 We've finally made it after a long two weeks with no football after a long NFL season in general. It is finally time to break down the final game of the year. Super Bowl 57 between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles is on the horizon. We are here to break it down. Made daily fantasy football perspective. Letting you know our ideal MVP considerations, which players are priorities on fan dual roster construction and much more to get you said to hopefully win some money on fan dual for this weekend. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Numberfire. That's right here on the fan dual podcast network and Numberfire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for Numberfire.com. Joined here as always by Brandon Gedula. He is the senior managing editor of Numberfire.com. Brandon, single game DFS. We're here to discuss for today your Eagles. I can retroactively apply that. Sure. Why not? Facing off with the Chiefs. How you doing today? I've gotten that a lot over the past like two weeks. From whom? Was it from me? It might have been me on like last week or something. Well, there's like you there's um after church this past week, weirdly, I had people like people know you were an Eagles fan. Well, it I didn't bring it up. But like my mom mentioned it and I'm like, well, look the the story here and it's not like a great story. But I grew up in central Pennsylvania in the heart of Steelers country. And I do not like any Pittsburgh teams. I have to find out to be a deck basically. Yeah. So from like fourth grade on because I love Dan Marino as a kid and I love the Dolphins. That's where the 13 comes from in the Twitter handle. I didn't know that actually. But it also looks like a capital B. So I think it still works and I think you do lab. But I, you know, just fell in love with Donovan McNabb and like the Terrell Owens era. So I love the Eagles. And then once you kind of start working in this industry, you got to get rid of your biases. And so that happened right before they finally won a Super Bowl. Yeah, we still, I mean, we still have some, but they stay on slack though. But you know, that carries over and people are like, Oh, well, you still like, like the, I'm like, I haven't rooted for the Eagles as a team in like 10 years. And I also think the Chiefs are going to win. So this is a weird predicament. But it's also strange because again, this is like Steelers country and I'm now hearing everyone like rooting for the Eagles. So it's like a weird, sick twist. I can't wrap my head around it. Yeah, I follow a lot of Eagles fans on Twitter. So I feel like I can like, if they win and like people are happy, I like people being happy, like seeing people being happy. If the Chiefs win, I win money. So like, that's great too. So I feel like there are no losers here. I talked about this with someone, but like, I feel like for the first time I've done way too many podcasts on this, this dumb game, I'm not going to be sad no matter the outcome because I like chilling hurts. I like the Eagles. I love my homes love Andy Reid. And I win money if they win like in the past, like when we've had certain teams in the Super Bowl, I've been sad if they won like 28 to three killed me. But like, I don't feel like there's a bad outcome here. I just, I got to like, I got to stand up for Patrick Mahomes here because I've also heard a few people wanting to root against the Chiefs because they don't like Mahomes. They don't, they don't like his brother or what? So like, I ask, I'm like, why don't you like Patrick Mahomes? It's like, oh, he seems like arrogant. And I'm like, I don't think he is. I think he's like, what? And then I get like the, I don't like his brother or is it his girlfriend or what? I don't know. Now it's swipe. Yeah. You can't be judging people based on like their brother or something like that's not fair. So I just got to flag that and say, Patrick Mahomes seems cool. I know Patrick, you're listening. He's hanging on every word later. But yeah, you know, like I got your back, Patrick. We're all good. We are both wearing confusing hats. You're wearing a buccaneers hat. They are not here. I'm wearing a twins hat wrong sport. I could put the formula one hat on a college hat on. We're just, you know, we're deviating. But either way, we're going to break down this game from a single game DFS perspective. Let you know which players were considering the MVP slot over on FanDuel. What that means if you haven't played single game daily fantasy and also break down top values on FanDuel for Sunday's game. But first, a reminder to make sure you're subscribed to the number fired daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcast, because we do continue on after NFL season. Next week, the true Super Bowl, the Daytona 500, is coming up. I'll have an ask our podcast that on Friday. We also have a daily fantasy golf every Tuesday. Tom Vecchia with NBA DFS every weekday, USC for select events, the Austin Swam all right here in the same podcast feed. So search for the number fired daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts, hit subscribe. And if you like what you hear, leave us a rating and review as well. Get a piece of $10 million in bonus bets with FanDuel's kick of destiny. All you have to do is about $5 on Super Bowl 57. And if Rob Grunkowski kicks a field goal live during the game, you'll get a piece of $10 million in bonus bets. It doesn't matter if you're new to FanDuel or already have an account, Grunk kick you in. It's as simple as that. So don't miss out on the kick of destiny on FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook. Just place any $5 bet on the Super Bowl to get a piece of $10 million in bonus bets. Then tune in live during the game to see Grunk's kick of destiny. Make every moment worth FanDuel official sportsbook partner of the NFL must be 21 plus in select state's minimum $5 wage required. Award may vary. Minimum $5 projected max $20. Bonus award issued is not with throttle bonus bets that expire in seven days. All participants are eligible for bonus award restrictions apply. See full terms at FanDuel.com slash sportsbook gambling problem call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit fanduel.com slash rg in Arizona 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXT-EPTIFI 3-3-4-2 in Connecticut 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org slash chat in Indiana 1-809 with it in Kansas and Wyoming 1-800-522-4700 or in KS, Kansas. I keep calling it KS in Kansas, Kansas KS in health.com. Great say. Louisiana 1-877-770-STEP in Maryland mdgamblinghealth.org in West Virginia 1-800-gambler.net or in New York 1-877-8 Hope and Wire Text Hope and Why. Let's dig in here to this game. We got the cheats and the eagles right now. The eagles are one and a half point favorites at FanDuel sports book. The total in this game is 50 and a half. We'll talk about what that means here in just one second. Injury reports were released both last week and this week. And the key one came out on Wednesday and in that one. Canaries Tony limited for the cheats. Meekle Harbin now on IR. Jujus Smith Schuster was a full participant, which is a good thing, I think. And then also Clyde Edwards E-Lair was activated from IR and he was not on the injury report there. So he is fully healthy. Will that matter? Don't know. We'll talk about that as well throughout the show. Now, Brandon, I think a key thing for a single game is deciding how you think the game plays out. Now, it doesn't mean you're using that same assumption for every single lineup, but your baseline assumption about how this game plays out is what for cheats and eagles? I think it's high scoring. I like the over here. I think it plays in the chief's favor largely. And one thing that I want to dispel early is that, look, the chiefs have a poor rush defense and we know that the eagles are the best rushing offense in football. However, the eagles are about league average and pass rate over expectation overall. And whenever you actually look at their matchups against