 A lot of fun football was played in week number one. It was kind of slow to start, but things picked up in the second half of the early games. The late games were an absolute blast for the most part. Unfortunately, a couple of key injuries, but some big performances to talk about, some key role changes and I think actionable take aways from a DFS perspective to discuss for our future lines. We're going to dive on in and recap everything that went down in week number one to get you set for week number two and beyond. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire. That's right here on the fan dual podcast network and Number Fire dot com. My name is Jim Sottis. I am a senior writer and analyst for Number Fire dot com joined here as always by Brandon Gedula. He is the senior managing editor of Number Fire dot com. Brandon, week number one, mostly in the books. How are you doing today? Could have been a lot better, honestly. A lot of the guys we talked about, a lot of the guys I specifically, you know, personally, actually, you know, roster did quite well, but. Had a few too many Devonte Smiths and Mike Williams is in there. Christian McCaffrey was good, but not phenomenal. So, you know, it's a but I think the process was there. Aside from aside from pointing out that it's it's generally good to fade chalky wide receivers and then have Justin Jefferson just go. Absolutely. Let's do what he did. Yeah. I think it's one of the things where you live by the concentrated player pool and die by it as well. So I would have had a much worse week had I not had a lot of Saquon Barclay because he kind of buoyed a lot of my lineups. But I also would have had a much better week had I not had as much Mike Williams, Marquis Brown, he had a touchdown at the end. Marquez, all that scantling. Canary is Tony. Whoops, my bad. Number four, wide receiver. Canary is Tony, which some people actually knew about. So that was actually the oversight of my part. That was actually a bad play. Just object. That was not that was not his fault. That was me. I'm OK with that. I'm OK with, you know, keeping things pretty tight, not having a super wide player pool, because, you know, if a couple of things break my way, then I'm in a good position. Why not breaking even? And I think that a break even week when I have 43 percent Hollywood Brown on a team where he and a guy where his team just totally dusted in the first half and stuff like that. That's OK. So I'm at peace with the way things went. Week number one, I we were talking before the show and you're talking about you want to make sure you're not like deviating and suddenly like spreading things out to get exposure to everyone. I agree. I think that's ready to play things. But overall, I thought a pretty good week across the board in terms of our read on things. And week two, always my favorite week, too, as far as playing DFS. We have actual data to look at and hopefully some overreactions out there as well. Yeah, especially overreactions with guys who scored. Maybe guys whose target shares I want. I mean, just a spoiler alert. We end this show with a note to my future self. Plenty of overtime this week, so it's important to keep in mind that those rock rock totals for some guys will be inflated not only for for entering week two, but early on in the season. So that's why things like market shares make a lot of sense to look at. But you're saying we're not going 100 percent. Rex Burkhead in week two. Some people might I personally will not. Well, weird, weird, weird. So Brandon mentioned our rundown for this week. For those of you who are new to listening to the recap podcast, we'll go through the headlines for the week. We'll go through injuries, role changes, situations to monitor, just kind of, you know, quick notes on some roles and stuff like that. Philosophical changes, mostly focusing like pass, run ratios, pace and stuff like that. We'll do a salary scroll looking at week number two salaries and then also, like Brandon said, a note to future me. So maybe we want to keep in mind heading into week number two. And throughout the podcast, we'll also play a game called name that salary, where I will say name that salary on player X and Brandon will try to predict or I'll try to predict what their salary will be on the week two main slate. What I'm predicting you're done through this every year. Oh, sorry. You're right. You're right. You're right. No, you're right. You're right. I said you're right. I said you're right. I said you're right. I said you're right. I gave you credit right in his rights. We're not predicting what their salary will be. We're saying what their salary should be based on the role they had, based on their context or situation. You're right. Again, fine, you can have it. But that's that's we're playing is trying to identify what the salary should be, because if you've heard like, you know, guess the lines kind of games in a situation where you think line is one should be five and a half and it's three and a half. There's value there. It was kind of the same thing from a DFS perspective. So name that salary we're playing throughout the game for today. Before we do that, though, quick reminder to make sure you subscribe to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed, wherever you get your podcast. We, of course, are on Apple podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, Google podcast. You name you can find us there while you're there. If you like what you hear, leave us a rating and review as well. A lot of good stuff all over there on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed MLB PGA back here pretty soon, NASCAR and UFC as well. The 2022 NFL season is underway and Fandal and GMC are back to bring you the GMC Sierra Mountain Climber Pickham, a free to play contest that gives you a chance to win a share of $10,000. And Fandal's like credit every Sunday courtesy of GMC. Here's how it works. Every Sunday during the NFL season, you'll have a chance to answer questions based on that day's non-prime time games. The more questions you answer correctly, the higher up the mountain you'll move. If during any week you answer every question correctly for a perfect score, you'll reach the summit and win a share of $10,000 in site credit. The contest series is available at Fandal.com slash free slash contest slash GMC. Fandal.com slash free slash contest slash GMC to start climbing that mountain. Let's dig in here to our week number one recap and talk about some old faces and new places, but the same production for elite wide receivers who are on the move this year, breaking down AJ Brown, Devonte Adams and Tyree Kill, all in new situations and all, frankly, having a really good day starting off with AJ Brown. I was watching the game with one of the other a fan to employee named Jeff. Jeff is a big Eagles fan. And he told me before the game, AJ Brown's getting 10 catches. And I said, I'll take the under Jeff and I looked like a moron. So kudos to you, Jeff, for being run AJ Brown. He had 13 out of 28 targeted throws, which is a 46 percent target share. He had both the deep targets from Jalen Hurts. He had two out of three in the red zone and that's awesome. That's really fun. The other takeaway, though, is what you mentioned with Devonte Smith, where Dallas Goddard, Devonte Smith, secondary roles now in this offense. Goddard's four targets, Smith three, neither guy had a high leverage look. So are these guys just dust now and how high are we on AJ Brown going forward? Yes, I mean, AJ Brown got targeted on 42 percent of his routes, which is just a silly number. And actually, the the two other guys we're going to talk about also broke 40 percent there. So I'm going to try to pull up some more context, because those might have been the. Might have been the best numbers aside from Cooper Cup for the week, I guess, Jamar Chase as well. But either way, dominant numbers there. That number for Devonte Smith was 13 percent. He did have four targets, but no catches. Dallas Goddard, 14 percent, AJ Brown, two red zone targets. No downfield targets, which for me is 20 plus yards downfield for Devonte Smith. But Brown did get one. I think Devonte Smith is going to be a really tough justification. There's always going to be some some FOMO because we know that he can take one to the house. But as we talk about pretty often, it it's different to be able to take one to the house. Like if you have a 70 yard touchdown and don't do anything else, you're really not like dominating. You need volume and within this run, heavy offense, if his volume is going to be secondary or tertiary behind Dallas Goddard, I think that's going to be tough. So I'm much more much more in on Goddard just because he fills tight end. Yeah, but I think Devonte is going to tempt me week after week in terms of cash games, and I don't think I'm going to get there. And I think the problem with Goddard is that he's in that awkward mid salary range where like there is actually kind of an opportunity cost in using him versus getting up to guys like Travis Kelsey and other ones. So I think that's a tough thing there. AJ Brown, though, absurd role. He's such a disgusting player. Obviously a very good matchup with the Lions and they were playing indoors, stuff like that. But he's on the week two main slate because he's playing on Monday in a football against Vikings. Another decently good match up there. Hypothetically, though, name that salary on AJ Brown, what you would put him at for a week two match for the Vikings if he were on the main slate. So no, AJ Brown, no, Justin Jefferson on the main slate for next week. Thank goodness. So he was 71. I think I'd still have a little bit of reservation just within the offense. And because, as you mentioned, this was a really good environment for that volume to be there, I think it would be there next week. But so specifically, if that game was on the week two main slate, I'd probably say like eight thousand. That's what I thought, too. I fully agree. I think that's the right number for a guy in a run first offense, but with a dominant physicality, dominant workload. I think that's the right number. Unsurprisingly, Devonte Adams was featured with his best friend and his new team. Seventeen targets on 41 routes. He had 10 catches for a buck, 41 in the touchdown. No other raider had more than six targets. I had a lot of Darren Waller, whoopsie daisies. And also Derek Carr was just a lot more efficient targeting Devonte Adams than he was any other player in that game. I think he was at 0.25 EPA per drop back over at next gen stats when targeting Devonte Adams, when he was targeting anybody else or just throwing the ball anywhere else, he was at negative 0.53. Not great. So this Devonte massive target share probably not going to change. What are your thoughts on Devonte, Darren Waller, Hunter Renfrow in the future? Yeah, I mean, arrows up with Devonte, not that it was down to begin with, but kind of it kind of makes me think of like the Packers where it was Devonte and then nobody else. And I'm not putting Darren Waller quite in like the just complete afterthought here, but it is very problematic. It is problematic. He almost