 All of the best games of week eight for NFL DFS are not on the main slate. We got that Cardinals Packers game tonight. We've got Cowboys Vikings. We've got Giants. Geez, we got a lot of good games this week. Most of them not on the main slate. So our job today is to break down the main slate specifically, try to identify which games great out well, which games can be close enough to keep things competitive, which spots we might not care about competitiveness and they just stack it anyway and see how we should play things. For this week, across NFL DFS. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire. 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 managing editor for numberfire.com. Brandon week eight is on the horizon. How are you doing today? I feel like the that vibing cat video. I don't know if you know that one. It's like there's some like some nice beats going on behind it and this cat's just like vibing like not not in its head. The the the owner's like kind of just like patting it and pushing its head down. But it looks like it's like chilling. That's how I felt whenever you were just saying all this stuff about the intro. I was just like nodding because I'm like, yeah, all this is true. All the games all the good games are off the main slate. We're just kind of like doing our best picking up like we're dealing with the scraps of the prime time schedule getting the better of us this week. So I mean, there are some good games here. There are some some like some stacks that I wouldn't normally have considered on a slate where we had more of the high profile quarterbacks. But I mean, as far as high profile fantasy quarterbacks go this week, you know, you can throw Tom Brady and Matt Stafford in there. But really it's Josh Allen and Jalen Hertz in terms of those rushing quarterbacks that we typically are good targeting or not good targeting, but primarily target. So we're going to talk about some sort of or at least I am some pocket passers more or like some low end guys. And so it just it feels like a strange week. But you know, that's the that's the fun of DFS is, you know, you can you can kind of have your process, but it is going to change depending on what you're offered. And so that's why I want to be more open minded this week. I think I have to be more open minded this week. And for anyone who listens to our PGA show, they know I love a good balanced lineup. This week might be a little bit more balanced than I typically play. So lots to go over. I think in the end, it's going to be a fun slate to think about. I just don't know if it's going to be a fun slate to sweat because I feel like there's a lot I can get wrong for sure. There definitely is. And then the quarterback discussion is pertinent because like you said, we tend to, you try to prioritize rushing quarterbacks. There aren't as many on this slate. There are a couple who grade out well, but like for the most part it is identifying which pocket passers have the best path to upside, whether it be via a good game environment, via just touchdown variants and stuff like that, whatever it may be. But also we have a lot of running backs this week, which is kind of a deviation from what we've had. I was looking at perfect lineups from this year so far. Unless you count Cordero Patterson, there has not been a week where there has been a running back in the flex so far in a perfect lineup. Patterson's made it twice and there were two other backs in both those. So like there's kind of been two, but like weird year for running backs so far. I think that might change this week given the number of running backs we have. We'll talk about prioritization of running backs, talk about which quarterbacks we like despite the fact that we need pocket passers and more in just one second. But firstly, a quick reminder that we do have a listener leak for this podcast and across the FanDuel podcast network to enter that. Go to FanDuel.com slash league slash listener league, $5 entry, three entries max. There is no rake for this contest. So FanDuel.com slash league slash listener league to enter FanDuel.com slash league slash listener league, $5 entry, three entries max. And again, there is no rake. So FanDuel makes nothing off of this contest. So go get yourself some overlay over there. Hey football fans, the NFL season is in full swing and FanDuel and Guinness have teamed up to make your Sunday night that much better introducing the Guinness Halloween challenge, daily fantasy contest plus last touchdown bonus. Here is how it works. Make your best five player roster for this Sunday's match for the Cowboys and the Vikings while staying under the sour cap, compete for a chance for a share of $20,000 in cash prizes. If that's not enough, any lineup that rosters the player in the MVP slot who scores the final touchdown of the game win a share of $5,000 bonus cash, Sunday night will be here before you know it. So head to FanDuel.com slash Guinness Halloween, denture day must be 21 plus to enter. Please drink responsibly Guinness draft stout imported by the Agio beer company USA, New York, New York for more details of FanDuel.com or download the FanDuel fantasy app, eligibility restrictions apply. Let's dive into our slate overview for this week eight main slate. And again, I think Brandon, it comes down to identifying the quarterback is upside and how we want to prioritize running backs. But the other thing for me is there are some process oriented game stacks available on this slate, which is a bit of a deviation from what we had last week. So what's the slate overview? What's standing out most when you're looking at this slate may top down level. Yeah, basically that basically what I already did as a bad co-host and kind of went over my slate thoughts already, but I asked you for it. I think you just asked me how I was doing, which is always a hard question to answer. So I probably just panicked and Fair point. Yeah. I think one of the it's like along, along those same lines, but I entered this season fully planning just to target the high variance quarterbacks the guys who can run for 60 yards and a touchdown and really just kind of change things. And in terms of a more bankable approach, because there's always going to be like one quarterback who gets like 26, 27 at like a low salary, but you can't really nitpick that and say, well, I should have just stacked like that guy. Cause you're looking at, you know, one of 12 or 14 quarterbacks that might get there. And so like that's why you and I have been primarily focusing on the upper tier quarterbacks. I think the question this week is was quarterbacks have upside? Yes, but what are the odds that Josh Allen puts up a performance that you just kind of like had to have? What about Jalen Hertz against the Lions in a dome? I know Jalen Hertz, like people just scrutinize Jalen Hertz for his passing, but that he, I hate saying this, but like he gets there and he puts up these fantasy points because of his rushing ability and his rushing volume. So if you say, you know what, I think that the blots in effect for the bills. And so Josh Allen is just going to get to like 25 and it doesn't matter. Jalen Hertz is not good enough to take advantage. He's going to be stuck at 25 as well. And then Tom Brady, Matt Stafford do have some upside, but it comes from multiple, multiple touchdowns. So if you say like, hey, none of these guys are really gonna, like I don't see them destroying the slate, then I'm going to take some savings and look at maybe like a Joe Burrow, more specifically, Ryan Tannhill, Carson Wentz. I'm going to talk about the Falcons offense. I think Matt Ryan is not the worst play this week. I will sell you on some Matt Ryan. I can tell you that much. Nope. Nope. You're, I think you're, yeah, you're thinking too much of that week. And I say this in my notes too. I'm still haunted by that week one game. Matt Ryan's been very good since week four. Nope. No, you're going to talk me into that. You can talk me into some of his players. We can talk about that. But I think the key thing for me on this slate is I don't like any of the value wide receivers. I don't like any of them. Like I did write up one for my player picks because I know I'll have to be down there at some point, but like I think goes back to what you said in the intro where balance will be more in play for miss, for me this week than usual, maybe not so much at running back. Like I do still like the stud running backs and I do like some of the value plays, which is not a balanced approach, but at wide receiver, tight end, quarterback, I think balance will win out there. For running back, maybe it's like one guy at each tier, stud mid range value, like that kind of thing. But for wide receiver, I think the goal is to not have too much exposure to any one individual guy below 6,000 because like there are so many paths. So I talk about paths of failure. I think that the paths to success for a lot of those guys are very narrow and that's by concern for the value wide receiver. So I think that trying to identify ways I can be balanced and avoid that low range of wide receiver will be a key for me for this week. Let's talk now about some injuries impacting this week eight main slate. Miles Sanders likely to miss this week due to an ankle injury. Kenneth Gainwan, Boston Scott, split work from last week when Sanders went down. Now Jordan Howard likely to be brought up from the practice squad. So are you going at anybody here or does the threat of a committee push you away? Pushes me away. Kenny Gainwell was involved. He's been involved in this offense to some degree before the injury. So you would think he's the, I mean, if I'm considering one, it's just Gainwell for sure that much is known. It's a matter of, is there enough from him even at that salary of 5,900 to make it worthwhile? He was someone that we talked about because a lot of value opportunities opened up at running back. But there's just, I don't think there's enough of a path for him to get to 18 fan dual points to make it worthwhile. And I think that other value backs have a little bit of a better shot to get there. Yeah, I'd agree with that part. I think that Elijah Mitchell