bottom 12 rush defenses, they're a little bit more pass heavy, which is probably just variance, but they have not really tailored their game plan to running the ball a ton against beatable rush defenses. So I don't think this is one of those games where the eagles come out and just try to run the ball time and time again. If they do, it's a deviation that's not the expectation. So I think there's going to be passing and I think there's going to be points. I think that there will be points too. And I have a lean towards the chiefs here. I bet the chief's money line when it was plus 108. It's now plus 104. I did upgrade the chiefs a bit in my model. I initially had a pretty big downgrade in there for the receiver injuries from the homes being banged up. And when I did that, I had the chiefs fared by 1.5 made a slight bump up this morning as a result of juju being full on Wednesday and Tony being limited because I think it means that they'll be good to go. Justin Watson's good to go for this one too. So I bumped them back up. I've now got it at a chiefs by 1.8, I believe, total of 50.33. So in line with you, where I think that there will be a lot of points, especially because typically a tighter spread correlates with a lower total because it implies there are fewer points applied in that situation. So the fact that it's a high total despite a tight spread, I think says even more about this game. So I'm on board with a high scoring game. I think it's a pretty neutral script throughout. And I think that both offense will be a move of all ball pretty effectively. Also, I'm also on board with you where I don't think there'll be super ground and poundy in this game. We'll talk about what that means as far as individual players here in a second. Before we talk about MVP considerations, I think it's important to talk about single game DFS as a whole and dig into past games that have had a similar setup based on similar setup. I'm talking about games with a tight spread and a high total Brandon, you run optimals, optimal, Fandall lineups for single game daily fantasy. Then you can, you put them in a spreadsheet, you were kind enough to send me said spreadsheet and we can dig into those. And I think it's important to note here for those of you playing single game DFS the first time on Fandall, you roster five players. One of those players gets a 1.5 X multiplier. The salary for that player does not change if they are in the MVP slot. So you are picking the player in your lineup who you believe will be the highest scoring guy in the game regardless of salary. It makes it very simple to analyze. So looking at past optimals in games with similar setups, what were the key takeaways for you in terms of how rosters were built, which positions benefited and stuff like that? So yeah, it's one of those where you got to figure out what your parameters are going to be. I talked to you and I figured we might as well keep it consistent, but we settled on games with a spread of three or tighter in a total of at least 47 and a half, which the reasons for that were because three and 47 are both key number. And getting a game over 47 is a lift. Like you have to work to get there and getting a spread above three, you have to work there. So a team that's there by three and a half, there's actually a pretty big difference between that and two and a half, which is why I wanted to keep it kind of tight. It does limit our sample, but there was a thought process there because 47 is a key number, three is a key number, and those are really important ones to get across. That was my thought process there. Yeah. And you know, these help, but you have to apply it to the particular game itself because if we find that, and this is not what we find, but like if we find that running backs are phenomenal plays in these scripts, it does not necessarily make the running backs on either side here, right? The best plays because they don't really have the workload. So, you know, they're looking at optimal lineups is not perfect, but I do think it's helpful to illustrate some, some things because you have to figure out like, okay, well, this is like a kicker or defense kind of setup or, you know, how does that kind of factor in? But so again, it's 26 games from the 2022 NFL season, including playoffs, but the MVP came from the favored side 69% of time, which does kind of factor into the most obvious MVP candidate of the week, which is Jalen Hertz. 38% of these lineups had a defense, 31% had a kicker, more than half had at least one. So 54%. So even though, you know, high total tight spread, we tend to see a kicker or defense in these lineups, which I think is noteworthy, but only 15% had both. So probably not going to get both, but so that's 15% of the time. So I think that the first takeaway here is naturally we should be leaning toward the Eagles for the MVP because that's where we typically see the favorite, but, you know, the favorite is the MVP, but like us, we might actually think that the chief should be favored or will win. So I think that that's very telling. What I think that ultimately this is, is kicking off is the MVP, the eventual MVP in the optimal lineup will come from a team that has won, which is not always obvious. It's not always the case, but I do think that's kind of a main takeaway to start from, from like a top down approach. Yeah, I think that that is very noteworthy and I think differential between what the the market says and what your thoughts are on the game is important as well. Because if you think the chiefs win, that that will skew things for sure. And you made that distinction as well. One of the takeaway I had from looking at this is that the quarterback is more likely to be MVP than they are on the full splits, a full sample, a quarterback is in the MVP slot 35% of the time versus in this split, it's 42% against small samples. So keep that in mind. Only other spot that gets a boost relative to baseline is wide receiver going from 24% to 27%. So quarterbacks and wide receivers more likely to be MVPs in a high scoring tight spread than they are in other situations. Other takeaway for me, go ahead. I would lump Travis Kelsey into that conversation and looking at past optimals, tight end is always a train wreck, but it's Kelsey and like Mark Andrews who are the outliers. So throw Kelsey into that mix is a good MVP candidate. Past catcher. Correct. That's very, that's very good. Very good note there as well. Other thing that stood out to me is that in these lineups, there were 26 games, there were 11 where a quarterback was MVP. Spoiler alert, I'm going to put a quarterback at MVP almost every time for this week. And when you have a quarterback at MVP, the opposing quarterback was also in the lineup 64% of the time. So it's only 11 games, but like, I think it's not worthy that jamming in both quarterbacks was a good thing there. So that's the big takeaway for me is quarterback and wide receiver slash past catcher get a boost in this setup with a high, high total and tight spread. And if you put a quarterback at MVP, the opposite opposing quarterback is also in there are very high. Are you okay with those being takeaways or am I overstepping? No, it sounds, it sounds pretty accurate to me. And one thing, I mean, I'm not going to like reiterate that, but one other thing that I'll point out, again, we're looking at a smaller sample. Yeah. But whenever a wide receiver was MVP, which was seven times, which is the same number actually as running back. But again, you got to tailor it to the game itself. And I don't know if there are a lot of obvious running back candidates for MVP. There's, I would say three total, maybe four if you throw in Kenneth Gainmo, who you could consider for like a chaos standpoint. But surprisingly, like 57%. So I guess that'd be what four out of the seven have to be. Yes. Of the running backs were favored. So it's actually a little bit tighter to like 50%. Then you might think but 86%. So I probably six out of seven. The receivers who were MVPs were on the favorite. So it's not