had a touchdown dropped one. It was a bad throw by Derek Carr, which you'll never hear me say anything bad about Derek Carr or anything. But it could have been a better day for Darren Waller. But yeah, I mean, Devonte Adams, the workload was fantastic. And 41.5 percent of his routes led to a target second best of the week behind AJ Brown. Yeah. So they they're actually in what will likely wind up being the best game in the main slate, which is upsetting. That is the Raiders and the Cardinals next week. I mean, that's our life down game. Yeah, it feels like a teams that have made us feel real dumb in the past. That's for sure. Yeah. Name that salary in Devonte. What was he this week? Eighty five. He was eighty five. Yeah. Being that he's a receiver, he did have the yardage, though. Ninety one. Yeah, I think I'd go a little bit lower. He's eighty eight. I think that's about right. I have no objections. I think that's probably like around where he should be. I think that's very fair. Goodness offense, given generally good quarterback play and stuff like that. Tyree kill at a thirty nine percent target share for the Dolphins. Twelve total targets. Two of those were at least 16 yards downfield. Jalen Waddle had five targets. Mike Gasicki had just one and didn't run many routes. Gasicki don't use him. So we know where the ball is going. Larges at a Tyree kill. Is that enough to get you to invest in a Dolphins offense that is not thrilling? At least I don't think yet. I don't need the entire offense to be good to to rely on someone like Tyree kill with his ability and with that volume. Again, your Tyree kill has the ability to take one to the house. What separates him from other guys is the incredible volume. And actually, if you filter out players with fewer than 25 routes, the top three in terms of. Targets per route are Agia Brown, Devonte Adams, and Tyree Kill. He'll he'll go out to 40 percent. So all three of these guys are new teams and actually Brice Hall, 40 percent himself. So I guess you name or yeah. There's the only guys to get to 40 percent. I mean, it's again, it's the workload that is really appealing. I don't think this means I'm going to play like Dolphin stacks, but Tyree Kill, I think, can do enough within this offense to be relevant. I just would be personally lower on Tyree than Agia Brown and Devonte Adams because of the offenses. I agree. I firmly agree with that as well. I think with me next week, they phase Baltimore. That game is actually not bad, to be fully honest. And if I'm going to go with a Lamar Jackson Mark Andrews type situation, I feel like the most like I guess I don't know how to how to handle waddle in a situation. But I think the Tyreek is like a very obvious bring back candidate. How would you about waddle in a situation where we actually might want to be potentially a bit in on that game? I mean, realistically, again, we're so the way that we do this this show is we don't look at the slate. We don't look at the salaries toward the end and then we get some bits and pieces throughout for specific guys. But it would have to be a really bad running back slate for me to to conceive being able to play Lamar Andrews entire kill, because that's going to be a really, really high salaried stack. I would need a lot of value at running back or feel like the the stud running backs are in complete bus situations. But I think for that reason alone, waddle. He can do enough again. Another guy who can take it to the house, but also have to take it to the house. Yes. And have like moderate volume. That's that's appealing. I name a salary for Tyreek and for waddle. So Tyreek, I saw them. I cheated Tyreek is eight thousand. And I think that's appropriate waddle seventy two. I think that's too high. I think based on the offense that he's in, based on the fact that Tyree is probably going to get 10 targets. I think waddle should probably be close to like sixty seven or so. Does that sound right to you? That's kind of what I was thinking. Maybe it's unrealistic because of the potential, but that's probably where I would be. And that's going to be really hard to get to because waddle won't really give you value. Yep, I think that's where I'm at as well. OK, let's dig into some key injuries from this. We've got a question over on YouTube about CD land. So let's take into the Dak Prescott injury from Sunday night. Dak hurt his hand. He's going to need surgery. It sounds like it'll be six to eight weeks for Dak. The reason this is not our headliner is because eight weeks. Sorry, six to eight, my bad. That's my favorite joke of all time from the Muppet babies, the Muppet babies. Yeah, they order something in the mail. And it's it's going to it's going to show up in six to eight weeks. And little fuzzy bear goes, sixty eight weeks. I use it every chance I get. So sorry to sorry to derail the show for a Muppet babies. Also, six to eight is also a long time. So for a mail thing, I don't know what they were ordering. Like if they were like, what are they ordering here? I'm confused what's going on with the Muppet babies. What are they ordering that takes six to eight weeks? This was like the early nineties, Jim. I don't know what the early nineties were while, dude. I don't know. You like mail the check out, then they get the check to process the check, then they start doing stuff. This is this is before the Internet, Jim. Whatever. Keep up. I don't believe you. Anyway, this offense is going to be dysfunctional without DAC. So I think that, honestly, the takeaways here are pretty obvious from a DFS perspective. They're a cross off, I think. And it makes it a lot tougher to like the opposing side, too, because it's probably going to be a low scoring game because they're not going to push stuff like that. So that's why the takeaways here are honestly just a bit smaller is because I think you cross off the Cowboys and you've got to be very skeptical of the opposing teams because it's hard to see them keeping pace as well. Yeah. So at Number Fire, we have a metric called net expected points. Long story short, positives good. Cooper Rush, negative 0.44 per drop back. League average is about 0.10 on the positive end. We have not really seen much from him. You know, historically, so he did cover last year against the Vikings, though, when I bet that game before Dakot ruled out. So he's a hero in my book, but that's that's about it. But more problematically, whenever he did, he had what? I think 13 pass attempts, they were all dispersed. Someone had three, but everyone else had like two. That's not what you want to see. I don't know what CDLAM salary would have to be. It is kind of an interesting game because they play the Bengals, but that game could also just be like gross. What's that? Let me just show Nixon. Yeah, the total is forty four and a half. Dallas, six and a half point home underdogs. So honestly, CDLAM, wait, it's only six and a half. That can't be right. There's no way. At home. No, I mean, Cincinnati looked terrible. I don't care. Is that game posted? I'm looking at Fandall Sportsbook. Oh, they just posted. OK, because it wasn't up before. All right, I need to run. I can't do this without running my numbers. I'm just going to make that. OK, anyway, anyway, yeah, would you be interested, though? Like how far how far 65 would so land would have to be 65 to pair with like Jamar Chase and like a mini stack. Yes. He is seventy seven hundred. So no, no shot. Like I can be single. I can be all my season long. I can do Bengal stuff. Like I I learned from last year that I need to be more comfortable having just one side of a game if I don't feel comfortable stacking it. And so I can go and mix and I can go with Jamar Chase, especially if there's no T Higgins. But like I can't I can't run that game back. I don't think. Justifiably, yeah, I'm fine with that. OK, Chris Godwin returned from his ACL injury, but left in the first half. What was likely a hamstring injury did not return. Mike Evans led the team with seven targets. Julio Jones had five. Both those guys had multiple deep targets. They were pretty effective. And it looks to you know, Julio looking on Julio like at times, but like he, you know, he got downfield, made a couple of nice catches. The interesting thing here is, though, is that the Bucks were a little bit run heavy. Fifty percent early down first half pass rate. That's way down from where they were last year. They also lost a lot of tackled Donovan Smith during the game with an elbow injury. They already had three new interior offensive linemen. So where are you at on Mike Evans and Julio Jones? If Godwin misses time and any level of concern about how run heavy they were in this game. Honestly, I'm a little less concerned about how run heavy they were and more concerned about how good Leonard Fournette looked. It seems like he was just getting the ball and running for ten yards a clip. So that might entice them to continue running the ball. And while we are generally anti running the football here, it's because it's inefficient. But when you run the ball efficiently, there's no issue with that. My numbers have Tampa Bay, just based on first half numbers, twenty sixth and pass rate over expectation. Twenty third overall, if you look at the full game and pass rate over expectation. But do you think at all that this had anything to do with the sleepy Tom Brady narrative? If they forgot about that, you're right. And they just wanted to run the ball a bit. Tom passes bedtime. You're right. Wow. Is that change with like his like his cheek stuff getting pulled up or whatever? Like, does that does that alter the sleepy Tom narrative? Is Botox like, does it make you more awake? I don't know what side effects are. I would have to think that the the night game aspect, like all jokes aside, had something to do with it. Plus, I think the Cowboys Rush Defense probably had something to do with it, too, most likely. They also didn't have to do a whole lot to win that game based on how things were going. So I'm not. Honestly, they were struggling as a passing offense as well. So I think the biggest takeaway, like Evans, Julio, fine. But like Lenny did look pretty good. And the times where he was not in the field were largely when he was getting a breather. We'll talk about that with like Saquon a bit later on. I'll talk about what that would be Andre Swift. But like there were guys whose snap rates might have been a bit worse than or been a bit worse than they actually were because they were just doing too well and needed breathers after like super long runs. I think that Lenny is probably going to have a really good role. So let's play me in that salary. Leonard Fournette, week number two against New Orleans on the road. Seventy six percent snap rate, seventy six percent route rate for Fournette, one hundred thirty seven scrimmage yards. Good red zone work. It's the same role we had last year, effectively, which was amazing for DFS. Given that match up, I don't I can't imagine the totals is probably down a bit. It's forty six and a half just because like it's a two competent offense, even though the New Orleans defense, despite yesterday, I still I think pretty good. Um, I'll