specifically has a better shot to get to 18 or whatever. So that's kind of the main thing and the main hang up for me with this one with regards to getting to Gainwell. I do think that like I am willing to consider him and would not be shocked if I used him because he's the guy most likely to get the kind of usage we want, specifically in the passing game. I'm not sure if that'll translate to goal line work. My fear would be that he wants to being JD McKissick where there's not a lot of rushing. We get the targets, but like, that's a good path to 10 points. It's not a great path to 15, 20. And that's my concern there. Because Boston Scott did get some goal line work. Gainwell was, he was out touching or out opportunity-ing. Boston Scott, five to three while that game was, or sorry, five carries three targets compared to three carries no targets for Scott while that game was somewhat competitive. So I'd give Gainwell the 1A for sure. My concern is that it's a 1A and not a one. And that's the issue that I get with Ken at Gainwell. I mean, I'll nitpick that and I'll say he's the one just because nobody else is in that same tier. It's just that his one is not enough for me. So like, same thing, but just kind of a little bit different. Cause like, I would see that he's very clearly the majority back, but just kind of subbing out inside the 20s. And it's like a Chase Edmonds thing. It's applying to the, yeah, Chase Edmonds is a good counter bring up. Another thing too is it's kind of like the walk through you went with, with CEH and Daryl Williams, where, okay, if CEH were the sour, I'd use him. Here it was like, you're upgrading CEH cause Daryl Williams got more goal on work. Here you're taking Miles Sanders and downgrading him. Would I use a downgraded Miles Sanders 59 when I could use Elijah Mitchell? Probably not. So I think that's the, the hang up for me. Also, I don't, I don't know. Just cause I never look at this team in this backfield, but we have another back Zach Moss at 6,100. Do you like him this week at all? Cause he keeps kind of emerging for me if within a context of like these value backs, I almost feel like I'd rather play Zach Moss than Gainwell. And I don't, I don't think I've ever played Zach Moss in DFS in my life. I have. Well, not on a full slate, but I've played a lot of single game Zach Moss and it's never gone well. If you're asking me what I'd rather use than Gainwell, I think yes. Cause like he gets some passing game work. I don't think we'd talk about that, but like he's had four targets in the past two games. Snap rates pretty good. Should be a positive script against Miami. I think if we're talking relative to Gainwell, I go Moss. Would I go Moss or Mitchell? I think I'd go Mitchell, but it's pretty close, right? Yeah, I think, yeah, I think it's close. I think at a certain point we have to, you can't just look at the workload. You have to look at offensive expectations. And so I just, like it's strange. And I'm probably not going to play a lot of these value backs anyway. And I'll probably like a dummy play the guy attached to the lower implied team total with Mitchell rather than Moss, but I think it's close. And it just speaks to like the depth of running back we have of the options. But I know that you and I are going to be building around the guys above this salary tier anyway. For the most part, yes. I'll have sprinkles here and I'll be going to Mitchell and Moss when I need to, but like they're not going to be the core place for me this week. Antonio Brown was on crutches during Wednesday's practice to the Bucks, meaning he is probably going to sit this week. Rob Bronkowski though, should be back this week. We'll talk more about the Bucks in the bookmaker section. The Browns still super banged up. Nick Chilin's back. Baker Mayfield got in a full practice Wednesday, but Jarvis Landry set out due to a knee injury. They're facing Pittsburgh this week. Are you willing to use any Browns in this game against Pittsburgh? Very doubtful. This is one of the games that I would probably just cross off entirely, aside from maybe Najee. The salary's high, but the workload is just, it makes it viable, but probably not a whole lot of exposure here. Yeah, I don't think any Browns make the cut for me, honestly. We'll talk about Chubb and Najee in the trend section in terms of like ranking the studs, but like they're not going to grade us super high on that list just because the game is pretty bad. Tra Taylor was designated to return from IR this week from the Texans. That does not mean he will play, but it does mean that there is at least a chance he plays. I'd probably say a pretty good chance personally. So let's talk hypotheticals here. How would Taylor starting impact your view of the Rams and potentially Brandon Cooks in this game? Would like the Rams more because that game would much more likely stay competitive. Probably not going to stay competitive if Taylor's out and that's a problem that we have with the Rams this week, but I've been kind of in on Brandon Cooks. I haven't played him, but I'm just like waiting for the right time to be able to play him. It's going to be a quarterback dependent, but you have to love playing him in that Houston stadium in a revenge game. So... Well, it's a revenge game both against the Rams, but also like your revenge game against his own team. Apparently he's like he's P-worded at the Texans. He's been tweeting. So... Is this a revenge game? Revenge squeaky wheel. I think like we might get an Interal Thomas situation where like he scores a touchdown, stares directly at like the, at Nick Casario up in the GM's box and gives him the double barrel middle fingers. Like we might get one of those and I'm kind of into that. So I'm not... This is totally... Sorry, good. This is very facetious and I want to make sure that's clear. I'm not like prioritizing Brandon Cooks because he's mad, but like, you know, I think it's fine. You could justify prioritizing him because the team will have to throw. He has three games with at least 11 targets, six games then with at least seven targets. I know the efficiency's not there, but the salary's low of 6,000 and he's really the only piece you can bring back with. Although I guess we should maybe at least touch on the Houston running backs with Mark Ingram gone. Okay, so Mark Ingram was traded to the Saints this week. Let's talk about the Texan side first and we'll talk about the Saints side here. Are you willing to use anybody in that committee or would you rather get hit by a bus? I'm just very thankful because in the Dynasty League with all the Number Fire guys, I have David Johnson. He was one of my start-up picks. Did I trade him to you? No, I didn't. No, he was one of my... I think I took him with the tail end of the first round in the start-up, but... Well, I trade him for Josh Jacobs, so... I'm joyous because we'll have a little bit more of a pulse, but these are not the types of plays you make in DFS long-term. So even at 5100, I'm not there. I don't know what optimizers will look like. I don't know what his baseline value will be at Number Fire, but it's not going to be enough for me to want to play him. So, but hey, maybe like he or Lindsey will just be an optimizer favorite this weekend. I hope so. It'd be great. Yeah. I wouldn't be shocked if they are, but I don't know, no desire for me. You could not pay me to roster them. That could be the wrong process, but I also don't care. As far as the Rams go, let's talk about that side here really quickly. Because again, if Trot Taylor plays, it does in from the Rams. The problem I'm having is that nobody outside of Cooper cup is getting high leverage targets. Tyler Higby is getting the red zone work. I love him. But like, it's really just Cooper cup. He's 92. So I think they're like, cup is good, but like I'm having a hard time talking myself into Robert Woods. Van Jefferson think is defensible given his salary, but like it's kind of just cup and Higby for me on the Rams outside of maybe Stafford. No, Henderson. Oh, sorry, I forgot to. I meant the past catchers. Yeah. Henderson is fine. Henderson, he bugs me, but I'll use him. So this could be a me think, but I kind of think he's not great. You mean he hasn't had more than, he hasn't gotten to 90 rushing yards yet. And he hasn't gotten more than, oh, sorry, let me close up here. I'm coming to, you know, spew out dumb takes. I should probably back them up with some data. So he's gotten good opportunity. Yeah. But he has not had more than 116 yards in scrimmage yet this year, which means if he gets you a touchdown, it's 17.6 Fando points, not counting the points for a reception. I kind of want more yardage juice. So his best game was against the Giants when he had the two touchdowns. That was 23.7. Other than that, he has not topped 16.4 and he scores a lot. So he gets you to like that 15, 17 range. So yeah, I mean, maybe it's time that we take a long look at, I feel like there are great comps of guys who play like 80% of the snaps, like in years past and just kind of do this. But I can't know. Nobody's really coming to mind because you're the comp guy, but I got you. Okay. So it just feels underwhelming. Actually, there are no great comps here. Um, this season probably not, but he, I mean, he is, so here's a thing despite saying all that, he's number of fires, top projected value at running back. And I don't disagree with that. Right, correct. I just like, I get weird vibes. I don't know. Like yeah, again, I don't like using like anecdotal stuff. I don't like using sentiment feelings. I want to use data, but like I get weird vibes because like the efficiency is not great and it's been not great over a large ish sample. And it makes me a little uncomfy. I'll use the word uncomfy to describe it. I could see that. