau is my favorite guy in the Raiders. So Moreau over Everett, but I like both quite a bit. The non value guy I like most is the same as yours, George Kittle. He gets a target boost with no Debo. He already had a 20% target share since he returned from injury. He has 24% of the red zone targets, just two D targets since he returned, but like he can generate upside via YAC. So for 63, he's under salary. I think that Lockett, Kittle stacks are pretty fun. And I would, I'd like to get to those if I can. But Everett and Moreau both really, really fun plays. Let's go to defense. What'd you turn into there? I'm a good chalky with Miami. 4,000, I think do the best process play. They have the third best defensive line matchup against the pass, according to pro football focus, which adjusts for injuries. Daniel Jones at best is not 100%. So we could get a downgraded Daniel Jones, which is good for a defense or, you know, at least presumably a quarterback downgrade from a starting, I know. But, you know, the real pivot might be reserving some salary for defenses like we talked about on Monday. So like Tampa Bay, Philly, Indianapolis, the Rams. But, you know, Miami, I think they'll be chalky, but I think that they're still a team that all have exposure to for sure. Yeah, they're, the way they play is so conducive to fantasy points. It's perfect. Even if Jones plays, I don't care. I mean, like he's pretty reckless. So, you know, it might actually be better. My love is Tampa Bay, just because I would guess Miami will probably be the most, one of the more popular defenses. The Bucks, $43,000. They are favored, high total game, a team that is unlikely to run, because they can't. They should be able to generate pressure here as well. So I think Tampa Bay, really good process-based play. I will use Washington too, in case the Raiders go back to their shell without Henry Rugs. Washington, even with No Chase Young, has gotten a lot of pressure. They haven't like converted it into sacks. So I still think that they're like interesting. So I'm okay with them as like a pivot, but I think that Tampa Bay, Miami, the two standout plays for me for this week. We're figuring out a question. You were just sighing. Anyway, any final thoughts for you, Brandon, before we close up shop for today? I honestly think we covered everything. I hope we did. I desperately hope so. I desperately hope that Daryl Henderson plays. I don't have to worry about Sonny Michelle, because I don't want to think about that. So rest up, Daryl, play on Sunday. Let's keep this core tight, because I think that's the key for me this week is prioritization, figuring out where you want to go, nitpicking because we can. Yeah, rank them, nitpick because you can. I think that's the key takeaway for me this week. Yeah, I think it's been so many weeks where I haven't been able to nitpick, that I've kind of forgot about really digging into, and we don't overreact to matchups that much, but whenever you can adjust for matchups, guys playing in domes, games with only high totals, whenever you can do that, you should. Yeah, I think that dig in, look at the matchups, look at the game environments, look at the workloads, and decide, should I use this guy? Should I try to find Sour to get up? You know, I think Balance does work pretty well for this week. That is all that we have here for today on the week 13 preview, but we are back once again on Monday to wrap things up. That is at 9 a.m. on the FanDuel YouTube page. So if you're watching YouTube, A, thank you, B, hit the like button. I think you can also turn on notifications when we go live via the alarm bell. Ryan Wilms is trying to explain this to me. He's smarter than I am with YouTube, so hashtag and Ryan we trust. I think there's a bell thing you can hit to get notifications as we go live each and every day. We do have the Q and A's at 4 p.m. every weekday as well. So hit subscribe there. Hit subscribe to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed and swing back once again on Monday for the recap show, also UFC, the Austin Swain, and the NHL via Tom Vecchio and much more. Brandon, if people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? Matt Godulla, 13, G-D-U-L-A, one, three. And hi, Matt, Jim Sonnis? You can also follow the FanDuel Podcast Network at FanDuel Podcast also. ListenerLeague, FanDuel.com, slash league, slash Listener League, $5 entry, three entries, Max. Go get in and go get yourself some money. We'll talk to you once again on Monday. Drop it all up. This has been the Heat Check Fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.