say. Just because of the context of running back over, I'll say like seventy eight. I was going to say seventy seven. He's seventy eight. So he's right where he should be. And I think that's going to be a guy we'll talk about probably if I had to guess on Thursday. Keenan Allen injured his hand string in the second quarter, ruled out early in the second half, and he was looking good before that. Got two deep targets, actually, which is not something he got a lot of last year, about a twenty five percent deep target share and games with Mike Williams. That's kind of a bummer. But even with Alan missing time, nobody had more than four targets. We said Mike Williams, Josh Palmer, Gerald Everett, Austin Neckler all had four. Tray McKinney and DeAndre Carter were DeAndre Carter looked like their best receiver, which made me hurt. Williams ran around on thirty one and thirty four drop backs. Palmer was second at twenty five. Everett, twenty McKinney, thirteen. Carter seemed out of the most juice, honestly. He came in after the Alan injury. So I think Carter's in play for single game stuff on Thursday. But what's your read on Mike Williams? If Alan misses time. Yeah, like I'm a I'm a fan of Mike Williams talent, but I've also been very skeptical of his workload in the past. It was phenomenal for some games, and then it was dreadful for a lot of other games. And it was not particularly bankable. I mean, it did it did drop off like kind of continuously. So like it wasn't completely up and down, but. They've shown us some of the spike games, and that's why you can still be in on in his bike in terms of production, not necessarily spiky, like bankable target volume. Sure, but like he can produce on 20 percent target share. Do you think I don't know that? Yes, I think I'm educating you right now. But he was like bottom twenty and target per out rate among guys with at least twenty five routes. That's problematic. You can sit here and say like he's going to get more targets. It I would just ask you why he didn't get more targets this week. I have no idea. Could be coverage, right, but it could be coverage related. We don't know. It's just kind of problematic for me. So sounds like you're higher on on Mike Williams than I am. No, I'm higher on using Mike Williams in retrospect, I think, than you might have been like. He has inconsistent like usage, but he still has spike ability. And the problem is when that spike ability is not predictable and a predictable spike week would have been if Keenan Allen missed time in an amazing match, but the Raiders were Justin Herbert was stupidly efficient and that didn't happen. So if his spike weeks are not predictable, that's where I start to run into issues. And I think that that's kind of the the issue I run into with yesterday is that he should have had more productivity or more a higher usage rate there. Yeah, I mean, that's what I tried to say. Maybe I didn't make that point. Very good. Yeah, I don't know. It's they're playing the chiefs that are not on Thursday night, so they're not on the main slate, but buddy, that can't be good. We will do we will do this for everyone, but it is week one. And I think that the reactions are important. What would you what would you pay to roster Mike Williams next week in a game with a 53 point total? If there's no Keenan Allen, if it was on the main slate. So he was 66 this past week. I think he'd have to be like 69. I like I think it's not I would have to go up despite the bad week just because there's no Keenan Allen. I think it would have to. Right. I think it'd be one of those. And it would be like, well, he's got to get more than what was it, two targets, four targets, two catches. Yeah. Not great. So Marcus and watching over on YouTube said that they were talking to press conference after the game and they were saying the coverage was taking away from Mike Williams on plays that were called for Mike Williams. So again, that kind of goes back to what we were talking about, where the salary should go up despite the bad production, but it doesn't make you feel better about it. So I think that's a good note there, Marcus. And it makes you feel a bit better. But like, again, it's still frustrating, I think. I mean, it does. But also I was tracking that because I have you know, I had Mike Williams and it took a while for those targets to come. So if they were taking away Mike Williams before Keenan Allen was out, they might be able to take away, you know, Mike Williams in weeks moving forward if there's no Keenan Allen. Yeah. I don't know. It's frustrating. I don't really know what to take about or take away from it and all that stuff. I respect the Raiders defense coordinator, Patrick Graham, a lot. He's with the Giants past couple of years and like he's a very smart guy. So maybe that could play into it. Just kind of knew that Mike Williams could be that downfield threat. Maybe that's it. But I would just say I still think that the upside is in there, but my ability to predict it is probably down and that's that's a bummer for me. His eight out was 3.1. So good. Good. On his four targets. Awesome. So 12. Deontre Carter's was 19.2 and Keenan Allen's was 12.3. Fun stuff, man. T Higgins left in the second quarter with a concussion. The target distribution after the extra for T Higgins was 14 targets for Jamar Chase, seven for Joe Mixon, who had a career high nine targets in this game overall, five to Tyler Boyd, Mike Thomas, Hayden Hurst and Schismaje P. Rine. Mixon is worth noting had all nine targets before overtime. So I was not juiced up. His rushing total was a bit. I think he had like 41 adjust opportunities before overtime. So there's still 42. So it's still a really good number for overtime. What before overtime? Yeah. That's that's it. It's sick. Yeah. So I think the biggest takeaway is not Jamar Chase being good because we knew that I think the biggest takeaway for me is Joe Mixon might be more involved in the passing game. And if so, like that's like a 9000 dish kind of back, given the upside that he showed last year, even with limited target upside. So what are your takeaways from the Bengals here under the possibility T Higgins does miss time? Yeah, I mean, Mixon would be the biggest boost because it's like we really change how we view Jamar Chase. At least I wouldn't I would want to play Jamar Chase in almost every context with or without T Higgins. But if Joe Mixon is going to be more and more involved, that in the passing game, we love targets for backs on this podcast because it's a good process. The target distribution after T Higgins left 14 for Jamar Chase, seven for Joe Mixon and then five to Tyler Boyd, Mike Williams, Haydn Hurst and Samaj P. Rine. So I think you could probably make the case that the biggest beneficiary was Joe Mixon. I think you could probably justify like Tyler Boyd, if the salary is right and you're trying to stack this game, but we're probably not because Cowboys next week. So I think Aaron's way up on Joe Mixon with or without T Higgins. Name that salary. Joe Mixon, week number two on the road at Dallas. We did just see the the Buccaneers run all over this Dallas defense. So where are you at on Joe Mixon there? I don't even know what he was this week because I glossed over the scheme so hard. And usually I use that to set a baseline, but probably 86. That's exactly what I had in mind as well. He's 83. So I think that's a write down, you know, kind of thing like, OK, keep in mind Joe Mixon off the bus at the pen and paper again. Don't do that. No one wants that. But I think that that's an actual takeaway here. Jamar Chase, you knew he was good. This just kind of confirms that he'll get a massive workload if there's no Jamar Chase or no, sorry, no T Higgins. And that can help overcome a bad game with that Dallas total being low and stuff like that. So I would say pretty good situation for Jamar Chase as well. But the biggest takeaway for me is Joe Mixon. Najee Harris left due to a foot injury early. He had a foot injury during a training camp, too. He was apparently in a walking boot after the game. Now, the beat reporters did downplay the severity of this injury, saying it wasn't as bad as it looked. So it might want to be nothing. We should discuss regardless. Jalen Warren got a ton of run after Harris got ruled out. But similar to Najee Harris, a lot of times last year didn't do a whole lot with it from a production perspective. So how would you view Warren if Najee Harris were to miss time? I would view right over his name in the player pool. But like. It's it's going to be a low salary. And he's if he's going to play like almost every snap. At some point, you got to consider it, right, even even a team. Sure, they play the Patriots next week. Total is 40 and a half. Yeah. He got three carries, one target. So one target on seven routes didn't catch it. I don't think they have one point underdogs. They're total is going to be what, like 19 and a half or something. Right. But like that matters less than running back than it does at most of the positions. It still matters, but it matters less. OK, name me a salary then. 63. If there's no Najee. It's 55. What would you have said? Probably like 59 or 6000. OK, so regardless, a bit of a value. Warren was a guy who got really good reports all throughout camp. He was undrafted and undrafted for age in this past year. So no draft capital there, but got some decent work in college, did get some work in the passing game as well. So I think that there's enough there. I don't like Najee's role was not super valuable because it was such hollow volume. But like that's it's it's a lot easier to tolerate that if it's a lower salary. And obviously with Warren, you don't expect a hundred percent snap rate because they have a fleet to game plan. There may be guys who were enacted this week who would be up and available for the next week. So you have to account for that. But 55 is pretty low for a guy who could have a role that he'd have. My confidence level would not be through the roof, but it'd still be a situation where I think we'd have to go there just because, again, it seems like the team trusts him. They gave him a lot of work after Najee left, probably going to get work in the passing game as well. Even if it is somewhat hollow, I think it's a necessity of 55. Sure. I mean, if we want to if we're talking about these these receivers with not like with 40 percent target per out rate numbers, like maybe, yeah, maybe by week two, we're we're scaling it back on the stud running backs. But again, we got to look at the matchups there. And yeah, there's we go. Elijah Mitchell was ruled out in the second in the first half with a knee injury for the 49ers. In the second half, Trey Lance had 10 carries. Jeff Wilson had seven. Debo Samuel had two. Now, this is another situation where an activist may play a role. It sounds like Tyrion Davis Price is pretty low on the pecking order, but he wasn't active during this game. They instead decided to go with an undrafted guy, Jordan Mason, being active. He did not play in the offensive now. It's played five on special teams. It probably says to me that he was active for special teams duty exclusively. Jeff