like a point JC volume MVP for the past catchers. It's going to be efficiency. It's going to be scoring those touchdowns having yardage. So don't plug in a receiver who you think is going to get a lot of garbage time production. That's really not how it tends to play out, which is kind of always the case in a sense. But for MVP, you're going to want the guys who convert the touchdowns, which are generally tied to better performance overall offensively. Exactly. So let's take that baseline of knowledge and spin it forward to our MVP considerations. Again, this is just the player on your roster. You think will be the highest screen player on your team for that specific game. Looking back at these two teams throughout the year, it's almost, it's been the quarterback a lot. The cheese have played 19 games. Patrick Mahomes has been the team's highest screen player 16 times. Travis Kelsey twice and Jerick McKinnon once in that Denver game where he went bananas. So it's been Mahomes more often than not, almost always been Mahomes on the Eagles. They have more weird splits because there was no Dallas Goddard first stretch and Devonte Smith went bananas in that time. Jalen Hurts missed games. Boston Scott missed two. I tossed those out as well because Miles Sanders usage in those two games was not what it has been outside of that. So I have the most relevant sample in Philadelphia being a nine game sample. In those nine games, Jalen Hurts has been the highest screen player on their team seven times. AJ Brown once, Miles Sanders once in the conference championship game where he scored twice. So to me, that says if you give me 20 lineups, I'm either going quarterback at MVP in every single one or I'm tossing out like one Travis Kelsey or one AJ Brown. So to me, Mahomes and Hurts are the two definite considerations. If I'm differentiating, I'm doing so likely with just Kelsey or AJ Brown so that I'm not spreading myself super, super thin. Is that too reductive or where do you sit in terms of MVP considerations here? So here's the problem with like breaking down pretty much anything when it comes to DFS, but specifically single game is there's the best process play, the most likely situation, and then there's finding the leverage whenever the expected does not happen. So we know from this sample that we're looking at, it's much more common that a quarterback is MVP, but it's 42% of the time again, 26 games. When I simulate this thing out and look at actual projections. So that's where things get a lot stronger in the case because these are two dominant quarterbacks who can put up a ton of points. We don't have like a legitimate featured back another team. Yeah. Number of fires projecting Jalen Hurts for 24 fandal points just as a baseline. Mahomes at 21.1 and then we're down to Travis Kelsey at 16.1 and then nobody else is above 13. And whenever you have that kind of gap, that matters, which is again, like it's like, I'm not a surprise, but what that means whenever I simulate this thing out a thousand times and see how likely certain players are to lead the slate in fandal points. I have Jalen Hurts around 45%, which is super high. It's still more likely than not that he has not the highest score, but that's also different than saying he's like, he's still the most likely high score. And then for Mahomes, it's like 27%. So combined, just let's just call it like 70 to 75% of the time. So if you're building 100 lineups, you need to factor in how popular those players are going to be, which is stuff you can find elsewhere that still leaves about 30 to 20, 25 to 30% of the time where those guys are not the top scorers. If you want like the best building block, then yes, those two quarterbacks are the best MVP choices by far. But if you're playing a big tournament and you want to try to hit the top prize, you might want to consider not having those guys at MVP because whenever they don't score the touchdowns and like Miles Sanders rushes into touchdowns, Jalen Hurts doesn't rush in the touchdowns, that kind of stuff. So I just, I need to, I want to kind of make that distinction before we dig into things because it's both obvious, but it's easy to get caught up in like the difference. We're coming at this from the angle of Hurts is by far the best MVP play. Mahomes is by far the second best MVP play. Again, I have them around 26% to be the leading scorer. Then we're down to Travis Kelsey at 10%. So it's up to you from a risk aversion standpoint, but I'm with you where Hurts and Mahomes are the building blocks and I'm flying to be overweight there and try to differentiate in other places. That's my thought process too. You were talking about projected roster rates. I typically look at rotor grinders. You can pick whatever you want. I look at rotor grinders and I don't want to give away their stuff because it's not a paywall. It's very good. It deserves to be behind a paywall. Paywall. I would note though that they're projected roster rate for both guys at MVP is lower than the number you set as far as when you sim it out. So to me, that says even though they are the most popular MVP plays, they may not be as popular as they should be. So to me, that says what you said at the end, where I am going to start there and differentiate elsewhere. I think you can differentiate just by using Mahomes instead of Hurts. The gap there is deep MVP roster rates. So you could deviate there. I think the other way to deviate least salary on the table, I think that's kind of like a golden rule of single game DFS. I try to set a cap at 5850. 58,500. So leaving 1,500 on the table might need to do more if you're in a huge tournament for the Super Bowl. That's tough given that I want to jam in both quarterbacks. But that's kind of my baseline of where I want to be. If you're not going Mahomes or Hurts in that 25% or whatever it is, who are you turning to first? Is it Kelsey? AJ Brown? Who are you going to there? I would go Kelsey because he's also on that team that I don't think they're not favored, but I do think that they will win. I sincerely believe that the other best option is easily AJ Brown, even though it's not really bared out in the numbers that well. He's kind of similar to like Isaiah Pacheco in terms of being the top scorer. I love Isaiah Pacheco, but the odds of a massive game to me are about 2% based on his MVP odds at Fandall. I think that AJ Brown is the best pivot in that regard away from the quarterbacks in Kelsey, which won't surprise anyone, but he's not going to be in the MVP slot very often. We know that what his true ceiling is is 150 yards and two touchdowns. If he does that, and then you stack him with Jalen Hurts and you're pretty chalky elsewhere, so the one thing that I wanted to point out whenever you said there's no salary difference based on who you played MVP. So in theory, you could pick your five guys and play the same lineup five times and just change the MVP. I'm not saying that's always the best strategy, but that's exactly how it can work. And so you can build a lineup with Jalen Hurts with AJ Brown stacked with him and you can then flip that and put Brown in MVP. And if that lineup is the nuts, you could be very, very close, but still very far away if you don't have the MVP, right? This is a very sore subject. I lost several thousand dollars last year by not duping one and putting Cooper Cup at MVP. I had Stafford at MVP and Shocker that being low on Cooper Cup burden me. That's never happened before. Who could have predicted that? I got a question on YouTube from Geekippy asking, play both quarterbacks. I think that that tails well into our next conversation about roster construction because looking at the projections, looking at your Sims, I think that the default for me is I want both quarterbacks in there at the exact same time and it's tough because you look at the salaries over on Fandall. Mahomes has a salary of $17,500. Jalen Hurts, $17,000. If you put in both those guys at the same time, your remaining left is $8,500. Now I said I want to leave salary at the table. I want only $1,500 on the table. Means I'm using some duds. That's for sure. Using some scrubs to get there. I think it is worth it despite that. What about you? Are you jamming in both quarterbacks as a default? Like you got one lineup. Are you doing it? Or are you going more balanced here? So that comes like, that's a personal thing. Like how many lineups are you playing? Are you playing like one lineup and trying to jam in both or are you playing like 10 or 20? If I'm playing one, probably not because the odds are lower. That will get both quarterbacks together. It's very crucial. It's kind of obvious, but one thing I didn't talk about was like, should you play three players from one team and two from the other or go for one? Which is always a question. It's about 65% likely to be three and two. So a little bit more balance there for your single game lineup, whether we're looking at the overall split or the split of games with a tighter spread and a higher total. But if you filter to just lineups where both quarterbacks were in it, the three two is like 85%. So you're definitely like, you're going to want some stacking candidates, which is kind of obvious, but I don't think I'd play the angle even of like, well, Jaylen Hart is going to rush for two touchdowns. Those would be the only two touchdowns that the Eagles have something like that. So I will do it. In that capacity, I would just load up on pass catchers and hope for the best, hope that I get the right touchdowns allocated to my lineup. Yeah, I think for me, if I am going with one lineup, I am having both quarterbacks in there, filtering through who's at MVP stuff like that and building it that way because they are both kind of outliers in terms of how often they are the highest growing guys in their team. And the tough part with that is I don't really want to go below 7,000. We expect a lot of points in this game, which means that the odds we have five players who get you double digit fangirl points are pretty high, which means the opportunity cost is going with a, you know, not no shape, it's Skymore, sorry, going with the Quest Watkins, Justin Watson, guys like that. The downsides of that are higher. Noah Gray, I love Noah Gray, but like, is he going to give me 10? I don't know. You know, that's tough to say. It does force me into the situation where if I go with my homes and Hertz and don't want to go below 7,000, I'm using three guys between 7,000 and 9,000. I'm okay with that. That's fine. But there is a sacrifice there to be made. So I think that if we're talking about roster construction, I have two different routes. The first route is having both quarterbacks and then having three guys between 7,000 and 9,000. The second route is having only one of the quarterbacks and then going more balanced. Like for example, having Patrick Mahomes and MVP pairing him with Travis Kelsey and Isaiah Pacheco. If I do that, I have 9,000 left for the final two slots. I can figure that out very easily and be okay with that. If I go Jalen Hertz, then, you know, I can kind of do whatever I want in terms of stacking partners. I can go with both AG Brown, Devonta Smith, if I want to, 9,500 left there as well. That fits too. So those are my two preferred routes. If I've got two lineups, I'm doing one of each, one with both quarterbacks and then three value plays and then one with one of the quarterbacks and then a more balanced approach after that. If you had to pick between those two, what's your preferred path and are you more okay going with guys below 7,000 than I am? There's not a whole lot I like down there, which is the whole point of having them down there. That's why the quarterbacks are a high salary. One thing I will point out is that if you have a two quarterback lineup, we'll get like bogged down in the numbers, but it's a lot less likely that you're going to get a defense or kicker, which makes sense because you're going to need those like passing touchdowns, not settle for field goals. If we're playing the angle of an over, which like I typically am, I think a lot of people will, even if they're not playing the over, the total is high enough where they're more or less building around the over. Easiest way to differentiate is like, this game's like 17, 14, there's like no touchdowns and go from there. But yeah, if you're going to play both quarterbacks, it's going to be tempting to plug in like a kicker to help balance things out. Like it can still happen, but it's just a little bit less likely. So for me, I'm probably more willing to go a little bit more balanced though. If I'm building one lineup, like if I was playing a head to head against you, even knowing you're playing both quarterbacks, I think I would probably try to get to like Kelsey, A.J. Brown, the guys who have difference making like market shares, rather than take too many stabs at guys who could basically give me a zero. Yeah, if I were doing a head to head, which I'm not going to the record, I would jam in both quarterbacks just because they have the combination of meeting expectation with a massive ceiling. I'm going to take that route and figure it out elsewhere. I want those baked in points for me personally. You mentioned kickers. I think that's an important point because both kickers have low salaries for this game. Jake Elliott is 8,000. Harrison Butcher is at $8,500. Those are awesome salaries. I agree with you where it's counterthetical to have a kicker in there or the quarterback because a quarterback implies they're getting you touchdowns. Touchdowns imply there are no field goals. And if you look at the sample I pulled before, again, there were 11 situations where a quarterback was MVP. None of those had a kicker in there at all. Either kicker. So I would say it does lower my odds using a kicker. However, I'm still receptive to it because they're just very low salaried. And the one thing I would say is the kicker will not be on the same team as my MVP. If I have my homes at MVP, I will not use Butcher. Definitely not in that setup where I have both quarterbacks. I am receptive to my homes with Hertz and Elliott because it implies that Hertz is a rushing touchdown, but they had to settle for a couple more field goals, stuff like that. He's not the highest scoring guy, but he's still very high scoring. They had to settle for a couple field goals. That makes sense to me. So it does downgrade kicker for me. If I use both quarterbacks, I am receptive to it, but I will make sure they are not overlapping with my MVP because the opportunity costs there, it just doesn't line up super well. Yeah, it makes sense. The kickers and defense conversation is always fascinating. I have a hard time envisioning defenses, either defense making the true optimal unless we get a game script that is unlike the first three or four scripts I would assume, which is like, even if there's a romp, I don't think either quarterback is going to be turning up all over a ton. It might just be some sacks. But Geon Hertz is odds that they're a pick or plus money. That tells you a lot in terms of the upside for the defenses. I still will use defenses if I have a setup where I think the cheats roll, definitely then, but that's why we're not super high on them as a baseline. Yeah. So it can be tempting to plug in those kickers and defenses for salary relief and quote unquote, safe points. And they're especially going to feel good whenever you have both quarterbacks and you're going to feel like, well, this is a really high floor lineup, which are not really wrong in that. But for both quarterbacks to make the optimal at these elevated salaries, very possible that they do, we're going to need one thing that's easy to get wrapped up in is, well, they're going to score points, they're going to make the optimal. It's like, well, if Travis Kelsey scores twice, he's going to be in the optimal. Right. You can't get both quarterbacks and Kelsey in there. So like that's going to, you know, that could bump out one of the quarterbacks because if Kelsey has a good game or AJ Brown has a good game or Devante