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's tough because like we're always looking for guys who, um, like play 80 plus percent of snaps. Right. But it just is kind of gross. He's getting, so yes, 69 and a half rushing yards per game. His expected rushing yards are 71.9 according to next-gen stats. So like definitely not getting you any more, um, than he should be. Yeah. Henderson or Cordero Patterson? Patterson? I do too. That's really scary, but I agree with you. What? I'm going to talk about the Falcons and one of my trends. I'm not using their quarterback, man. Stop trying to make me use their quarterback. We're going to love it. It's like, I'm not doing it. So quit asking. We're going to love three of their, their, uh, I'll say pass catchers with Patterson. Oh, you're not going to really, really pits in Patterson. I was like, who's the third one? I forgot their, their disgusting rookie tight end who is probably the best head in the slate. Cool job, Jim. Okay. So with the Saints, does Mark Ingram being there worry with Camara at all or no? He might not even be active. I'm already worried about Camara to begin with just because the, I just don't love this offense. I like the offense when it's doing what it did on Monday. I just don't like him against the bucks as much. Yeah. I mean, and if I'm not mistaken, um, that's going to sound like a really dumb thing. I could have pulled this up earlier, but he did get a bunch of targets. I know he's been getting targets. He's got 19 over the past few games. He's been, I think he got a lot of targets against the bucks, but didn't do a whole lot with them last year. Don't quote me on that. I should have known that. But, um, I mean, the 19 targets are the reason that I would still consider him at 8400. The real thing though is like who, if we're going to want to play Tom Brady in the box, who else from the Saints would you even consider? Yeah. I think they're prone to throw more, which could increase interest in like Marquez Calloway. It could increase interest in Marquez Calloway. Yeah. But like even his target shares kind of stink. So even if they throw more, like, does it matter? I don't think so. Like Trayquan could get more work this week too. So I don't know. It's a weird game. We'll talk about it in, uh, the bookmaker section. Jerry Judy, don't call me Doug. Jerry, don't call me Doug Judy is making his return for the Broncos this week. Pretty bad game. It's a low total. The total did increase though. I will say that once 44 and a half. We got Judy and Coralyn Sutton. Very good players. Washington's defense. Not great. So are you taking any swipes that the Broncos passing game here? Yeah. I like Judy, spoiler alert. He's one of my loves at the salary of 6,000. He's, I could score and check my notes, but he's like pop four and targets per route. I know it's a small sample for him because he hasn't played a lot, but like you don't throw someone. I think it's seven targets on 23 routes. You don't treat someone like that. Three deep targets too. And then like just ignore him. So not the best game, but we're scrounging for value at receiver just because he doesn't have a five to start a salary. Doesn't mean he doesn't fit that. So I mean, I will probably have very, very minimal exposure to receivers in the 5,000 arrange and having Judy right at 6,000 helps me. So I'm in on Judy probably would just take the savings there compared to Cortland Sutton, who I love too, but Judy or cooks. So it came down to those two for my, for my third love at receiver. I think they're both in play, but if it's Taylor, maybe cooks. If, but if not, it's Judy, I think it's close. And I think again, with those two options, because I would consider Brandon cooks regardless, just because I would, I could see him getting 12 targets and Oh, he's the Daryl Henderson of wide receivers. I figured it out. Okay. Gets volume, but doesn't do a whole lot with it. Cause it's not cause it is him. It's his quarterbacks fault. Daryl Henderson's is because Sean McFay trails off into incoherent babbling. But I think that they're, they're, they're the same. Yeah. I, so I'd probably lean Judy, but both are, both are viable for me. I lean Judy, but both are viable for me as well. There we go. Love it. Okay. Final one here is TY Hilton didn't practice again on Wednesday due to a quad issue. We'll talk to that one in the bookmaker section, which we're on to right now. Let's talk about what the bookmakers are saying for this week. Highest total on the slate is for that TY Hilton game between the Colts and the Titans. It is a 51 point total open at 48. Hey, should have listened to the Monday show. We told you to vet that. Here we go. It's a two point spread. India's favorite by two. It was Tennessee by one. That's not across like key, key numbers, but like it's interesting that it's moved three points in their favor. It's in a dome. It is a traditional game stack in terms of spread and total. Brandon, how stacked this game? Yes. Okay. Probably all the ways. Deep for the passing games of the backs or combo plate? Just all honest. Like, I mean, this is the game that now I will say that this game has like pace concerns, gas rate concerns, but relative to the other games on the slate, I can't really hate on it too much. I couldn't even probably narrow down at this point a favorite stack. Both quarterbacks are in play and that's a big checklist for a big check on the list for us is whether you can play both quarterbacks and we can. And we have some relative value at pass catcher with Michael Pittman Jr. at 6,600. AJ Brown, 7,600 very much in play there too. It's probably just those two at receiver. Oh, Leo. I mean, maybe that's pretty high for his current state is what I would say. Okay. So both backs, both quarterbacks, both of the top two receivers, I'd say. You have a preference between Taylor and Henry relative to salary? Probably. Probably Taylor. I think I need salary this week. I can't really, I can't justify punting too much at tight end. Just because we have some really viable guys at the top with pits. Right. Gronk if he's good to go, Gisicki, Hawkinson. So I'd probably lean Taylor and I even in a like a cash game like our head to head, I might not be able to get to Derek Henry. That does not mean I'm not going to play him in tournaments because I definitely will. Oh yeah, for sure. I think that he's like, I think he's a hair above Taylor relative to even considering salary because I can get to a balanced lineup with Henry. I know it's kind of contradictory, but like I can get there. I was building him out today. The issue that I have with Henry over Taylor, I think that my optimal game stack might be Tannehill, Taylor and AJ Brown because I'm worried about the Colts pass right in the red zone. They've run, I think like 21 red zone plays the past three weeks. And I think 16, 15 or 16 have been Jonathan Taylor runs and a couple of in Carson Wentz sacks. Like that's my concern of the Wentz is that they're very, very, very run heavy in the red zone. So I think my optimal stack is Tannehill, Brown, Taylor, but I also would still rank Henry over Taylor in a vacuum. Like as a one off, I'd rather get to Taylor than Henry, but I like both a lot. I think that might be my top two backs this week potentially. Yeah, very easily could be. It's, I don't know. I mean, it just feels like it's the game. It has passed to be underwhelming. Yeah. It is a divisional matchup, which always gets me a little bit. It's actually a repeat as well, because they played in week three. So yeah, it's a bit unnerving, but it's not going to be enough for me to talk myself out of it entirely. Yeah, I think that's where I'm at as well. But I think it's not. Is it the number one game stack for you despite those concerns? I mean, I don't know what else would even really be in the conversation. Eagles Lions kind of. It's a one quarterback game. Is it? Just kidding. So that's a one quarterback game. Are there any other two quarterback games other than this? Pittsburgh Cleveland? No, Carolina. Are you sure Pittsburgh Cleveland's a no? Pretty tempting quarterbacks there. Could be Rams Texans if we get no. Tyrod, but I don't think I go there. Absolutely not. I can't use Jamis. So that's a no on that one. Can't use Mac Jones. So yeah, it's only two quarterback game on this slide. So I think from that standpoint, it has to be the top stack. And from a process perspective like high total tight spread, it makes sense too. But the pace thing is good to point out. I'd agree. One total that's been dropping a bit is the Saints Bucks one. It opened at 15 and a half. It's now 49 and a half spread is wide into five and a half. The good thing is we have a better idea of where the ball is going with Antonio Brown, likely being out. So where does this game rank for you from a game stacking perspective? I think it I hate stacking the box when they have more players healthy. It's only Gronk. It's not like they were still throwing to OJ Howard and Cameron Bray. So I don't think it's actually I don't think he matters. I think it's it's Brown that matters. Yeah. But you know that he's going to get red zone targets. Sure. But like, you know. I don't care. You don't you don't care. Like last week, Bray and OJ Howard combined for seven in the game that Antonio Brown missed that Gronk played earlier this year. He got seven. So like it's not I don't think it you know, I don't think he needs to move the needle too much. It's more so Brown moving the needle. So you asked me where this game lined up in terms of stacks. Yeah. I would probably say Philly Detroit is second. Okay. I feel pretty good with that. Okay. This one might be third. Okay. I think I agree. Yeah. I think this one I think this was probably third. Godwin's salary is still good at 7,200. Evan's 75 still good. Yep. Brady is one of the QBs I'm considering, which is not like a because I'm going to shock anyone who's like listening to us for the first time. But we just not really the type of player I play. And like he didn't do four touchdowns. Unless we didn't even get the 25 fandal points. That's for like a cash game I could see like the high floor here. But and I know that he's gotten to like 28, 29 early on in the season, but it takes him four touchdowns to get there. So it's a matter of do you think he's going to throw four touchdowns or not? Maybe. Given their pass rate in the red zone, very, very well could. I very I put a lot of thought into making in one of my loves at quarterback. I did make him one. Okay. I did make him. I love a quarterback because they throw a lot in the red zone. This game will