Wilson, 58 percent snap rate in this game with Mitchell leaving early. What's your read on the situation if we assume that Elijah Mitchell does want a missing time? I mean, I think Jeff Wilson probably would be appealing. I don't know. I don't know how he'd stack up versus Warren. I'd probably have him higher. I think he'd have a pretty good role within this offense and you could probably sell me on like a 70 percent snap rate within this offense compared to 90 percent for that Steelers game next week. And I'd be more more interested. Jeff Wilson also someone who has. I don't know statistically if this works out, but he's good near the goal line punches and a lot of touchdowns. As we know, 10 red zone chances in yesterday's game, despite Mitchell playing for a decent part of it. I think I think he'd be more appealing to me than Warren. But if we get if we get Jeff Wilson and Jalen Warren as like featured backs that does change the slate, that's two guys who could, you know, give us a lot of return for such a low investment, assuming Wilson's salary is low. So what would you? Sorry, my bad. Jumped the gun there or that's 63. Yeah. I think that's like I think that number accounts for the fact that there is a possibility that someone, like if they have the full week to, you know, maybe get Jordan Mason ready for offensive work or if they decide to go with Tyrion Davis Price as a a guide to mix in there. I don't think they like Wilson a lot as a rusher. I think it's more so they like him from a passing game perspective. We all see a lot of Debo as a running back, which we did see during the game on Sunday. So I think there are paths to failure for Wilson. I don't know where you have seven second half carries. Trey Lance had 10, Debo had two. Debo eight for the full game, though. It's like that's still a big workload. Like that's that's real big. So I don't know. It's it's a tough one for sure. I think there are paths to failure, like I said, for Jeff Wilson. And that that you think they're passing failure for Jalen Warren. Yeah, I mean, of course, but I don't want to overstate. I don't want to overstate the confidence we should have in Jeff Wilson. Just because he's been there in the past, we've seen it in the past. That's a different situation now, stuff like that. Yeah, this is why, though, the value of running back has to be very obvious for me personally to want to go there if I think that there's potential for a timeshare or the offense is going to be terrible. That's not actually appealing to me. Yeah, it is worth noting that the public tends to do a pretty good job with value backs in terms of judging whether or not they're worthwhile. So we'll get a read on this based on quotes from Paul Shanahan. Right now, I'm inclined to say yes on Jeff Wilson, but I want to leave the door open to deviate if we get more information that other guys mix in more stuff like that. Mac Jones underwent X-rays on his back after the game against Miami. It sounds like they came back negative. So Jones should be good to play, but it is a concern and that offense was really bad during that game. So I just want to get a vibe check from you on this Patriots offense based on what you saw in that Dolphins game. Historically, not an offense we love on this show. Just very dispersed workloads, multiple running backs, getting work. Ramon J. Stevenson had 24 yards rushing under expectation on eight carries. You don't really love to see that kind of hard to do. I mean, the Vante Parker played every snap, but I don't care. They're across, right? They're across off, cross them off, cross them off. Cool. Patriots are dust. Happy to have them. One less thing to worry about. Wanda Robinson suffered a knee injury and couldn't return for the Giants. Even with that, Cadarius Tony still played just 12% of the snaps, mostly on Gadgety type plays. He almost didn't get a pass attempt, which would have. He played quarterback in high school. So I think the Cowboy should trade for Cadarius Tony. But are you going with anybody in that receiver core? Or is it just going to be Saquon on this team? I think it's just Saquon. Okay. And that set was perfectly into our role change discussion. We'll start things off with Saquon Barkley where his role in week. Well, number one could not have been better. He had 18 carries and seven targets and we're not film dudes, but look pretty freaking good on that work as well. He also had a six out of 11 red zone chances. So carries or targets inside the red zone. Honestly, a snap rate. He's one of the guys where a snap rate could have been better because he kept getting winded from like having like 30 hard runs because he was hard being good. Yeah, man. It's tough work. So name that salary on Saquon Barkley heading into week number two where he's facing off with the Carolina Panthers. Oh, we're going to get a CMC Barkley game, Saquon Barkley. 164 rushing yards, 76.4 expected rushing yards. So basically 88 yards over expected. You'll love to see that. I do indeed. The workload itself couldn't be much better. There's still some offensive expectation issues. Then again, if I'm willing to roster Christian McCaffrey at 95, I'll put Barkley around like 9000. I think that's probably where he should be. He is 88. So he is up there. I thought I thought I was going to be high on it, but that's not that's fair though. I think 88 is fully fair and I agree with you at 9000. I think that's the correct place to be. My question for you though is Saquon or Joe Mixon? Straight up for week two. Mixon. I like Mixon's offense more. So I lean towards Mixon. That's not a negative on Saquon who we adore. We respect. We are happy to see him back. It's just more so an endorsement. I think of Mixon's role. The role he had in that game, the offense he's on. I like both, but I would lean towards Mixon between the two, but Saquon Barkley is back. It's fun. He's looking good. And I think that all does matter quite a bit for sure. So Saquon Barkley deserving of a salary of $800. Christian McCaffrey's role was I want to say it was like it felt weird. It felt a bit underwhelming. 80% snap rate. He had four at eight red zone chances, but just 10 carries and four targets. So how are you viewing Christian McCaffrey going forward with that in mind? Lower because I couldn't have been higher. Yeah, so so he was our guy. I mean, we had some overlap in our player picks last week. We overlapped on Saquon Barkley and Christian McCaffrey. Obviously one of those went a lot better than the other. It's not like it's not like McCaffrey was terrible or anything, but not what you expect for that salary. And the reason we always love Christian McCaffrey is that he plays or at least used to play virtually every snap. 80% this week would have phenomenal receiving volume. So I'm not like out on him by any means, but if he's salaried where he was, I think it's going to be hard to justify. That also brings a lot of fear just saying that. Yeah, but I'd go down a tick. If I put if I put Barkley at 9,000 and his workload was better, I'd probably say like 87 for McCaffrey. And I don't think we'll get that low, which is why it's important that we make that distinction of what we're actually in the salary. Yeah, I think I would probably put McCaffrey and Barkley at the same because like there's a lot of space for McCaffrey's role to get better based on 80% snap rate based on what we know he can be. So I think putting him at 9,000, same as Barkley was where I'd go. And he is actually exactly 9,000. They did bump him down, which I appreciate. Yeah, that could be a situation where you pivot to McCaffrey to be different from the sake one people. That could be a situation where I think it's in play. So I think take away from me as we downgrade McCaffrey, but don't write him off in terms of because we know that there were some still positive signs that in there. Is that where he'd be as well? Yeah, it's not like this was like throw up the red flags. Yeah, this wasn't like throw up the red flags in in Christian McCaffrey's toast. Yeah. And 80% snap rate phenomenal by any by any measure. Um, so yeah, I'm still, let's look on like it was third best of the week. So that's not, that's not panic. Um, 9,000 is fair because he's always produced within bad offenses anyway. Great quarterback now too. Awesome. Eckler's role, like I mentioned, was not great. He had a 51% snap rate, 14 carries four targets, but ran just 12 routes on 34 drop backs. What happened here? Um, we were not Eckler in this week. Um, we talked about that. We thought that he was over salary, but I didn't expect this. Uh, so are you expecting this to be the status quo going forward? What's your read on this one? Uh, this might have been an aggressively bad like usage for for Eckler. Was this the worst usage for any like starting quote unquote like top end running like not Damien Pierce like any actual like running back for the week actual running back. Um, probably. Yeah, like relative to expectation. I think it was, um, it's tough. Yeah. Uh, and again, it goes back to like Keenan Allen was hurt. You would think they would rely on Austin Eckler more. Yeah. And if they were strutting down Mike Williams and still not getting Austin Eckler the ball, right? I don't know what is going on. So you could chalk it up to just a weird game and assume that that he'll be fine, but he was the one guy of the, would we have five studs, four stud running backs last week? He was the guy that we didn't like or we liked the least and actively if we kind of both didn't like him, but yeah. Um, yeah, I think arrows down honestly. I don't know how you, how you view this and think that it's a good performance, especially for a guy who's a lot of his value was due to absurd touchdown, uh, over expectation numbers last year. Like a lot of times when we have like ambiguous situations, we'll be happy when a guy's off the main slate. I kind of wish you were on the main slate just because I think I would, I think I'd be lower on him that people even after the reaction to this game. So I'm open to changing that if it goes forward if it changes, but for now arrows pretty, pretty heavily down in Austin Eckler in this offense. Daryl Henderson is the Rams lead back right now. Uh, he had an 82% snap rate played all 10 first quarter snaps. I wound up out snapping can acres 54 to 12. I'll carry them 13 to three. He had five carats to carries for to none for acres. So a very good role for Henderson. It sounds like they're not super happy with acres. So it sounds like this might stick. Where are you on Daryl Henderson right now? So, you know, we don't talk season long football on the show, but he was someone who, when I was actually drafting season long teams, I know the expectation was that he was sort of the two, but McVeigh actually called him like the one a one B situation. So he was someone that I was targeting. Um, I have him on a few teams and I was like, I'm not quite there for the opener. So I'll see how this plays out, but I don't think this really should shock us that much. Um, shock is not the word I'd use. I agree. Yeah. And he had the second highest snap rate of any running back behind only sequel and Barkley. Um, we've seen them