Smith, Dallas Goddard, like these guys all have good games, you need value plays coming through for both quarterbacks to pay off or you say, well, they're just going to disperse the ball and no one's going to have more than like four targets. And so they're just no high salary pass catchers are going to make it with them. So like going back to like the head to head lineup, I agree with you where the floor is really high, but there's also concentrated usage, especially for the Eagles pass catchers. Like they just throw the three guys. I think Devante Smith, Dallas Goddard, AJ Brown, those guys are going to make the optimal. Like one of them is going to make the optimal and it's really hard to get both quarterbacks and those guys. Okay. So let's talk about those pass catchers here and talk about the flex plays. We can talk about some value plays in your two, but just as an overall discussion Brandon for you, when you're looking at the, the non-quarterbacks in this game, who to you stands out as being a guy who is under salary for his role, who fits really well with your roster construction? Who are you turning to in that regard? Isaiah Pacheco is one who stands out a ton. He is basically is likely to be the top value, which is just your Fando points per thousand in salary as Jalen Hertz, which is where like the, I go back to the, yeah, Jalen Hertz is going to, should score more points than Isaiah Pacheco very often, but when you account for salary and what that does, they're about as likely to be like as good of plays in the simulations that I run. I would, this is different than saying Isaiah Pacheco is a better MVP play than Jalen Hertz, because he's very likely to be in the optimal lineup. Love is workload. I don't really see a situation where they go away from Pacheco. Even if they're trailing, like he can run routes, he can get catches. I think that he's a really, really strong play at 10-5. He's probably going to be the place that I'm most overweight on, which by, which I mean, if I think that he's on like 30% of everyone's rosters, I would try to be, I would try to have him in my lineups over 30% of the time. Yeah. Pacheco is also the guy I would highlight here. He's 10-5 on Fando. The reason that I like him is not just because the conference championship game. Like let's pretend, well, let's not pretend to nap, but let's put that in a larger sample. I'm looking at the 10 games with Clyde Edwards E'lair out or limited because I don't think he'll have a huge role even if he's active for this game. I think he'll be more in like the Ronald Jones role because even before he got hurt, he had like a 5% snap rate in this final game before then, I think he'll have a very limited role in that situation. So a 10 game sample with CEH out or limited in that time, Pacheco 87 yards and scrimmage per game at that time. 10 game sample, 87 yards and scrimmage. That's more than Miles Sanders in his 17 games with Boston Scott active. Sanders, 74 yards per game in that split. Jerichman, Kenan, 56 yards per game in his sample. Kenneth Gainwell, 33. Boston Scott, 17. That's a really good number for 10-5. And you also toss in the potential for him to get more work in the passing game as he did in that conference championship. My sample for Pacheco is 1.8 targets per game. He had six, double his previous career high in the conference championship. So that to me is why he is a standout at 10-5. The issue I run into is if I want him like, I think that if I have one lineup, I want Hertz and MVP and I want Mahomes in there and I want Pacheco. If I do that, I'm left at 7,500 left per player. That's like, that's the problem. I've got to use a scrub. So the question is, do I use a scrub or do I toss out one of the quarterbacks or Pacheco? Right. And the thing is, if you just, I don't call anyone who's playing the Super Bowl scrub, like a punt play, just in terms of the role is not really there, you can have Jalen Hertz and Pacheco Mahomes go off. And if you play, like... Quaswakens. Sure. And he has one catch for three yards. You might be like, oh, I was one play away from like the best, like one, like one, not one football play, but like one play in your lineup away. It's like, it's a lot easier to do if you're rushing someone at the bottom of the salary pool to get there. So that is the issue, which, you know, we all know, but it's super tempting to be like, if I'm building one lineup, I need to have Mahomes and Hertz in there. But the issue that you see all the time is you need, you need a value play to pop for that to happen. And someone probably will, but that's different than saying I'm going to pick the right one. So my question to you, and we do this with golf a lot, is you seem really intent on two quarterback lineups. Are you willing to play two QB lineups with, like, let's say, let's stick with this example, Mahomes, Hertz, Pacheco, what do you have left? 75. Give me another name and like the, let's say you have a full punt play, who's like a name in the middle range that you would consider? So, so I want to keep my like 1500 or more left on the table, which means as a result, I'm going like, I would go like, Kaderius, Tony at 7,000. So like, but you're, then you're saying like double punt play. Correct. So although I don't consider Tony a punt. Sure. Talk about that in a second. Well, yeah, I know you don't, but so all right, here's the thought experiment I'm going at. Are you willing to play Mahomes, Hertz, Pacheco, two values, duplicate that, keep Mahomes, Hertz, Pacheco, different two values? Absolutely. I'm going to play as many iterations of that as I feel comfortable playing because I think that Mahomes, Hertz and Pacheco are going to be good. I need to figure out the right value plays you hit and that's going to be a hard conversation because the workloads aren't there for predictable output from them. So does that kind of how you're leaning, you think? Yeah. With a lot of your lineups? Okay. Yep. I think it's, it's worth it to get stupid to do that. That's the way that I view it. It's okay if you disagree. I don't care. Like you're, that's, that's a fully fair and valid opinion. And I can't push back on it because you're right. But like, I'm willing to take swipes at a Quezwalkans, at a Noah Gray, Jody Fortson, guys like that. I'm okay with that. It could totally flop. But so could Mark Paz-Valdes, Gantley at 8,000. So could Jujube Schuster at 9,000. So could Kenneth Gainwell at 85. So like, sure, their baseline is better, but their odds of flopping are not, they're still very high. Yeah. That's why I'm okay with it personally. So then I think the real question is where are you on the difference makers who are not the quarterbacks? So Travis Kelsey, AJ Brown, we're not super high on mild standards because of the workload, but let's throw them in there because we know he's multiple touch on the upside. Devontae Smith, we know where you're up with Pacheco. And let's go Dallas Goddard. Because if you're saying I want both quarterbacks, Pacheco and two values, you're betting against Kelsey, AJ Brown, Devontae Smith having big games. Yep, fine of that. In the two quarterback lineups, if I have one quarterback, I'm going to have Kelsey or those other guys in there. And again, that's probably by half my rosters is that. So I'm fine with having reduced exposure to them because I think it's a worthwhile sacrifice to make. The other guy who I would say is like a quote unquote difference maker relative to salary is Goddard at 10,000. If I want to save, give myself a little bit more flexibility, I could take out Pacheco and go Goddard at 10,000. The most relevant sample for them I have is 12 games with everybody means hurts. It means Goddard. It means, I guess, everybody in that sample. Goddard is at 5.8 targets per game and 55.9 yards in scrimmage per game. Devontae Smith is at 53.8 yards from scrimmage per game in that time. So it's actually lower. And you're getting that for a reduction in salary of $1,500 from Devontae Smith down to Goddard. I think Devontae Smith is a phenomenal talent. I love