be competitive, which means you're not going to get a four touchdown game. That's 24 fandal points because the yardage will be higher in this situation. The bucks are the Saints very good against the rush. I think that that juices things up as well. Easier to stack right now with no with no brown. I think looking at Godwin and Evans, you're going to see all week the numbers of Evans versus, uh, versus a lot of more, like that's going to pop up everywhere you turn this week. I think like it's decently legitimate. So like I'm okay going Godwin over Evans, but I think it'd be very, very, very, very, very, very foolish not use Mike Evans at all as a result of those numbers because Mike Evans is very good. He's tied to Tom Brady, which has not always been the case. So it's okay to downgrade him, but do not avoid him as a result of the marshall line. Yeah. So I mean, we feel pretty good. Well, we didn't mention for that yet. Like Lenny, where does he stack up for you among the mid range guys? Yeah. Okay. So I have him above Henderson. That might be stupid. Maybe I should go Henderson above Lenny. Um, let me pull up my sheet here. Um, actually, I probably should go Henderson above Lenny just because like path of least resistance, right? Yeah. I mean, it's, it's a 500. It does go a long way, but 500 is doable. Um, are we including Swift in this discussion or no? We can. Okay. So I probably go Swift, Patterson, Lenny, Henderson, Nixon. It's probably very dumb ranking. Why? I don't know. I basically feel uncomfortable for some reason. It gets hard, um, to like we know Joe Mixon has maybe like, are they going to need to ride Joe Mixon against the deaths this week? Probably don't have to. Yeah. So that's a little bit like he's, he's probably going to be, I'm going to be lower on Mixon, but then I could see like a two touchdown, you know, 90, 100 yard game from him. I would probably say Patterson might be my number one. Above Swift. If I'm factoring in Swift, probably Swift, Patterson, Henderson. I should go Henderson above for net. Yeah, I think you're right. I think I should go Henderson above for net. You're right. You're right. Stop overthinking it, Jim. Just do it. Um, just the matchups pretty tough for Lenny. I love the workload still, but that's enough for all. Put him a little bit lower. Um, I'll get back on him later. Just not. I don't have to force it this week in a rough spot. It just drops off after for net. So yeah. Yeah. I think that he could, he could get a little bit of a popularity bump for anyone who's like looking for a running back and they have just 72, like that's very specific. But yeah, it could happen. I think Damian here, it's going to catch a lot this week. That's true from a popularity perspective. So maybe that helps for net, but um, I don't think any, any of these running backs, like I don't, for nets draft percentage is not something I'm factoring in. I don't think it's going to, it's just more of a, it was more about the, the tier. Are we in agreement that Swift and Patterson are one too? Um, I think so. I've honestly, like I've been in on Swift so much. I haven't. That like it feels like, hey, maybe I need to, maybe I need to back off, but like now it's dumb to back off at this point. Cause his workload is getting better. And he's finally facing a bad defense, which you'll talk about in the trend section. How about that? What about the, the Saints past catcher is not named Alvin Camara? Um, well, I guess that we should talk about Camara too. So the magic was really tough. I'll talk about him more in trends, but like what are your thoughts on Camara? And then I guess it's kind of just Marquez Callaway, the guy is getting like noteworthy volume for this team right now. Yeah, I'm not going to, that's why like, I don't love this game more is just our, our ways to bring it back with the Saints or basically just Camara. Last year he played the Bucks three times. He ran 13 times per game for 47 yards on average, 6.7 targets per game, 15.5 Fandal points, went over 20 Fandal points once, but other than that was at 12 and 13.4. It's a different offense now I know, but like I could point to the targets getting better the past two games and say, Hey, he's just going to see like 12 targets. And that for us is worth about 24 carries. But if he doesn't, and whether he does or doesn't, like the touchdown equity, touchdown expectations for this team, like not the highest, their implied team total is 22, the total is 49 and a half. But their implied team total is four and a half point. Is it four and a half, five and a half? It was four and a half. Did it move back to five and a half? I'm just on number fires heat map so. That only pulls every 45. That's back to five and a half. You're right. Cool job, Jim. Cool job. So I mean, that's like on the low end of implied team totals. I was thinking of the Patriots Chargers game. That's why. Okay. Sorry. Proceed. So that's 10th lowest. I just feel like this is not the best stack. It's a divisional matchup too. So Marcus Callaway, I think is viable as like a 10 to 15% type guy. And I think that he'd be the first run back option I'd have outside of Camara. I think that Camara works as a bring back for game stacks. What I would say though, is that I'm going to have Brady lineups. I am receptive to having no bring back in those Brady lineups just because I think there's a very real chance that they just kind of take care of business here you know, take care of business here because the same spread things out. It's not enough to justify it. So I would say my options for Brady bring backs are Camara, Callaway, and then Blank. Yeah. I mean, you know, we always want to look at like the overall trends in the data. And that says, like I looked at stack probabilities and whenever a quarterback puts up a big game, the opposing quarterback actually has a higher rate of like chance to put up a big game. The opposing wide receiver one has a bigger chance, but that only kind of factors in if it makes sense. Is a wide receiver one? Yeah. And like I do a lot of single games analysis and I'll talk about, you know, relevant hit rates and stacks for like tonight's game and Thursday's game probably. But the trends only matter if like the teams in play actually fit. Like if there's not a stud receiver, it doesn't really matter what like the receiver MVP numbers are that kind of stuff. So it's one thing I'm trying to be better at is I always want to look at the data and not kind of assume that we know like what we say is true because sometimes that's not always the case. But I also want to make sure that the overall trends aren't being applied like blindly and that I have to stack the Saints if I want to play Brady or not stack Brady because I feel like I can't bring it back. Yeah. With Callaway, the checklist at wide receiver is they need to be able to get 85 yards or two touchdowns need to get both in one game this year. So I think he works and is someone I will use my level of confidence will be low and my exposure will not be all that high, mostly relegated to game stacks, maybe some one-offs if I need the salary savings. Final game to talk about here in the bookmaker section is Patriots versus Chargers spread is four and a half there that had been at five and a half most of the week, but then shifted to four and a half overnight total is 48 and a half. The Chargers are coming off a buy. Are you looking to stack them here? And are you willing to use anybody on the Patriots? I think the easier question to start with is the Patriots. I would consider Hunter Henry because he's a tight end. He's had a ton of touchdowns, which kind of implies that he won't score eventually. But it is a revenge game for Hunter Henry. And who else from the Patriots can you play? I'm not going to Damian Harris. As you pointed out on Monday, his workload didn't change. His efficiency changed last week and that got him the bigger game. But if that's not going to be... And the concern is that the Chargers will let you run on them. But if Harris doesn't pour in two touchdowns, I don't think he's going to do a whole lot to make a difference with the two touchdowns. He got to 24.3 Fandall points. It's the same question we used with other similar backs. What are the odds he makes me regret not using him? It's almost zero. This is... Last week was his best case outcome, basically. I just think the Chargers are going to be pretty solid in this game. And that gains it a lot too. Because I think that Damian Harris and Elijah Mitchell are basically clones, except one team is three and a half point favorites. I think they should fare about eight. And the other team is a four and a half point dog. And one guy also saves you $1,200 in salary. So why would I use Harris when I can get his clone for $1,200 less in a better script? Yeah. So I think for me, if I'm bringing it back, it's just going to be Hunter Henry. But this also might be another spot we just talked about with the Bucks, where you just don't bring it back, but don't let that talk you out of stacking the Chargers if you like it. Herbert's not going to be a core play for me. I could see the case. He's probably in the consideration set to be one of the better quarterback plays. Uh, for me this week, we know where the ball's generally going with this team. Right. I could keep banging my head against the wall and playing Keenan Allen. But I mean, Keenan Allen definitely in play for like a head to head sort of vibe at $6,900. Do you prefer him or Ridley and two guys who have been? Ridley. Okay. I agree. I think so much more yardage upside. Yeah. I think the Chargers mostly makes sense for one offs. I like Mike Williams for one offs. I'm okay with Allen. Eckler is kind of over salaried. I don't know if that's like heresy. I think he's kind of over salary though. So like, I think to me they're more so like a one off type team than a game stack in part because like, I just don't really want to bring it back to any of the Patriots. One thing to note is part of the reason we had talked about Hunter Henry on Monday was because Johnny Smith got banged up. He was limited in practice Wednesday. So probably going to play. And I think that does matter a bit. I mean, he's