use Daryl Henderson in the past came acres great peak talent. I don't know if he's back there to his peak athleticism. So I'm not like, I'm fine with Daryl Henderson. Bigger question is the offense. Maybe I mean, they couldn't run the ball. So like that, that does matter too. Yeah. So I would, I would keep it in check a little bit, uh, but what about you? What are you facing Atlanta next week? Like, I think that's kind of a soft landing spot, which is kind of nice. Uh, good matchup. Did you work out for Camara? Well, it's because Marcus was too busy moving the football on the other side. Yeah. Marcus Marigota back anyway. Um, 10 and a half point favorites next week at home. Yeah. And I know so chalky. Yeah. What's, what's named that salary Daryl Henderson next week. This is hard. It could be such a wide range. Yeah. Cause he's not the workload or the snap rate, at least I can say was as good as anyone but say one part please. Yeah. Um, but there's still risk that that scales back as, as they go more to a, I think the risk of ineffectiveness is higher than the risk of the snap rate scaling back. Sure. I mean, we've seen, we've seen a lot like heavy snaps from Daryl Henderson and haven't been that tempted. Hmm. I'd say this is probably one of the, this is probably the biggest, what I think will be in what I, I would want to roster him for gaps. I'd say 74. I said 73 and he is 62. Wow. Okay. Wow. Okay. That's a good way to erase a lot of my concerns. My goodness. Okay. So then Daryl Henderson first makes the lineup. Well, he makes like Jeff Wilson irrelevant. Yeah. Daryl Henderson, like if nothing changes is good chalk, right? Oh yeah. I've, yeah, I, I did a piece on when we should pivot and value chalk running backs are good at hitting baselines. They don't necessarily go like eruption level. They hit 3x value a lot. 3x value is not a huge number for that, but like it's still like, that's still points. Like they get raw points as well. Like you have your value cut off. I think I get 20. They hit like 18, 19 points quite a bit last year. So the value, value itself, like if you get 2.5 Fandal points per thousand for every player, like that's not enough in tournaments, but if you are accessing high ceiling players and they hit that's when value matters. So it's more of like, if you're going to play Daryl Henderson, don't build a really balanced lineup around them. That's not the right approach. So that's a big caveat. And I do think that an upside game is within his range of outcomes. Because he had two out of five. Touchdowns. Yeah. Two out of five red zone chances. So if we're like writing like write that down like how it like write that down players, I think Nixon might be one, but then Henderson definitively won so far in terms of guys were under salary heading into week number two. Alan Robinson though, not as fun. Two targets in the opener. He ran 45 of 48 routes rich rebar of a sharp football, like to say getting some cardio out there. Alan Robinson doesn't need to ride the peloton this week. Matthew Stafford said after the game that it was all the facing a lot of zone coverage. But the NFL plays a lot of zone right now. That doesn't make me feel a whole lot better. Matthew, how are you valing Robinson with the Rams after this opener? The only player with a worse target per out rate run among guys was the Davante Smith Mack Hollins. Oh, he had one target on 38 routes. Robinson had two on 45. You don't have to like at least force him a few like right. He's new to the team. You threw plenty. Like I mean, he forced it to cut plenty. Right. Like make make it happen somehow. Get it just get him like throw the ball to him. Get it in his hands and see what happens. This could be a sweeping wheel situation. Could be because like, you know, new player with a new team didn't do a whole lot. $5,700. This is salary. With that route rates, I can see it. That's what I would say. There's a difference between like a Mack Hollins route rate. Yeah. And an Allen Robinson, I think that one of those is more likely to rebound. So I'd agree. Is he like a cash game level? Consideration. I don't think so either. But we're looking for value receivers with a path to upside. He checks that box for sure. Gabe Davis led all bills in routes with 33 and ran eight more routes than Stefan Diggs. Diggs was awesome in this game. So it's not an anti-Diggs thing, but pro-Davis thing, 37% area share. He was a bit polarizing into the season, but I feel like he just kind of rubber stamped his roles being legitimate. Isaiah McKenzie's role not as fun on that side, but any takeaways for you from the bills in their awesome awesome showing at Sarams. From just the receivers, not really. At least the fun digs. Phenomenal Gabriel, Gabriel Davis. We were, we're both Gabriel Davis guys. Gabe Davis guys, I should say gave the babe. I think that's how he prefers his name. It's Gabe the babe. Okay. So no real changes there. I think the bigger question might be in the backfield with what we saw. Devin Singletary 59% snap rate. Zach Moss 38% James Cook 5%. James Cook fumbling away. His first took them all to get on the field. Zach Moss was clearly their number two, but then Zach Moss fumbled at the end too. So if you give me this baseline, I say no, because the bills running back on a per snap basis is not a super valuable position. But when Singletary is getting every snap last year, we used him a lot. We talked about plenty on the show and with Moss fumbling at the end, Cook, Cook fumbling early, I think it could be a situation where his snap rate goes back up. I'm not assuming that'll happen because like they brought in James Cook for a reason. They gave Zach Moss a decent amount of run for a reason. They don't want Devin Singletary to be the 96% snap rate guy. He was down the stretch last year, but like I think that's within his range of outcomes. That's what I would say for that. Yeah, they're Monday night. I guess they're two Monday night games next week. Why is that next week and not this week? I don't know. I was I was actually thinking I love when there's not two Monday night games. It just feels weird. But Tennessee is a two game slate. Two game slates are fun. That's true. Tennessee at Buffalo and Minnesota at Philly or Monday night. Buddy the Jalen Rager revenge game. You excited? Also kind of a Rager went right before Justin Jefferson, right? Yeah. Yeah. So kind of a Justin Jefferson revenge game to for the Philly. Forget about Philly's for the Eagles not taking him, buddy. We're still in September here or we're adjusting. I search San Francisco Giants like six times this week. So I'm surprised. I'm surprised I haven't caught anyone in the golfer yet among like all first with 25 routes run. So there are a lot of Xander's in the NFL. We'll work on that Xander Horvath. The that's might not be his last name. It's something like that Horvath. I don't know. That sounded bad. Anyway, he's a fullback for the Chargers I think so we'll work on that one. They'll expose with the Z not next. I told you Gibson a decent role here with no Bron Robinson 65% snap rate 14 carries a targets a targets were second on the team behind Curtis Samuel who had 11 that was even with Washington trilling for a good chunk in the second half. So any interesting Gibson until Rob Robinson gets back and how are you handling the other past catches there with everything being spread out behind Samuel. Yeah, I think Gibson's interesting. I typically don't like him because the role has always been capped. I mean a 64% snap rates good, not great. These are the types of backs I typically try to avoid especially for someone who in the past would not be their primary past catching back, but he did out target JD McKissick 8 to 3 had 20 routes to 16 for McKissick. So I think the arrows up on Gibson because there's really no way that anyone else is going to be involved aside from McKissick. So it's more offensive expectations that are a little bit have me a little bit low on Gibson. So I'd be well, offensive expectations may shift because next week they get Detroit. Yeah, Detroit on the road. That'll help offensive expectations a bit. Yeah, sure. It will name a salary for Gibson then. I would say like 71 because I'm still a bit skeptical of like the passing game. I know you got eight targets here, but that seems like a lot. What about you? I would have said 7,000. He's 7,400. It's a little high. Yeah, I could see it if we want to stack that game. Maybe that's a value stack next week, depending on how sellers shake out. What about I won't I'm not trying to put anything on you here, but you're usually not the biggest Terri McClearn guy. What are your thoughts on the past catchers here? I was happy about Jahan Dotson for my dynasty best balls. So I guess I had that, but I'm like dealing with like four targets or whatever. He did five. I'm not really trying to get into Curtis Samuel, honestly. Interesting. Historically, you have because the red like he's been like a red zone kind of guy. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, but that was when he was getting like rushing work. That's why I liked a lot. It was awesome. Like, well, I mean, that year was a trip. I loved it. 11 targets with a 1.6 yard eight odd. He's effectively getting. That's true. Yeah, no deep work. One target in the red zone, which was I think that he had a touchdown, right? He did score. Yeah. I don't know. I'm probably not going to be super high in him depending on salary. I guess Curtis Samuel salary is 57. Maclaurin is at 73. That's high. That's really high, right? I'm not higher. I mean, yeah, 21 yard eight odd, but just the four targets. I mean, great route rate, but we've kind of seen that from Terry Maclaurin in the past where he's running a lot of routes. The volume can come and go. The results can be there because he's really good, but. I think that's a bit high. I agree. Okay, James Robinson and Travis ETN both played half the snaps. Robinson got more groundwork while ETN got more work through the air. ETN take this as a positive or negative. He had three red zone targets. The results of the three red zone targets a bad overthrow by Trevor Lawrence, a drop touchdown and a fumble where he got obliterated and fumbled backwards. Can we just cross these two guys off? Is that okay? If they're going to if you have two running backs, you don't have one for DFS. The only thing I will note is that ETN is worth monitoring because he had 34 air yards, which is super good for a running back. Does the air yards count where the player was or where the ball was? Because Lawrence overthrew him about about 16 yards in that one in the red zone. I'm not tilting, but I'm tilting. I think we I think we cross him off here. Okay, now one team that does not have two running backs because they have one is the Texans that one running back is Rex Burkhead. He wins their primary back. You had a 70 72% snap rates. 