watching him play, have a lot of die-in-sea exposure and need him to do well. But I'm okay making that sacrifice for Goddard at 10,000. So that's another part of it is because I think that the two best guys relative to salary outside of quarterback are Pacheco and Goddard at 10,5 and 10,000. And I can get back there if I make consolations. So to me, that's why I am fixated on two quarterbacks the fact that I do like both Pacheco and Goddard a lot and think there is a fall-off after those two guys. Yeah. I mean, like I said, talking about a single game slate is talking about all talking through all the options, understanding that, as you know, as Kevin Karnaugh would say, anything is possible and figuring out which way you think that the things will go. Like there are realities where Harrison Butcher ends up being the MVP. Very, very low probability of it. Nope. It's 0%. Stop it. It's basically 0%. But if we're being a little like more realistic, like there's a chance Kenneth Gainwell is, wants to be an MVP, he has like, I know you're shaking your head, but I'm trying to make a serious point here. Like you have to separate the most likely and what is actually possible and how willing you are to bet against the probabilities to maximize your output whenever you are correct. So let's stick with the 2QB example. I think it's going to be very tempting for a lot of people. If you plug in both quarterbacks, whichever being the MVP, and you try to go as balanced as you can from there, play Kenneth Gainwell because he's coming off like a big game, and that is like one of the better iterations that you can make. You're probably sharing with a lot of other people who had the same thought process. If your goal is to win a huge tournament and you say, I think it's a one quarterback kind of game, or be very gutsy to say no quarterback game, because like Travis Kelsey scores twice, A.J. Brown scores twice, Devontae Smith has like 135 yards and a touchdown, something like that. And you need all three of those guys because there's no way to make up those points with the value plays and the quarterbacks. That kind of thought process is what it takes sometimes for a single game, which is why it's super fun, but it also is very hard to give like one take. Because again, we can sit here and say, the highest floor, the most probable outcome is to build around the quarterbacks, but the fun part for me is being willing to be different. That's what's sick about this. One pushback I would have is that I'm not sure how, I think that the mindset with the two quarterbacks may be different. Like let's say you are at the Super Bowl party, it's Sunday at 5.30, filling out a lineup, and you're not putting like a ton of thought into it, which is a good chunk of the lineups that we're playing against. You put your two quarterbacks in and you're like, okay, I got to get, I got a punt so I can get back up to these other guys. I think that's the mindset. It's not how do I have the most balanced roster after that to ensure I have five darts of the guy who could get me 10, 15 points. I think that's the mindset. So you're going to see a lot of Mahomes, Hertz lineups have total dust balls in there. And that's why my default is Mahomes. That's what he said. You're like, that's like, we're talking about the two value plays with those two guys. Right. But I'm not putting like, that's what I'm saying is like, my default is to have like three guys between 7,000 and 9,000. There's no, there's no punting. So you think, you think people are going to play like Mahomes, Hertz and like Marcus Kemp? No, not Marcus Kemp. Probably like Skymore or something like that. Justin Watson, Justin Watson like, you know, he'll play snaps. He'll run some wins Prince. But like, if you go with three guys between 7,000 and 9,000, you're having three guys have a realistic shot to get you 10, 15 points. And to me, that's a decent build that I don't think is going to be the exact way every two quarterback lineup goes because I have three, I have five actual darts in there. And that's what I want. So that to me is why I don't think, I don't think everyone thinks the way we do where it's like, okay, I need to have five darts. I think that they're okay taking a punt if it gives them flexibility elsewhere. Whereas I'm preferring to avoid that unless I go up a check in which case I do have to, you have one guy in there who I would deem to be a punt. Okay. If that's how you, I don't, I don't quite view it that way, but I mean, it makes sense. I can see some people doing that. I just can't imagine that that'll be the default for a lot of people. The default for two quarterback liners, it may be, but also we're projected roster rates for herds in the homes, not 100%. So that's not every lineup. Like you're just whittling down the field you're competing against. You're leaving salary on the table at $1,500 or so. You're whittling down the number of duplicated lineups with each move that you make. And it's important to do that. So that's the way I'm viewing it here. Yeah. And I'm not trying to talk around in circles, but like we don't know which iteration is going to be the optimal. A lot of these makes sense. Almost any combination that's like reasonable will make sense. Whether that's, you know, we're hammering home. We want quarterback at MVP, but if you play Kelsey at MVP or AJ Brown, or I think you can justify Isaiah Pacheco. One thing I will flag is that it's easy to look at pure top end outcomes because it matters and you need those points. But if you look at like value and the odds that guys are top five values on the slate, Hertz stands out, Pacheco sort of stands out just because he's projected well at Number Fire. But beyond that, like Mahomes, Kelsey, AJ Brown, they're all kind of similar enough where I don't think it's like so much more substantial that Mahomes at 17-5 is wildly more likely to be in the top, like the five best player combo. Because if like Patrick Mahomes has a good game, like Travis Kelsey is going to do something because of what his market share is. And the Eagles are not particularly good. Or sorry, like there's just a path to Kelsey getting a lot of red zone work where he has two touchdowns. And if he does that, it's going to be really hard to envision. Like I don't want to simplify it, but if Kelsey scores twice, I don't think you can have a 2QB perfect lineup. Right, but his odds scoring twice are... I mean, if we account for Vig, it's not very high. So, like I'm not saying use 0% Travis Kelsey. It seems like you're painting me as if I'm saying use 0%... No, so you're saying you want 2QBs? You're saying if you have one lineup, I have to account for the possibilities Travis Kelsey has two touchdowns, which are like 15% or whatever it is. I didn't say one lineup. I know, I'm not saying I'm doing this every lineup. When did I say that? Play back the script. When did I say that? But I think you're saying... I'm saying this is my default. If I have one lineup, this is what I'm doing. I think you said though... So how many... What percent of your lineups are going to have 2QBs? I have. I'm confused. What? It sounded a lot higher than that based on how adamant you were about getting 2QBs. Because if I have one lineup, that's what I'm doing. And that's probably a lot of people listening to this are probably going to play one lineup. That's what a lot of people do. Okay. Well, I'm just asking questions, Jim. Okay. So let's have the Kidarius Tony discussion now so I can eat my crow later on. The reason I like Kidarius Tony... I will... I prefer if he gets a full practice in by Friday. The full by Friday band is back. I want him to get a full practice by Friday. If he does, I'll be very high on him. And as... The reason for that is... Well, let's assume he keeps his stupid awful terrible role, which he probably will. Let's assume that he keeps that role. The most relevant sample on the Chiefs, with no Miko Hartman and with Tony being healthy, is weeks 16 and 17, 18 and week 20. Those... That's the games where they didn't have Hartman, but