been playing anyway. So like Hunter Henry's route rate, his workload's been, he's been with Johnny Smith with Johnny on the field. You're right. I don't know. It's just an underwhelming game. So I think that for me, it's mostly Chargers like one offs. I like them as one offs, but it's hard to bring it back. And I think that that might be enough where I don't necessarily go Herbert either. Yeah. So this one, and I sound like I'm more on here, but I'm pretty sure it says the highest. I haven't looked at pace enough this week just because I don't think it's enough to dictate where I'm going. But this game, I think has the highest projected. Yeah. Highest average pace for me. But my concern honestly is the Chargers will let you run on them. And the Patriots might just like grind the clock down by running the ball. And so they might be snapping the ball pretty quickly, but they also might just keep the clock moving. So, and you'd have to think the Patriots know enough that they got to kind of play some keep away here. So this game is not really, despite a great pace, despite really good pass rates overall, despite, you know, studs, I would say on the Chargers side. Not really a game I'm going to have as that much exposure to. I think I'd agree that outside of the one off to the Chargers side. Yeah. But the pace thing you bring up is fair too. Let's move down to the trends and talk about those and talk about, I think the game we agreed was the second best game to stack on the slate. That is the Lions versus the Eagles. And part of the reason why I think this one is enticing for stacking, despite the fact that both teams are very underwhelming, is that the Lions have faced a pretty tough schedule so far. So you're going to run through that and then we'll talk about this game as a whole. Yeah. And it's a dumb game, which we talked about feels like months ago. But that leads to a higher expectation to overperform projections. You got to like that. But yeah, I was digging into this game and I was surprised because it didn't, I didn't quite realize it, but some vindication maybe for your boy, Jared Goff, unless she's no longer your boy in public. I don't know. Not in public. That's a slack take. Okay. It's a sot, slack only take. Okay. I'm not about to claim, despite what I say, that the Lions offense is going to be fantastic. I'm not saying that Jared Goff is like a great quarterback play, but it's really noteworthy that they have not faced a single team currently worse than 15th in number fires adjusted past defense metrics so far this season. That does not mean that at the time they played only top half defenses, as the sample grows, these defenses have all been top half now that the Lions have faced. So that's like to face every opponent being a top half unit in terms of adjusted past defense is, I think, relevant and noteworthy for an offense that probably not going to do a whole lot against tough opponents. But factoring in opponent adjustments, Jared Goff has still fallen short of expectation as a passer, according to my data, but his adjusted passing efficiency isn't that horrible. It's down there with guys like Jalen Hertz and Ben Roethlisberger who they're very different fantasy performers. I'm not saying we would play Ben Roethlisberger in this situation, but I think the question is would we write off like the Steelers offense in this situation and probably not. So I think that the point that I'm trying to make is that Jared Goff has been good enough to keep this offense relevant in this particular matchup. They're playing indoors, like I said, it's the weakest past defense that they'll have faced all season. The Eagles are 21st by number fires adjusted metrics against the pass. And Jared Goff, if you look at his splits against non top 10 adjusted past defenses, so three games there, it's got a passing that expected points per dropback mark of 0.05. That's about expectation once adjusted for the opponents he's faced. Just 222 yards 0.7 touchdowns. So like, not amazing. I'm not saying this is about Jared Goff, but the Eagles themselves, if you look at their defense have faced some polarizing competition, Patrick Mahomes, Tom Brady, Dak Prescott, Derek Carr, but then also Jimmy Garoppolo, Matt Ryan and Sam Darnold. They've kept the latter three who are probably more comparable to Jared Goff. Under 200 passing yards with two total passing touchdowns in this game. So there is still a path to the Eagles being good enough to limit bad pastors, but getting burned by those side pastors that they've faced. But the overall game environment is like good enough where I want to play Deandre Swift. I want to play T.G. Hawkinson. I think that this game has enough legs to go over the total. So I'm in on this game. I'm not in on Jared Goff again. I need to make that clear, but I think he can do enough here to make this game worthwhile, put Jaylen Hertz back in play, make us go to Dallas Scott or consider Devontae Smith, because the lines are 30 second against the downfield pass. So it sounds like we both like this game. What do you think about this one overall? Yeah, I think it's pretty solid just because like I haven't been as high on Swift as you've been traditionally because like expectations to the offense have been so low, but part of that's because of the teams they faced. So now that that obstacle is removed and his workload has honestly gotten a bit better recently, then like what hangups do I have because that workload is sick? You know, looking at guys in the main slate, if you include the slow ramp up, he has 26 adjust opportunities per game that is behind Henry, Najee, Camara, Cordero in his most relevant sample, Fournette and Cleal Herbert in their most relevant samples, but like, you know, not all those guys are in easier or tougher or easier matchups like Swift has this week. So I think Swift is really, really solid comparing him to Henderson. Like we were talking about the lack of yardage upside for Henderson. Swift does not have that issue. He's had a hundred plus yards four separate times now. Henderson's gotten there twice and Swift had 144 last week in part due to one long play, which is worth noting, but like good players are better able to generate long plays. So I think that that's that's enough where I like him a lot. I think that like you just use Devontae Smith or Dallas Goddard as a bring back. I think I think I'll be a lot higher on Swift on the Lions than Hawkinson, just because Hawkinson's sourced within 600 of pits. I think pits yardage upside is a lot better. That could be a result of Hawkinson having faced like these tougher defenses, but I'd really think I'd rather get up to pits than Hawkinson. So to me, it's like, Swift is a standout. Hawkinson is okay, definitely will be okay there. And then Devontae Goddard on the Eagle side, I will use Hertz, okay with that for sure. So yeah, I think this game is pretty solid. I will rank it number two to finish them now, I think. Yeah, I mean, the sheer fact that we have multiple options on both sides, but not so many that we don't know where to go. That's kind of what I look for in a game stack because even like, you want game stacks that other people like, which kind of sounds weird because that means like people like games that should score points, but you can also differentiate in that sense then. And that's like really encouraging. So yeah, you know, the Swift Hertz Goddard stack like might be chalky, but it's not going to be like mega chalky just because it's a running back. And we have other options. I think Daryl Henderson will be very, very popular given everything. So yeah, I definitely have Swift over Henderson now. I think the negative sentiment around Hertz too will keep his rostrate at least in check, which it probably shouldn't, but it probably will, I guess. I'll be there for sure. Yeah, I think he's worth it. Let's talk now about the workload of the stud running backs because we've got good options in the stud tier this week at running backs. We have to be selective because we want balance and we have to prioritize how we want to rank these guys. So I want to dig into their workloads and see how we should rank them. We got seven guys with salaries of $8,000 or higher, so let's rank them. Of those, James Robinson is last. He is last among the group in yards per game, second to last in red zone share. I'm going to put him last. Austin Eckler is worst in red zone share and second to last in yards from scrimmage, but I'll put him fifth above Nick Chubb. Chubb is in a terrible game. And as we know, has flaws in his workload. I think the Ernest Johnson played well enough where they'll just kind of use the Ernest Johnson or Nick Chubb. You know, like it's probably going to be like a still a split there with how well the Ernest played bad game. So to me, it's Robinson at the bottom, then Chubb the Neckler, which whittles it down to Derek Henry, Najee Harris, Jonathan Taylor and Alvin Camara. Henry towers above everyone else. So from a workload perspective, he's averaging 146.1 yards per game. Nobody else above 113. Red zone workload for Henry is 47.8%. Very good. So I know his salary is 10.5, but he's still worth that. He is considering salary, not considering game stacks, number one for me. Alvin Camara facing the Bucks. Big factor here. They did let up a buck 33 to clue Herbert last week, but that is just the second time this year. They've led up more than 80 yards to a running back. And Herbert did do that in the first half. He had 91 on the ground alone in the first half. So it was not like garbage time. He was actually doing it the whole game. They faced a bunch of bum running backs, which is why I'm still in on Camara, but it does matter that they're very good against the Russian teams do not run against them. Taylor's facing Henry, best game of the week. His adjust opportunities numbers are still low, but he's second to this group in yards per game, second in red zone share. The one guy ahead of a red zone share is Najee Harris. He is just behind Taylor in yards per game due to a lack of efficiency. He's also in a much worse game. So after Henry ranking out Harris, Camara and Taylor is tough. I think I'm leaning Taylor first, despite