11 carries one target for Damian Pierce. I can ignore this backfield, right? Yeah, I have Rex Burkhead with 19.5 expected Fandall points. So he must not have done with done much with any of it. Literally don't care. No, no, no. You cannot force me to use Rex Burkhead. I will not do it in the year of our Lord 2022. I'm not doing it. All right, how low how low is the salary got? They played Denver. We'll see what Denver on a short week. If we get like a wander Franco glitch where he was $300 on the the Fandall slate on Friday. Maybe if Burkhead is 300. I'll do it. He's 58. I mean, we're going to we're going to have a lot of value backs to sort through. Anderson Burkhead Warren 19.5 expected Fandall points and he got 9.5. His offense stinks, but they did cover. So go Texan 30 adjusted opportunities which carries plus 27 in the 27 in the in regulation. So still a pretty good number. If you even you weed out over time there. Aaron Jones and AJ Dylan had pretty similar split the last year. Jones 60% snap rate and negative script Dylan. 50% is actually a decent number of stats so they're both in the field. Jones had five carries and five targets. Dylan was a 10 and six respectively. Dylan also had a slight edge in red zone work. Not surprisingly. I still think Jones be viable, but I was hoping for more passing game work out of him more than five targets. What's your read on this backfield? I mean, as you Dylan lead the team with six targets. Stupid team. That's that's fun. Yeah, it Christian Watson dropped what likely would have been a touchdown on a deep throw. It's a homecoming narrative. He was playing in in Minnesota. He went to school in North Dakota basically the same thing. I can say it is Minnesota. It's not a shot. It's like a golf. That's a good golf narrative. It is he's from Phoenix though. So I don't know if it's we can't call it a homecoming narrative. Romeo Dobbs, Aaron Jones, Robert Tonion, five targets at peace. This is giving me shades of like the the Colts. Except that the Colts had a good quarterback. Hall of Fame, two time MVP or three time MVP quarterback for time. I don't know whatever for real though. Are you are you lower on Aaron Jones now than you were entering week one? A little bit. Yeah, I was expecting more passing game work. I honestly like if he gets five carries I don't care about that. That's fine. I just want I thought there was the upside for like eight targets. He looked really good and like that that helps but I don't know. He's not on the main slate next week. I don't think now they play Sunday night against the Bears, the Bears, one of the Bears own one Packers go Chicago. Yeah, I think it's a slight downgrade for Jones. I think Dylan is what I expected like status quo on him, right? I'm not going to be better. I never would have thought that it's not worse. I know I don't want to be able to lead the team and target even though it was six. That's still really good for a running back. Yeah, for him to be so you had 16 routes. That's a really high. It's probably then inflated Aaron Jones 27 routes. So that probably swaps the target numbers. But yeah, maybe a little up on Dylan a little down on Aaron Jones. That's fair. The Chiefs were pretty much a full blown committee backfield if we look at just the first three quarters because there was a blowout blowout after that. Jarrett McKinnon ran a route on 42% of the dropbacks. Clyde Edwards E-layer was at 31% Isaiah Pacheco 6% in overall snaps. C.E.H. This is before the fourth quarter. C.E.H. McKinnon were both at 46%. So we know it's a backfield with upside. C.E.H. kind of showed that he came through despite bad volume. But can you justify going back to him knowing what his role is now? I don't know. I feel like I kind of got away with one with C.E.H. That's how I felt like with the touchdowns. I didn't deserve the 20 points that I got out of him. And I feel lucky and I feel like it's one of those games where you cash out after you get lucky once you cash out. Yeah, he'll be interesting for the single game slate on Thursday but he'll probably be more popular than he should be. That's just how I've always felt about Edwards E-layer. It's like I know that there's upside specifically because he can get handed two touchdowns. I don't think the popularity part was true because people hate him now. So I don't think he's ever... But on a single game slate, I mean... Oh yeah, sure. Maybe. But I think it's a committee. Yeah. And I love Jared McKinnon. Love Isaiah Pacheco. But not really a situation I want to be in from a DFS perspective. Let's dig into situations to monitor. We just kind of go rapid fire, run through some other things that caught our eye. What did you notice in week number one? Yeah, a lot of running back stuff for me that doesn't really warrant a trend. But Alvin Kamara 63% snap rate. Nine carries four targets for 17 adjusted opportunities and only 46 yards. 40% route rate. That's kind of tough. Should have been a good matchup. Wasn't. Don't love that. For the Browns, Kareem Hunt had a 57% snap rate. Nick Chubb, 51%. Chubb, of course. Doing what Nick Chubb does, which is basically Derek Henry Light, 22 carries on 38 snaps for 141 yards. So he still has upside because he can just be phenomenally efficient. I think since rushing yards over expectation has been a stat for next-gen stats. He's like in God tier by himself and no one else is even close. Really, really good. But the workload can kind of be matched from Kareem Hunt who had 11 carries and four targets. I don't think that they're really going to tempt me ever because again, they kind of have two guys and if Nick Chubb burns me, he burns me. The Andre Swift could have been, his day could have been even better if not for Jamal Williams. So I think this is a really key thing to monitor because he lost red zone work to Jamal Williams. Williams had six red zone carries in one target. Swift just had the two carries. Swift did have some big place to get into scoring position and then came out. I think it was before both Williams touchdowns, which is annoying. Yes. I don't know if that is by design always. We can say it was just because he needed a breather or it could be that that's... And we've seen Jamal Williams be good near the goal line. So it's again, something to monitor moving forward. I'm just curious before we move on, made that sour on Swift based on what you saw. All things considered on Sunday. Love him. He's kind of... He's one of the guys I think I'm higher on than most because the receiving workload can be really good. 8,082. I think that's fair. I'm a little bit lower than that, but I think that's fully fair. In a game that will probably be on this week, if I had to guess. Pretty good workload for Cordero Patterson. 22 carries five targets. 63% snap rate. Again, I think it's a spot where it could be like a high per snap usage. And so he's going to draw people in. I just don't love a 63% snap rate. He's $7,500. That shocked me. That's a big number. That's higher than I thought it was going to be. I've been low on Patterson almost always because he just is such an outlier. Outliers can be really important, but I don't know. He was great last year when he was receiver eligible. That was a great time. I love that, but you know. Then two tight end notes. Pat Fryer moved 10 targets in an overtime game, of course, on 29 routes, 75 yards, but a 27% target share, which was best among all tight ends for week one. And second in terms of target share among tight ends, Tyler Higby, 11 targets for a 27% target share himself. So the one is target share or his yards? 26.8% target share. His yardage total, I think was like 30 something. 39. Shout out Tyler Higby. $53 though. $53. That's Atlanta. Yeah. Give me scale it back. 7, 8 targets maybe. So then 20 yards. Hey, man. Fryer is 54 as well. You know. Depends on the tight end slate. There's no Kelsey, but there is an Andrews, a Waller, Taste of Hills, 62. Oh boy. Oh boy indeed. Oh boy. But Fryer and Higby, I think, at least in play at those salaries. Things at my end, Drake London and Kyle Pitts both had pretty good roles. They were tied with a 26% overall target share. London had 3D targets. Pitts had two, neither guy had a red zone target. We were both in on Pitts, you know, or previously. I didn't use him in DFS this week, but I was like receptive to him. London, I think is viable in the right spots now as well based on that target share and the fact that he got a quarterback upgrade Marcus Mariota this year. I thought you were saying London viable like the city play Kyle Pitts when he plays in London because that's I think the only game where he scored. Was it the jet game? I think that's the I think that's the thing he scored just in that game. Did he actually score a touchdown last year? Yeah, I believe in that in that London game. He wasn't a mild Sanders. No, he scored yesterday, by the way. He did very big development. He did have one touchdown last year. You're right. Okay. So we'll get him to London. Maybe maybe the London narrative is what we needed and you can actually explode now that Drake London is there. That's why they drafted him. I don't know. Hey, anything more power to whatever it takes. Yeah, the Jets backs had big volume, but it's in large part because Joe Flacco through 58 passes probably not what the Jets wanted to be fully honest. Bruce Hall 18% target share Michael Carter 16%. They did play some snaps together, but neither guy played more than 60% of the snaps. I need a better offense to trust even though they had a lot of passing game work. I just need a better offense. Like I don't want an A.J. Dillon Aaron Jones in a bad offense. That's that's how I'm not with that. Jay Sedman is a decent but not great role. Leather Dolphins with a 64% snap rates. 12 carries and four targets. Turned that into 65 yards. It's fine, but not something I want to slobber over too much. David Moncle, Gumrie took a hit in his role, played 66% of the snaps. Herbert, Cleo Herbert played or had three out of seven red zone chances. Montgomery had none. Montgomery did still get to 25 just opportunities. Carious plus two X targets. He had four targets. He ran 12 routes compared to Herbert's two, but I wasn't super in a Montgomery before and I am less so now based on that. Packers past catchers were stupid. First three quarters before that game was kind of out of hand and Jordan Love got in. Nobody ran a route on more than 75% of the drop backs. Aaron Jones wasn't 73%. That's kind of fun actually. Sammy Watkins 73% to everybody else. 64% or lower. Probably just need to avoid this team for the past catchers, the non-running backs until Alan Lazar gets back. Talked a bit about Moe Ali Cox on Thursday's show. I should not have his role stunk. He split time with Collin Granson and Granson actually ran more routes. So long live Moe Ali Cox. The Moe Ali Cox era is over. It's Michael Pittman, Jonathan Taylor and nothing else on that team. Let's dig into some philosophical changes here talking about run to pass ratios and stuff like that. As expected, the Vikings did become more pass heavy in their first game under Kevin O'Connell. 56% early down first half pass rate. They were at 51% last year. Justin Jefferson obviously went nuts. He had 11 targets. Nobody else is more than five or Smith. Viking salute to you buddy. No catches. Jefferson is now in a pass heavy offense the first time in his life outside of the Joe Burrow year. Name that salary for Jefferson. Not in the main slate, but hypothetically. 