they had Tony playing snaps. In that sample, Pacheco leads the team in yards, since scrimmage per game at 76. Travis Kelsey is second at 73. Miko Hartman in this... Or sorry, Kidarius Tony in this awful role is at 43.3. That ranks third in the team. And he has a much lower salary than Jiu-Jitsu. Ms. Schuster, Marquez Valdez-Scantling, lower than Jerick McKinnon. And I think that's pretty intriguing. So that's why I want to go that route with Kidarius Tony at 7,000. And he also is tied for second in the team in red zone chances per game at that time. Pacheco is first at 2.3. Tony has 1.8. Jerick McKinnon is 1.8. Kelsey is 1.5. So he has relatively okay touchdown odds in terms of the way he's used. He's getting yardage. I don't care how he's getting it, he's getting it. So to me, that's why at $7,000, if he gets in a full practice by Friday, he is not a great play because his role still stinks, but he's a very good play to save me salary. What is your read on Kidarius Tony? And then talk to me about Marquez Valdez-Scantling, Jiu-Jitsu Ms. Schuster, and Justin Watson as well. I was actually going to frame this as Scantling, or sorry, Valdez Scantling being 1,000 more, which is look, every penny goes a long way on this slate. We've had our issues with MBS in the past on this show because we've been very tempted by it. Let's say popularity numbers aside, you can pick 1. Is it MBS? Of these chiefs receivers? Of just MBS and Tony. I mean, we can throw Jiu-Jitsu in there, but he's his size. I'm picking Tony over all of them. It's a large part because of the equals outside corners are very good, and I don't want to touch them. That's, I respect them a lot. And MBS projects pretty well in terms of his ceiling, which means he'll probably carry a higher roster rate than some other guys. He's coming off a big game, low salary. I think there are enough red flags that I'd rather, I'd rank him last behind Jiu-Jitsu and Tony. Yeah. Is Tony the lowest you're willing to go to roster anyone on the slate? No. He's the lowest I prefer to go. So again, my default build, if I'm going two quarterbacks, having three guys between Tony and Jiu-Jitsu Schuster at 9,000. Like that's my preferred build. It means I can't get to Pacheco, and that stinks. But I'll Pacheco in most of my lineups, so I don't have a quarterback. So I can still get overweight on him, despite having him not fit in this build. I will have some Justin Watson, limited amounts of Quest Watkins, in order to get Pacheco in the two quarterback lineups. I will not use Skymore in a single lineup, I don't think. I will not use the H in a single lineup. So to me, it's really Watson, and Watson and Watkins are the primary guys I would go to. I got to keep it in check, because neither guy has a good role. But Tony is the lowest I want to go. Yeah, it's tough with the Chiefs on a full slate. It's especially tough on a small slate, because if you want to play Mahomes, you can do a 4-1 lineup with just Mahomes. Statistically, that's not the right way to go. But which I mean four Eagles, obviously. I'm more likely to go the reverse of four Chiefs with one Hertz, assuming he gets two rushing touchdowns. I like it. My thing though is Kelsey's market share is just so good, and everyone else is just an afterthought, that you're just banking on an outlier from any other Chiefs passcatcher. I don't like the matchup, like you said, for MBS individually. I'm not going to rehash the Kelsey thing. I think he's a fantastic play, even though his salary is fairly close to the quarterbacks. I think other than that, I can't sell anybody on another Chiefs passcatcher. I think I'm probably a little bit higher on MBS than you are, lower on Tony. I'll play both, but that's out of necessity rather than preference, and I always hate that. I think if you want to use betting odds, the guide for this kind of stuff, Kelsey's odds to score twice are plus 480, which is 17.2%. Dylan Hurts's odds are plus 550, which is kind of what I talked about with two action touchdowns. That's 15.4%. Their actual odds are lower than that, because sportsbook's got to make money. So their actual odds are lower than that. Cut that down. So Hurts's odds of actually hitting two touchdowns, probably 12, 13%, not 15%, maybe a little bit lower than that even. But then there's a pretty big drop off after A.J. Brown, Miles Sanders, and Pacheco. So I'm okay using those odds as a guide. Again, you don't need a Kelsey or a Miles Sanders to score twice to be relevant. Right. Don't make it seem as if I dislike Travis Kelsey. If I'm going with a one quarterback lineup, the odds that he is in there with Pacheco are very high, because that's part of the perks of going with one quarterback. If I go Mahomes, Kelsey Pacheco, 9,000 left for player, I put in Canarias, Tony put in one random eagle, I'm good to go. Like I'm fine with that. That's probably lineup I'll use. But I think that's the way I would look at that there. Like you're always going to miss out on something. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's the thing. In this game, I don't want to miss out on the quarterbacks. That's why I'm doing it. And I think that's a very, like, you're correct. I'm trying to play like the, not even outlier, but the reality of there are guys in this game who have big potential and floors to me, which we don't talk about floor. Well, single game, it's more acceptable. Like at their salary, like I know Kelsey's 14, but like, I think the Eagles past catchers have a lot of potential at their salaries. I see it in the Sims and I don't want to write off so easily, like prioritizing those guys, which is by necessity, something you have to do with two QB lineups. So speaking of touchdowns, though, I want to ask you, do you have any like strong indications on touchdown scores, whether it is Kelsey or anyone the whole way down the list of like values who you think have better roles who can score a touchdown? I mean, you know, you know my answer. Do I? It's Kaderius Tony. Oh, Tony. Okay. He was four to one on Fandall Sportsbook. He's now plus 370. So someone else's interest too. I find that very encouraging. If he confirms my priors, it's great. If it's not, it's stupid. So I would say Tony is the one guy who stands out there. I do think that there, you can make a case for kind of gain well in that regard in terms of having better odds because gain well does get a decent amount of red zone usage. Again, the 12 game sample I have where everybody's active. So I think this might have included the two games Boston Scott missed, but in that sample, gain well 1.7 red zone chances per game. That's a pretty good number. 34.7 yards in skirmish per game, which is disappointing, but like not terrible relative to Jiu-Jitsu Smith-Schuster, Marquez Valdez scantling. It's actually a fine number. So I would say gain well be the other guy I would turn to in terms of like decent dish touchdown odds there. Yeah. Sounds like the two names were just glossing it over. And I want to, who were like relevant are Jiu-Jitsu Smith-Schuster and Jerick McKinnon. Sounds like we haven't really given them the due diligence. And I guess also Miles Sanders in that regard too. So talk to me about those three. I think they're fine. I don't really love them. And I think that that just stresses like the drop off. We'll talk about this with golf too. I think there's a drop off from the quarterbacks, the second tier, but I think that second tier has a huge drop off from like the Kelsey Brown, Devonte Smith, Goddard tier to everyone else, which is why I want to make sure I'm not missing out too much on the difference makers in that tier too. For me Sanders, I don't think the workload is there to be a priority play, but something I did flag in the playoffs like was weirdly, you might want to play, if you play in Miles Sanders, you probably don't want to play Jalen Hurts because their overlap can come from like rushing touchdowns. I think like there are, again, there are situations where Miles Sanders scores, where the Eagles do lean on the rush game more. Again, I