his limitations, just to get access to that game. And because the red zone share is good, the efficiency is good, I would go Camara third. I will take concerns around a matchup over concerns around a game, which pushes me towards Camara. But if Najee winds up going overlooked due to all the good options here, I will happily pivot. Like I think that he would be a good tournament option there. I just think that he's fourth to this group straight up. So to me, the top seven are Henry, Taylor, Camara, Najee, Echler, Chubb, Robinson. How are you viewing this group, Brandon? Am I off with any of these guys? What are your thoughts here? Lots of names to go over. I think in a vacuum, Henry is still the one, even with the salary. The bigger question is, can I really, really get to him? In a single entry is different than a cash game. In a single entry, I'm much more inclined to get there. In a cash game, I might try to get a little bit more balanced because we have some comparable situations with lower salaried backs. Taylor's going to be two here for me, just with the game, with the red zone equity. And then probably Camara three, Harris four. The salaries kind of get me there. The game for Camara is a lot better. So I'm going to go, I think that's how you rank them too. Henry, Taylor, Camara, Najee. So I built out, like I built out a Wenz lineup with Henry before and it was fine. I just built out one with Jalen Hertz and Devante and Swift. So it's like an Eagles game stack with Henry in there. You can still do that without using a receiver below 6,000. But it does mean you are living in that low 6,000 range. So you can still get a balanced lineup there. It's just a little bit tougher. You can do a Wenz for sure. I know that one. Like a Wenz Pittman stack works very well with Henry. I think like a Tannehill Henry stack works because you're getting access to every yard and every touchdown on that team effectively. I was going to say you're probably open to that. And I assume you're open to a Wenz Taylor stack, get all the touchdowns. Yes. Not all the yards, but probably all the touchdowns. Yes. I think that's a good question to ask too. I would say yes. Just because that game is good enough where I will do that. I prefer Tannehill Henry over Wenz Taylor. Yeah. I would also do a Tannehill Taylor Henry stack, which is a lot of like running backs in the same game. But because those two live off big plays, they drain less clock. And I think that matters a lot for game stacking to running backs in the same game. So good question. I think we're in agreement there. So let's move on to your second trend. Talk about that Falcons Panthers game. Sell me on Matt Ryan. It'll be a futile effort, but like, let's give it a shot, baby. Let's see what happens. So I kind of wrote off the Falcons, and by kind of, I mean, I wrote off the Falcons offense after their weak one game against the Eagles. Sounds like you did too. And it sounds like you haven't gotten back on. It sounds like I haven't until I really looked at them a little bit closer. You know, the Eagles we know are not a great pass defense. Like that's kind of still in the back of my head here is that, you know, we saw that week one game just be a nightmare. But things have been different since that week one game. Matt Ryan is thrown for at least 243 yards in the five games since week one. And at least 283 yards in four of the five for an average of over 300 yards per game. He also has multiple touchdowns in all those games since starting in week two. He's had his area's number surge from 179, 171, 48, through three games. Then over the past three, 441, 350, 368. Through week three, Matt Ryan had a negative 0.09 passing net expected points per drop back mark was 0.16 points per play worse than expected accounting for opponent adjustments. In three games since he's at 0.36 passing net expected points per play. That's 0.2 points per play better than expected. The 0.36 passing net expected points per drop back over the past three weeks, not accounting for opponent. It's on a better eight on 9.1 compared to 4.2 in the first three games. He's averaging basically double the amount of downfield attempts. He's had six over the past three games, 3.3 in his first three. I think a three game samples big enough to want to buy back in with such drastic splits. And it's not just efficiency. It's the downfield work that we've seen. There's a clear shift and we saw how they used Kyle Pitts last week. We know Calvin Ridley can get as many downfield targets as he can handle. That's really appealing. The Panthers past defense is like tougher. It's for sure than the teams that he's faced recently with Washington, the Jets and Miami, but they've only faced one efficient passman. That was Dak Prescott. He shredded them. Hurt Cousins, which might be a somewhat fair comp for Matt Ryan at this point through for 373 yards and three touchdowns. We've got plenty of options in this offense with Kyle Pitts, Calvin Ridley, Cordero Patterson. It's going to be really hard for me to want to say that I prefer Matt Ryan to Carson Wentz or Ryan Tannehill. But on a slate where we don't have a ton of great passing options, I think Matt Ryan is in play and if he's not, there's enough that we should feel really confident with the three skill position players. I agree with that part. I do not agree with the Matt Ryan part. What is the difference between he and Carson Wentz right now? Aside from matchup, like defensive matchup. Carson Wentz is playing better. You know that I'm not a Wentz person. So if you adjust for schedule Atlanta's 25th and schedule adjusted passing offense and Minnesota's fourth, you said that Cousins and Ryan were the same. Not that I would ever defend Kirk Cousins. That sounds like a miserable thing to do. I have much better ways to spend my time. Could you tell me? I think the difference is I believe in the Panthers defense. That's the key difference here. Okay, that's fair. But as someone who looks at the most relevant samples for baseball pitchers, guys who throw in different pitches and not considering them the same player, do you not consider someone with a 9.1 A dot different than a 4.2 A dot? Like do you think that's a change? Or should we just factor in the full season for him? No, I think it's fair to look at the more recent data because it's a new offense. They were figuring out how to use Kyle Pitts. But I also don't think there is a relevant sample because we have not seen him be more aggressive against a competent defense yet. Yes, that's the concern. Yeah. That's why I don't think there is a relevant sample. Like I'm concerned this offensive line may not hold up against the Panthers pass rush. I think that that is something that could worry me a bit. Does that mean I will not use Cordero Ridley Pitts? Absolutely not. Love them. Totally on board there. I think that what you said is enough to get me into them, and I was in there for sure before, but it's not enough to get me in on even considering Matt Ryan personally. Is the arrow up at all? It's better. Yeah. It's better on this offense. I would need a lot to get to Matt Ryan. I'm not even close yet. I need a lot to get there, but I'm very open to this offense. I think that his play being better improves my outlook for Ridley Pitts Patterson. Not enough to use kid center Ryan yet. Okay. I mean, I think with the state of quarterback, and I never thought I'd get to this point with Matt Ryan, but... Who are you bringing it back with? Is it DJ Moore or Bust or...? Yeah. Okay. I might use some Robbie. I don't want to. I really... Is Robbie? No, that's not fair to Daryl Henderson. No, do it, do it, do it. A little extreme. A little extreme, but I think it's funny. I know I appreciate it. I've been on Robbie just for the Cowboys game. I've not used in the past two weeks, might get there this week because of the 5,000 range of receiver being so bad, but I don't want to. I hate myself in advance for it, but... I have Matt Ryan and Carson Wentz fairly comparable adjusted for opponents though, so I just want to make that known. Okay. Indy's 16th by Number Fire stuff, and Atlanta's 25th. But what's the... I mean, first of all, what's the gap? But like... 0.07 for Atlanta? Actually, I could look. 0.07 for Atlanta. Carson Wentz, 42% passing success rate. Matt Ryan, full season, 49%. Big plays matter. When you got Mosul Pittman. This is like Mosul Pittman catching balls as opposed to Calvin Dustley. This is like Debo Samuel reignited. You're thinking of Matt Ryan as Weeks 1 through 3 Matt Ryan. Those are different years. This is the same season when he's still like... Different years are different. Different quarterbacks are different. Come on, get out of here. For my second trip, let's talk about a good offense. Let's just do it because the bills are good. We can talk about the bills here. They are 13 and a half point favorites against the Dolphins this week. I think that's aggressive. I will bet the Dolphins plus 13 and a half. I get it. I get why they're there, but I think it's a little aggressive. Either way, I think it's worth digging into what the bills do in blowouts to see how we should handle them here. And thankfully, we got a big sample because the bills blow a lot of people out. Each of the bills four wins this year have been by 18 plus points. They won two of those by at least 35. So they've shown us how they handle things when they're blowing teams out, and let's game plan in case that happens. In those four games, Josh Allen is averaging 33 pass attempts per game. His minimum was 26 against Kansas City, but they also ran just 54 plays in that entire game. He turned those 26 attempts into 315 yards and three touchdowns. So pass attempts are naturally lower when you're picking up chunk gains than they did against the Chiefs in that game. That to me says we can still consider Josh Allen even in a heavy spread here. I also think there's enough here to justify Stefan Diggs. Diggs is at 26% of the team's targets. I did tie bills. I did tie bills, but Diggs, Diggs is at 26% of the team's targets. He has double digit targets in four out of six games. He has eight, 10, 10 and five in the four blowouts. That's 8.25 targets per game in just the blowouts. And again, I don't think it's a given this game is a blowout. Dawson Knox is out right now, which may further blow out the target total for Diggs. Diggs, I would say, is a priority at $7,300. As of the backs, they have averaged about 22 rush attempts per game in that span between the two of them, which is not great when you're splitting it. Zach Moss, it is four games in the 1A. Over single theory, has 27% of the team's red zone chances. 