10,000. Probably like a good 91-92 somewhere in there. Not quite like straight up Cooper Cup or like peak Michael Thomas level where like 15 plus targets is the expectation. Justin Jefferson can do it with a little bit less volume but probably 91. I think that's fair. I think he has to be up there. In their first game under Doug Peterson, the Jags were letting it rip. They had a 69% early down first half pass rate. Last year 53%. We saw Christian Kirk get a ton of targets set out to you for having him in your player picks. How does this approach alter your view of Kirk, Trevor Lawrence and if anybody else were alive on this team? It's just Kirk. Like are you upping your view of him based on this? Well, I'm saying I'm not changing my view on Trevor Lawrence. Sure. I just don't love what I see from him. But they were ninth and adjusted pass rate according to my numbers. But I think they arose up on Christian Kirk. High volume guy, like a wide receiver one, big play potential, maybe not the best offense, but that brings up one obvious comp and that's Brandon Cooks who is DFS relevant in the right spots because he can have just good games despite his offense. So I think Aaron's up on Kirk and I was already pretty high on him to begin with. What about you, Trevor, Trevor Lawrence, 10.2 yard adot plus 1.3 completion percentage over expectation. Randy's going to play action. I'm not using him, but I think that makes me feeling better about Kirk, which is what you were saying. They get Indy next week. Indy's defense didn't look great. Kirk's salary is 65. I don't think that's bad given the workload that he got. That's like pure Brandon Cooks level. Like he's 65. He's going to get these targets. He's the guy. I think he has more upside than Brandon Cooks. Is that is that treasonous? Is that no like then 2022 Brandon Cooks, I should say. Sure. I'm thinking like 2021 Brandon Cooks. Like he was the guy who was always kind of there last year and like he's going to get volume. He has downfield potential. I think that's where Christian Kirk is. I think 65 is like the number. Like that's the number that comes into my head when I think 2021 Brandon Cooks. Kirk had a 32% overall target share. He had 33% deep and he had 30% in the red zone. 30, 30, 30 for $6,500. That's like a cash game consideration. I want to be using him in our Bobblehead or we have our weekly head to head where we have head to head a lot throughout the year. And if I win, Brandon knows me at Bobblehead. If he wins, I win the hat. So it's the Bobblehead competition. I used him there. I kind of grew more fond of him in that format as the week went along. And I think that he'll be a consideration for that once again this week, but also more in play for tournaments than I thought he was in week one as well for me. Yeah, I'm with you. Okay. Jamis Winston air Jamis back a bit. First game with Michael Thomas and Jarvis Landry. 31% deep rate for Jamis up from 19% last year. Part of that was likely the negative game script though, because only one out of 10 first half attempts for Jamis for downfield. Most of us went to Michael Thomas and Jarvis Landry. Nine overall targets for Jarve with four deep, which is weird. Michael Thomas, eight overall targets, three deep. He had two out of three red zone targets. That's actually a concentrated interesting offense, which is a massive deviation from what the Saints were previously. Where are you at on Thomas and Landry after week one? So I have their first half targets at four for Jarvis Landry, two for Joanne Johnson and then one for four others, including Michael Thomas. I know that he had the downfield rate, but they were really low in terms of percentage of plays that were down, that were deep passes in the first half. So I think this was probably a lot, a lot of script related stuff and they also didn't have the ball a lot in the first half because the opposing quarterback is the best quarterback on the planet and that kept them off the field. I think it was 10, 10 attempts, but you still don't want to see four for Jarvis Landry, two for Joanne Johnson and then one for Michael Thomas until things kind of you know what sample sizes are though and like I do sample size got larger. Michael Thomas's role got better. It did, but the the downfield work got infinitely better. So you think the downfield work aspect is the biggest criticism of looking at the full game. I agree. I agree. So I don't want to look at the A dot numbers and fully trust them. Michael Thomas obviously going to have a potential. I think the biggest change here. I don't know how much I'm going to play Jarvis Landry because I was going to be him as the third guy behind Alvin Camara as well. But I think Camara that the numbers I pointed out on him, I think it's worrisome. So name me some salaries for Thomas Landry and Camara. So Thomas, they play Tampa Bay next week. They're two and a half point, two and a half point home underdogs total of 45 and a half. It's not a bad game. We're going to do a lot of slate next week because the slate's not as fun as this one was. Okay. So Camara nine carries four targets, 46 yards, 0 out of four red zone chances, 63% snap rates. I need to downgrade him a lot. I would say like 73. Is that disrespectful? It's not. He is 72 odd. I did not expect that at all. What would you put him at? I mean, that's not a good role. Yeah, but like again, it's in the top of the calfery where like, you know, it can get better. Sure. I would have put him 75, I guess. Okay. So we're both weirdly above, surprisingly above, which might mean that it's a well, it's about as big of a drop as we could have expected. Correct. Okay. Let's go with Michael Thomas first 65. That a lot. That might be a little high. Honestly, he is 7,000. Oh my. Jarv 63. Well, that's what happens whenever you score twice. Yeah. And this is why chasing points, chasing guys. Your salaries increase is a little bit scary. Jarv 61. Okay. So all of those guys, I'll be most in on Jarv. I think it's 61. Which is fine. I don't object to that personally. Also yardage upside and usually. Yeah. You don't view much yardage upside with Jarv. Correct. So that games in a dome. Tough defense to run on for the most part. I think it's a pretty well for Jarvis. So he's like a half right down. Like we talked about that with Henderson mixing. I think even Kirk is kind of a right down like a scribble down. Jarv might be in the scribble down scenario as well. I think. Yeah. Okay. Next up. We got our salary scroll. What we do here is we go position by position, scroll through the salaries and then shout out anyone who stands out to us as being noteworthy for their respect to salary. Brandon will start a quarterback. You can start and let me know anything that's noteworthy to you. Not a lot of high salaries here. That was the number one thing we have three guys with salaries of 8000 and above Kyler Murray's 85 against the Raiders Lamar Jackson salary 8200 against Miami and then Tom Brady's 8000 against the Saints Brady. I mean love him. He's not going to be playing at night, but two of those guys have elite rushing upside and Brady's not one of them. So I'm probably not going to have any Tom Brady. If I can just get to those other two that being said the slate changing upside with pure pure rushing volume probably makes Kyler Murray and Lamar Jackson. They might be right downs to make sure you know what it also is though. Trilance 75 I was actually looking at that. I think it depends on George Kettle is back because it's it's harder for me to trust that entire offense if there's no Kettle, but like that was such an odd situation with a midweek injury where you can't really game plan around it and then playing in the slop like a torrential downpour. That's a lot of factors working against them. I think the Seattle defense will be decent this year. So it's not a great matchup, but I think Lance and 75 far more tempting for me this week than he was last week. Yes, if you were stud quarterbacks to pick from and not a whole lot of like pure upside plays in the low range. Another name though, two things basically contingent on tonight's Monday night football game. How good Seattle's defense looks for Trilance, but also what we get from Russell Wilson at seventy five hundred as well. I didn't this is like if he goes like nuclear. Yeah, but he's playing the Texans next week. So I think that the quarterback pull for me might already be confirmed with with Kyler Lamar and then Russ Lance, depending on what we see, but probably play Russ anyway and just hope for us. I might be on board. I think I'm lowest on Russ out of that group, but I think I have the same group of players in consideration for me. We'll learn a lot from tonight of how much they throw and how that goes. Honestly, rushing upside of the slate, I would I will give thought to Derek Carr. I would rather not use him, but I will at least like give it some modicum of thought. Yeah. The guys who are going to have rushing upside effectively Lance Lamar and Kyler and that how dare you, Mari Gota ran 12 times for seventy two yards and a touchdown. Are you playing? Are you playing them? No, but you didn't listen. He was having rushing upside. How dare you? So rude. Who raised you anyway? Running backs. Feel free. Um, Jonathan Taylor, 10,000 still deserved. Yeah. That'll be a decent game. I think just because the Jags bit more past heavy than they were. I know there's that stupid. Oh, the Colts can't play in Jacksonville narrative herp, herp, herp. But like, I think Taylor still works at 10,000. Do you think they're going to have a tangible impact on whether people play Jonathan Taylor next week? Yes, I do. Interesting. Uh, so we talked about McCaffrey and sick one Berkeley, then the name that's really going to give me some very, very temporary pause is Nick Chubb, 8,500 against the Jets. Yeah, we know what he can go for like 140 and a touchdown or two, but that's his ceiling. So if he's not going to do a Derek Henry game, then that's always way too high. Why is each 71? Offense. Put Seagate 51. I'll maybe I'll consider it. I'm looking into the value range. Henderson is kind of the main one at 62. Yeah, he's the number one value play. What about Chase Edmunds $6,000? Not the best role like compared to Henderson? No, absolutely not. But like any consideration for you there or no? I mean, sure, it's going to depend a lot on receiver, but let's not overlook that we have Jonathan Taylor, Christian McCaffrey, Saquon Barkley, Joe Mixon, DeAndre Swift, Leonard Fournette, James Conner and a game that could give him multiple touchdowns. Yeah. Tony Gibson in a pretty fun game. Alvin Camara likely under salary despite the matchup. You really got to think long and hard before you just overlook all that to play. Sure. Who was it that you asked me about? Chase Edmunds. No, you're right. You're right. I agree with you. Okay. I do think Jalen Warren at 55 if there's no Najee Harris will probably be a guy we've got to think pretty long and hard about and then Henderson at 62. I think we'll have two like actual value plays this week, like fully viable, which is more than we had last week. I think because the CEH is pretty borderline. We