don't think that's the expectation based on precedent. I think the precedent is that they're going to play their game. But if he scores twice, obviously he's great. If he scores once, still going to be great at that salary. But my question to you then is, if you're playing a lot of Jalen Hurts, let's say just 10 Jalen Hurts lineups, how many of those have Miles Sanders? Is it zero because you don't want to miss out on the touchdowns? Or then you got to account for the fact that you're playing on-slot lineups, where Hurts throws touchdowns and Sanders rushes touchdowns, like any thoughts there where they chance each other out or correlate together? So I think that the pitch you could make for playing them together is that, so Miles Sanders in the conference championship scored twice in the first half, had a 53% snap rate. And then second half he's been banged up with a knee injury and they went to more gain well. And that worked well to salt the game away. I think you could make the stand of saying, okay, neutral game script, I think we know Miles Sanders more. Nothing to play for further. So if you give me 10 Hurts lineups, I have my homes in half, which means I won't have Sanders in those, I can't get back up there. So that leaves me five more. I probably have Sanders in two or three of those, I would say. So then... Because the thought process there is using both gets me access to, in that assumption, every yard and every touchdown they score, which I'm okay with doing. I'm okay doing that on a full slate, much less a single game slate. Yeah, I just wanted to ask because those are the kinds of questions you have to have, even if you're building one lineup, and I'm not trying to make it stressful because it's really easy to build a single game lineup and have some fun with it. But if you're really trying to think, you got to comprehend those correlations and the odds of Miles Sanders catching a touchdown pretty low. But that does not mean that they can't correlate well where Hurts has a very efficient first half passing and then they just play keep away to use that term. But then it's Sanders and not gain well. So you just have to tell yourself a story with every lineup you make and just say, here's why this lineup can work. Exactly. Make sure they make sense together, which is why I stress the thing before about not having a kick or tie to your MVP. Like stuff like that. The other guys you mentioned were Juju Smith-Suster and Jared McKinnon. I think McKinnon's role is pretty bad. And looking at projected roster rates, people still like him. I'm curious why. He was listed on the injured port Wednesday with ankles. Not one, but two ankles. He's old. Not to be just like us. Not to be agist. But yeah, I've been there. I've been there, Jared. And now you introduced Clyde Riddler, who I think is a bigger threat to McKinnon than he is to Pacheco. I don't need a threat to either personally. But like, you know. So is this a situation where, I mean, I guess it does seem like more people are on the eagles. And is this like a, well, the eagles are going to play from ahead. Therefore, they're going to go to McKinnon. With Juju, like he's just been rough. The four game sample I mentioned before, with Tony having a role, 28 yards per game from Juju in that span. Like ever since the concussion, like it's been bad. Yards for outrun numbers are garbage. So I'm going to use him. I am more likely to use him than I am to use Jared McKinnon, but I'm not seeking him out. He is not a priority to me. I'd raise him that way. I think I'd have to have Mahomes at MVP probably. Probably, yeah. Do you consider Juju? Yeah. Although I had one where I had hurts at MVP and I had Juju because I left 10, 5 on the table or 1500 on the table. So again, there's no one answer. There's infinite number of answers and you just have to figure out what questions you want answered and how to answer them. One question I want to answer, Brandon, is your top priorities. After considering salary, considering roster construction, considering roster rates, when you look at this slate and I give you one lineup, who are the guys you think you are most likely to include in that one lineup? Well, I'll say, I mean, we know we love the quarterbacks. Yeah, let's exclude them. Yeah, so I'm going to say Isaiah Pacheco. I think the salary is too nice there. And I don't think that he's going to be scripted out automatically, regardless of what happens. I honestly want to say, though, you're going to yell at me, but if I'm basing a lot based on our conversations, I want to prioritize Travis Kelsi and AJ Brown. Okay, together? Like, I want to make sure that I have, which is like a bet against the 2QB lineup. If you think 2QB lineups are super popular, I want to make sure that I have the guy with a 30-some percent target share in relevant games and Travis Kelsi, who also has all of the red zone work as well. And you have AJ Brown as being definitively head of Duvante Smith, correct? Yeah, just because I think that people will be down on AJ Brown. And I love Duvante Smith. One game upside, I'm going AJ Brown. I agree. So I think it's probably that second tier, I guess, that I'm higher on, but specifically Pacheco, Kelsi and Brown. My priorities are Pacheco and Tony. If I have one lineup, the odds Kaderious Tony is in there are astronomical. If he doesn't get in a full practice by Friday, then he will be a non-priority for me. It's unfortunate, but if he's active, it's practice reports matter. And I need him to be full at some point before I can get excited about him, even at $7,000. So if he's a full practice on Friday, he'll be a priority. If not, it's going to force me to probably lower how high I am on the two quarterback lineups. But one guy like definitively a priority for me. I think that's the way I'd say it. Any final thoughts for you, Brandon, before we close up shop for this podcast and this NFL season? Single game lineups are fun. They can be a little frustrating if you don't quite get it exactly right. But just be open to the honest enjoyment of sweating a lineup during the Super Bowl. Last time we get to do it, so I'm not playing USFL or XFL. Last time for me for a long time. But also like again, make sure your lineup makes sense. Can this five player parlay hit simultaneously? Ask yourself that. And if yes, cool, lock it in. If not, consider if you can make it better. Consider if you can make it more logical, make the puzzle pieces fit. Consider how much salary you're leaving the table to make sure you're not duped. Go through those thought processes. So it's a complex thing for sure, but it's worthwhile to go through those thought process. And fill things out. That's all that we have here for today on the HeatCheck Fantasy podcast. If you want some betting thoughts on the Super Bowl, we did go through literally everything on Covering the Spread. We had four separate podcasts on it because why not? Those are up on the Covering the Spread podcast feed. And over on the Fiends of the YouTube page, we talked about halftime show. We talked about anthem. We talked about player props, traditional stuff, matchups, all that. Over on the Covering the Spread podcast feed. Get that on the Covering the Spread podcast feed. But also make sure you're subscribed here to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed for PGA, NBA, MLB, coming back in the spring. USC and NASCAR for big events as well, all in the same place. Make sure you're subscribed there by searching for the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts. Brandon, people have questions for you on Twitter. Where can they find you there? I'm on Twitter at Kudula13, G-D-U-L-A-1-3. And I'm on Twitter at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the Fandwill Podcast Network at Fandwill Podcast. Want to thank you all for tuning in. Good luck to you with your Super Bowl lineups. Have fun at the game. Enjoy. We'll talk to you once again next year for PGA, but also next year for NFL. This has been the Heat Check Fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.