71 yards per game. I think, again, like we discussed before, I'm willing to consider him, but there are concerns there. So it's a pretty thin list. I like Allen. I like stacking him with Diggs. I can consider Zach Moss. But to use Beasley and Manny, I'm kind of banking on this game staying closer and their salaries are pretty high. I think it's possible, but Diggs has a peel across all scripts. So how are you viewing the bills here? And will you go with any dolphins run backs? Like the bills, I mean, Josh Allen and Staphon Diggs have the top 90th percentile stack outcome in my simulations. They also have the top 90th percentile stack value. What I was really drawing attention to is that you said it's enough to justify Staphon Diggs. Oh yeah, yeah. Staphon Diggs is like, I'm worried that like I know he's going to be popular. I'm worried I'm going to get out over my skis on Staphon Diggs who still has high variance because he's a receiver. But you don't get players with this workload of this skill level with regression coming his way still at 7300 tied to the top passer of the week. So yeah, I mean, Diggs is like a lock in cash games. For sure. I'm probably not going to get to Manny or Beasley. I'm more likely to get to Moss, but even then I really want to build around the mid range running backs. It does kind of feel like a game where Manny and Beasley come through and I still feel like I will tilt during the game, but I will then look back and say like the salaries were just too high for those guys. So I'm weighing on the bills. I don't know what I'm doing with the Dolphins yet. I keep looking at Miles Gaskin and I don't really want to like, I don't want to get there, but I kind of see the case for it, especially if because if anyone's going to get targets, it's going to be him. He could have a like D'Andre Swift light roll where he gets like the 10 targets in negative game script. And you know, I still think he's good enough running back to have some leverage on his work, like turn out some yardage. So what do you think in here with the Dolphins? Manny a little bit more time. You really want Pavante Parker back. Yeah. You really want him. I think that if he gets in a full practice Friday, he's the best receiver in the 5,000 range. In that game against the Bills, they didn't use Stradavius White to shadow him. I think he ran like 14, like roughly like 40 to 50% of his routes against White in that game. I looked it up on next gen stats, but I totally forgot the stat. It was around 40% or so. So like he'll see him, but like it's not going to be every play, especially with Jen Waddle getting more work recently. I mean Waddle is more of a slot guy, but like, I think Parker would be a really good bring it back and I would want to go there first. Gasicki's sour has gone up, Waddle's sour has gone up and if Parker plays, that does take away some targets from them. So I would say really want to get to Parker. Harder for me to justify the other just because like expectations of the Dolphins offense aren't super high given the matchup. The Bills defense is legit. I like, I think I'm higher on the Dolphins offense in general the most, but in this matchup, I'm not. So I would say Parker would be the bring back, otherwise probably just nothing on the Dolphin side. Their implied team total is 18 points. So their betting team total is 17 and I considered it over there, but I, they couldn't quite get there, but I really considered it, really considered it. So their implied team total on the main slate is better than just the Jets and Texans. I think that's off, but I would, I mean, it's tied with the Bears. Yeah, well, I think the Bears should be bigger underdogs. I think the Dolphins should be smaller underdogs. So like, you know, yeah, yeah, but either way, they're smart. They know what they're doing. No matter, no matter how you say it, like that I don't this, I don't know. I just feel like there's another game where it's really hard to bring it back with a lot of confidence, but that doesn't, I don't want that to take me off of Josh Allen and Stefan Diggs. So I think it's the by the sound of things. It sounds like the two spots where we're okay going with no bring backs are Tom Brady and Josh Allen lineups. Is that correct? Yeah, I would, I would kind of put Justin Herbert in that bucket, but I'm not going to play that much of him. Yeah, we put Alan and Brady above Herbert is what you're saying, right? Yeah, for sure. Okay. Okay. Um, I mean, Alan, do you, Alan's the best quarterback play on the slate. Do you agree? Yeah. Okay. Like that's not a hot take, but it's, I don't know if I'm going to be able to prioritize him because I'm going to value the mid range running backs so much and there's not enough value or receivers. So I might be bumping down to even a Hertz, but probably more specifically like a Brady, but I would be fine jumping down to Tannehill or Wenz if I need to. Single entry. Like you got one lineup for the bills. Are you bringing it back with Parker or someone or no? I think I would bring it back with Gisicki. Okay. Fair enough. Let's move now to the weather discussion. There is some potential rain in Buffalo. Winds are 10 miles per hour and the rain doesn't look too bad. So I wouldn't worry too much, but check back on that one on Sunday. We do have 11 mile per hour winds for all those game stacks in Chicago for the bears and the 49ers. That's fine. But like, you know, just check back on that later. And I don't care. And then 13 mile per hour winds for the Browns and Steelers. So the bad games outside of the bills game are the ones that have potential wind concerns. We should be good to go. So let's move now to our positional plays. For week number eight, Brandon, who stands out to you at quarterback for this week? I'm going to go with Jalen Hertz. I know I said Josh Allen's probably the best quarterback play, but I think it's a little bit more realistic that I build some stacks around Jalen Hertz. So I'm going to go there. 8400, Detroit's 31st against the pass, according to number fires, adjusted past defense metrics. 32nd in yards per target allowed on downfield passes. It's a dome game, which I've talked about in the past. Not like other people have to, I know. But it's a tangible increase, even on projected outcomes. The odds that the guys go over their projections are higher in dome games. You can justify stacking Devonte Smith still, Dallas Goddard. He's not falling shy of 20 Fandall points yet. I don't like that as an argument. There's a reason he gets there. It's because he has so many ways to approve fantasy points. My second love is going to be Carson Wentz at a salary of 7,200. He has maxed out at 22.6 Fandall points, which I hate. There are only a few, probably two, depending on how you view Tom Brady, if he can really get to 30 points, he needs that yardage. But not a whole lot of slate changing quarterback options. And so that goes back to something I talked about way on earlier in the show, is does Allen get there? Does Hertz get there? If not, then you really have to bump off the lower salary quarterbacks. Tennessee's 17th against the pass. Wentz has put up decent numbers against bottom tier past defenses with 224 yards, one and a half touchdowns in four contests. Also has a four game sample of .34 passing unexpected points over his past four games, which is really strong. It's actually like Matt Ryan's, but not quite as good over Matt Ryan's past three games. So honestly, I don't know what the, I don't know what the stealing differences for Wentz aside, compared to Ryan, aside from the fact that Wentz's game is much more likely to erupt with points. And Wentz is starting to run again a bit, a little bit, a little maybe a bit, looking pretty spry. So I think that helps too. My first love is Tom Brady. I think that it's a dome game, high total, tightish spread. The Saints are good against the pass. They rank 10th there, but like, honestly, that might be a good thing for Tampa Bay to keep the game more competitive and keep that yardage feisty. Brady's had 36 plus pass attempts in every game this year. Don't think they can run on the Saints. So he is eventually going to be doing for some touchdown regression because like his touchdown numbers are stupid right now, but his salary is not outrageous. But it's not like we're banking on his touchdown rates staying the same. So I think that Brady is a good play this week. I also do like Ryan Tannehill over Wentz in that game. And Indy's defense ranks 24th against the pass. They're actually first against the rush, doesn't worry me about Henry, but like Tannehill did struggle against him in week three. This is a repeat divisional match, but A.G. Brown got hurt early in that game and Brown makes a big difference on this team. So although it's a repeat matchup, it's kind of a different situation because Brown didn't play as much there. So it's a different offense now than it was then. So Tannehill at 75 opens up a lot. I will stack him with Henry. We'll stack him with Brown. I think I agree with you or Julio is a bit of a tougher sell, but I do like Tannehill quite a bit. Let's move now to what? Do you know it's not a second time around divisional matchup? Is it? Matt Ryan. Don't care. I'm waiting for Matt Ryan to put up like 13 fandal points now, but again, the case I laid out, I feel good with, and I can say that much. Are you going to use him? Very likely. Okay. Do you want to do a Ryan versus Wentz bet? No. Wentz was one of my loves. What are you talking about? I know we were talking about like, oh, he's on the same pages, some same tier as him, blah, blah, blah. The game is different. All right. The game's still the game. Let's go to running back. What you got there? The game is the game. Speaking of that, I pivoted off of Daryl Henderson during the show here. And I'm going to go with the Andre Swift instead. I think I think Henderson is fine. Again, I think he deserves to be like the top projected value. I get it. With Swift, love the workload. 