could see what we see from Rashad Penny. Also Jeff Wilson, I forgot to. Yeah. We're trying to penny 65 if there without Ken Walker again. Yeah. We'll see what his role is Monday night. Yeah, they're playing San Francisco pretty tough defensive line, but I think Seattle's offensive line might be okay based on the way their rookies played in the preseason. So that could be okay. I think it's going to be a pretty thin week at running back. Like we can actually feel good about a small player pool. I think that's going to be pretty, pretty wide still. Okay. Well, you're wrong. That's okay. Anything else from running backs? I don't know how I'm wrong whenever you named two for sure values we'd consider maybe three others and then I'll do is more than we had last week. Sure. But unless you're like crossing off Jonathan Taylor or like McCaffrey or Barclay to just to build lineups around Daryl Henderson, which I probably should. Yeah. Let's not actively trying to be more receptive to value plays at running back this year. That's my goal. Okay. Wide receiver Cooper cup is 97. Nobody else above 88. But like what should the gap be between Devontae and Cooper cup? What should it be? Are you thinking this is too large? Yes. I'd say cup should be like 93 94 maybe. Yeah. And we said Devontae should be around 9000. So yeah, I think a little bit lower or Devontae should be higher. One or the other, but I think the gap between them is too large. Jamar Chase 87. If there's no T Higgins there. So this is okay. So we're going to have to question value running back to get to the stud receivers. Why is Marquis Brown 74? I will I'm going to stupidly stack that game, but having Kyler with Marquis Brown like forces me to go with the value running backs and like, I hate the Cardinals. Oh, they make me so mad. Oh, I'm going to be so upset about this the entire week. Michael Pittman 78 12 or 13 targets, 121 yards in a touchdown. Sorry, Michael Pittman. I I'm going to have a hard time getting there when I could play. I'll I might I might have like many stacks that game though, like Kirk run it back with Pittman though, or JT. So CD Lamb at 77 is not quite like it's not the right that's where the tier breaks off. Yeah. Um, but yeah, Marquis Brown, Terry McClaren, Jalen Waddle, Deontay Johnson. There's a big opportunity cost of going with that tier versus the cup Devontay Jamar Chase. I agree. Scrolling down a bit more. A modern St. Brown did not get a lot of downfield work on Sunday, but 12 overall targets. He's $6,900 in a decent game against Washington. I think that that's a name worth like keeping in mind. Probably would lean towards Kirk at 65. Christian Kirk at 65 over Amonra in terms of like priority type options, but I think they're both at least worth jotting down here along with Jarvis 61. Once more, I want to take a note on Cortland Sutton's role 68 could could honestly be under salaried if he is a true wide receiver one. Tyler Boyd at 66 is not going to tempt me. That's too high for what his role was. Fully agree. Um, what about Baker Mayfield's biggest fan Robbie Anderson at 59? Talking trash on an Instagram. Then he becomes his teammate and then catches a massive bomb from him. Eight total targets on Sunday. He's 59. DJ Moore is 62. I'd rather probably get up to DJ Moore to like be the pivot off of Robbie with his explosion game between those two. But what are your thoughts on those two guys? Um, yeah, for sure. Not Chase Robbie Anderson. That seems like the wrong move. Uh huh. That's basically the number one thing you could learn is try not to chase big games at receiver. Not that these guys can't improve or like put up another big game, but historically those regress the next week for the most part. Yes. Okay, I'm in the 5000 range. Where are you at? Right around there. The 6000 range specifically is pretty bad. No, I like Jarvis. I like Kirk. Like 6000. I don't usually, I'm not looking at 65. I'm looking like, okay, around DJ Moore. Like, sure, DJ Moore, maybe Jarvis and Andrew, the most appealing play at 61. Like 6000 59 itself. 58 57 not really doing a whole lot for me until I get to like Julio Jones of 57 and Alan Robinson. Yeah, I think both of those guys wind up being potential options. Julio, like he said, 57, Alan Robinson 57 as well. Julio had yardage, but didn't blow up. So I don't think we'll see a situation where he is restrictively popular or anything like that. Scrolling down a bit further, not seeing a lot in like the low 5000 range, which is pretty typical for wide receiver. But I think with, frankly, the, let's just call it 6000 to 65 overall, not being super appealing and the upper fives not being super appealing. I can save salary with Julio, Alan Robinson, Drake London. And yeah, and then that helps me get up to, I think I'm going to have to play some stud receivers this week. Most likely, and that makes the idea of using Henderson, Jeff Wilson, maybe Jalen Warren, depending on Naji, that makes it a bit more attractive there as well. Okay, tight end. Mark Andrews 74. I think that is a fully fine salary. I have no objections to that. And I'll probably try to be on Mark Andrews this week. Not a huge output from him this past week, but seven targets, 52 yards. I think the Jets defense is a bit underrated to be fully honest. So I wasn't super in on there. I'm more inclined to be in on him with a salary reduction 74 than I was last week. Two downfield targets for Mark Andrews, which again, from your 20 plus yards downfield, that's pretty great for a tight end. But within the context of the slate itself, we have Darren Waller at 68 who did not show a ton as a complete, not a complete afterthought, but definitely an afterthought. Again, he could have scored and that would have given him 9.9 plus six and a half. You guys, you guys do the math at 16.4 maybe. I guess the yardage too, but as you do in the catch, but it could have been a better day. His salary probably be higher, but then it drops off the planet. Jason Hill 62. He stirred up. No, thanks. You mean you're not going to bank on like a 70 yard rush each week? Is that not what you're considering? No, I would say. Okay. Okay. So it's probably going to be was obvious, I guess, but Mark Andrews Darren Waller or I don't even think I'll put Waller in that bucket and outside a game stack. So that's true. I think it's Andrews or bust and by bust, I mean pits are lower at 59. Sure. And I'll go to pits. Like, I think pits is way more attracted this week given that he didn't do anything last week, which means people will not be on him and he's facing the Rams $5900. I think that given the workload he got, I think that's fully fine. I think the big question this week is, do you think Mark Andrews puts up 20? Probably. If he, but if you, and if he doesn't, you're going to save 2000 ish in salary to play T.G. Hawkinson, who had what? Seven targets, seven targets. Donald Schultz played every snap for nevermind the quarterback. Nevermind. Pat Friarmouth. Tyler Higby. Zach Hertz 52. He scored four targets. Again, a game stack. Logan. So it's six targets in his first game back, which is kind of, it's nice to see, but yeah. So again, I think, I think that honestly, the biggest question of the week might be, do you play Mark Andrews? Do you think Darren Waller can have a big game? And if not, and you just fade those guys, you are going to be in a pretty good position to have a lot of salary. If you fade them and they put up 20, I don't know if anyone else gets close to that. That's right. And that does, that is a problem because it sounds great to save salary so that you get ceilings from other positions, but you don't always find, you don't always pick the right guys there either. So I think my default approach as of right now will be hopefully to get to Andrews and then lean on the value backs of Henderson and then either Wilson or Warren and then use one other back out there and use that as the way to make it easier to get to Mark Andrews this week. It's also going to depend on quarterback. If we don't, if we don't love what we see from Lance or Russ. Yeah. Yeah. I'm gonna have a lot of Lamar Jackson, Mark Andrews stacks. Yep. Again, more in on this week than I was this past week for me personally at least. Hopefully they get Ronnie Stanley back. He did practice last week. So I think there's a good chance that he plays, which would be a big boon for them. Devon DuVernay had two touchdowns, but just for targets. I'm not chasing that, but I think that Andrews at least is someone I could be maybe the bait boy. I didn't see a big boy. Sorry it was, but 64. It's all high. Well, hi, but whatever. All right. It's only a defense really quick. You don't do this with me. If you don't want to. No, don't don't make me. Patriots defense is 37. There we go. We got one. That's all we need. We're done. Bengals defense 39 against. Pooper Rush should be good. Okay. Let's finish up here. They note to future me based on what we saw in the salary scroll based on what we saw. Newsweek one. What do you want to tell yourself before you set your lineups and week number two? Just remember we had overtime games that will inflate raw numbers for some guys. I use market shares almost exclusively, but it's good to remember. And I think the thing for me is I'm probably going to try to do a study on mid-tier running backs and value backs and see when they actually have good games for next week because I think it'll be relevant for this week. Yeah, I think for me it'll be not deviating from the tight player, tight player pool. I think that, you know, even though things didn't go well with some of the guys that use this past week, I still think that's the right process long term. And then I want to remind myself to be receptive to value running backs. If I feel good about their situation, I think there might be a couple we get this week where I can actually check that box. So keep a tight player pool be receptive to value if it comes up in order to give yourself the ability to get to guys like Devonte Adams, like Mark Andrews and guys like that. That is all that we have here for this week one recap. We'll be back with you once again on Thursday to get you set for the week two NFL DFS main slate. So make sure you are subscribed to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts while you're there. If you like what you hear leave us a rating and review as well. Of course, we have our Monday Night Football betting preview as well over on the covering the spread podcast feed with myself and Ryan Williams find that by searching for covering the spread wherever you get your podcast branded. If people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? I'm at Goodwill of 13 G D U L A 1 3 and I am on Twitter at Jim Saunders and you can also follow the Fanduola podcast network at Fanduola podcast. Big thank you to everyone for tuning in for this week. I hope week one was a good one for you. Close up the note on a high note or week on a high note with your single game lineups for the Broncos and the Seahawks will talk to you once again on Thursday to get you set for the best week of the NFL season week number two. This has been the heat check fantasy podcast powered by number fire.