26 adjusted opportunities per game, which is carries plus double your targets. 47% red zone rushing share. So everything's 7.4 targets per game. And only one other running back is above 5.8. That's Najee Harris, 7.7. But Najee Harris also had one outlier game with 19 targets. So it's basically been Swift as like the guy with an incredible receiving workload. Not to diminish Najee or any of the other receiving backs, but like he's a tier above in terms of volume. And you know, target share counts, but at a certain point, so does volume because we know that this team needs to throw to him a lot and they should have to throw to him a lot this week. 30% red zone target share as well. So I'm in on Swift. I think he's a great play. I'm also in on Cordero Patterson at 7,300, tied to a pastor who's playing a lot better lately. 73% snap rate, 63% route rate last week. 14 carries, four red zone carries, five targets. So I was out on Patterson earlier. The salaries back down, the workloads also a lot better than it was. So that's why I'm changing my tune. Always change your opinion whenever you have better information, more information. And that's what I'm doing here. And my third love, I hope you don't have both of these guys, but I do. I think that we can both agree that at their salaries, Patterson and Eli Mitchell are great plays. Mitchell has emerged as the primary way that I want access to these value backs. He was featured last week from the start of that game for the 49ers. 66% of the snaps, 18 carries, no targets, which is well within the range of his outcomes, but he did run 14 routes. So it wasn't like he didn't play on any passing down. So I'm okay with Mitchell as a value back. Yeah, I have him first two among the value guys, 14 routes on 30 drop backs. He actually ran on half, almost half. That's pretty good. He had two targets in his other two games this year, or other two games like a featured back. And hasty did play in one of those. So like he's limited, but like again, he's Damian Harris at a lower salary and his team is favored. I don't know, like why am I going to fight that? I do think that Zach Moss is interesting. We'll probably use him as like a differentiation piece. Mitchell is the primary guy here. Did have Cordero Patterson as well. If you look at the two games since his snap rate spiked, he has a 28 is just opportunities per game. 43% red zone share, which is carries or targets inside the red zone. Panthers 21st against the rush. They haven't led up much to running backs in the passing game. They did limit Alvin Camara, but I just think he's a good salary relative to his workload at 73. Jonathan Taylor was my first love. I talked about his concerns earlier in terms of like his usage, but like there are massive, massive upsides here as well. He ranks third in the slate with 113 yards per game. He has a 50% red zone share, which ranks second on the slate. It's highest total on the slate, tightest spread on the slate, checks a lot of boxes. And his snap rate has been about 60% in two straight games. Colts also open as one point dogs and are now two point favorites. Again, interesting for Taylor. So I think that that is a good thing. We did not talk about Cleal Herbert. He's $6,500. The bear stink, but he doesn't. Tight spread, which may lead to passing attempts. We also don't know what Damian Williams' role will look like now that he has a full week of practice. So where are you at on Herbert at $6,500? I very easily might not have any, just due to the sheer fact of the number of running backs that I want to play. We've been mostly fixated. I know you did a trend on the guys above $8,000, but we've mostly kind of fixated. It feels like on the $7,000 backs. But we also have those studs, like with Najee, Eckler, Camara, Henry to consider. I'm going to start Herbert, where I haven't been season long and I feel great about that. But I don't think it's the right week for him in DFS. Okay. Let's move to Wider Siever. What you got there? Unsurprisingly, Stefan Diggs. But before I say that, can we talk just quickly about what we're doing with Cooper Cup, Jamar Chase, and your boy Dee? I think Cup is a better option than Chase this week, just because the volume is insane for Cup. Chase is getting by, who is Higgs? So I think it's T. Higgins. Anyway, there's no Harry Higgs. Jamar Chase, I think, is getting by more on efficiency, which is harder to bank on, whereas Cup is getting efficiency and stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid volume. Dome game, not facing Mike White on the opposing side, like even Davis Mills is better than Mike White. So I would say Cup over Chase, despite the salary difference. So like, are you going to play Jamar Chase? Like, I know you would want to, but do you see yourself playing some Jamar Chase? Because I don't think I do. I don't think I get there with the way that I'm looking at the slate and the way that I'm looking at it. Does it scare me? Yes. Yes. But, you know. But you can't play that way. Yeah. So, all right. I just wanted to talk about those two specifically because they stood out at Receiver in terms of their salaries. So I'm just going to place the fun digs a lot, which everyone will, but 7,300 insane Florida-Stealing or boom-bust ratio in my simulations among receivers. 26% target share, 33% area share, 3.6 combined high-leverage targets per game, 6th among the main slate receivers, and expected Fandal points per game should actually have some positive regression there. And Miami's 29th and adjusted Fandal points per target allowed to wide receivers. Speaking of Higgs, T. Higgins, 6,300 is my second love. We have some concerns with Mike White and the Jets, but Jamar Chase's salary of 8,200 is way different than T. Higgins at 6,300. Higgins in his healthy games actually leads the team with 27% of the team's targets. I do not expect him to lead this team long-term with games with Jamar Chase, but point being 27%, if it falls off, it's probably still going to be 23%, 24%. That would just kind of flip maybe. I mean, he had four downfield targets, two Reds and targets last week. I don't love the game, but I love that volume for a capable receiver at 6,300. And then my third love, I don't really want to dig into the 5,000 range very often at receivers. So I'm going to go with Jerry Judy at 6,000. Don't like the game so much, but I like Jerry Judy. Just 23 routes from him, seven targets. That's 30.4% of his routes he got a target on. That rate, I know it's not fair, I know it's a small sample, but again, that's at least a sticky stat because it's just targets per route. Like that's put them on the field, let them run routes through the ball. Like are you doing that? Yes or no. That rate trails only Cooper Cup, Devonte Adams and Debo Samuel on the season. So at 6,000, I think you could do way worse than Jerry Judy for value. And again, I don't like really anyone below that salary. Yeah, I think Judy is interesting. I also as Devon Diggs is my top love for the exact same reasons you listed. So we're all in on Devon Diggs. I think like for our cash game, just put him in. Like just put him in and go from there. I think that makes too much sense. My second one was Michael Pittman. I think he's just kind of too good for a $6,600 salary. He has 23% of the overall targets, but 38% deep and 23% in the red zone. He's like awesome dudes every week, which is fun to watch. He's playing indoors. He had 12 targets in the first game against Titans. He's topped 100 yards twice. He had 89 another. He's just under salary. So I like Pittman a lot. Love him for this week. My third love, do I do it? I have Robbie written down. He has 26% of the targets without McCaffrey. 26 have been 26% of the red zone targets or 26% of the deep targets, 23% of the red zone. He is $5,700. He's probably going to get nine targets indoors against a bad defense. Like how many targets? Nine-ish probably. Okay, let's say he gets nine targets over under 30 yards on those targets. I was going to say 13, but 30 works too. I don't know, man. The process makes sense. This is not like I'm chasing him because I've not used it in the past couple of weeks. Yeah, and they're going to have to throw because they're going to be trailing playing against the Red Hot Quarterback. Oh my gosh, it's sufferable. Anything else down here? We went over this Monday and I don't see a whole lot different from Monday today. I would not be shocked if I wound up having Avan Jefferson share just because he's a good football player and the offense is good. His role was better last week. You thought it was kind of just by design. I think it's because they don't think they need to use DeSean Jackson against the Lions. And I think they'll probably think the same thing this week against Houston. So if that's the case, then Jefferson, I would rather play Jefferson than Robbie. What about O'Dell Beckham or Robbie? Just no. Devontae Parker? Yeah, I would play Parker over Robbie. Okay, fair enough. You're probably right. Let's move to tight ends. I can stop talking about this terrible, terrible football player. What'd you get there? Kyle Pitts. Not a terrible football player. Quite good, in fact. Very good. I kind of view him as a mid-range receiver at this point. Might be a little bit overzealous, but the role was very different. Last week lined up outside a ton. Got a lot of downfield work. I know I'm joking about it, but Matt Ryan's played better. And that helps me feel good with Kyle Pitts at 6,800. He's the guy this week, I think, at tight end that you should try to prioritize. If you can't, you have some other options, but he's not... I want to say the upside with yardage and a touchdown is kind of comparable to what we could get from at least the Mark Andrews. Maybe not quite a Travis Kelsey, but he could go for over 100 and touchdown, and that's about what you expect from a tight end at the high end. But if not, like Dallas Goddard, 5,900. He trails only Kyle Pitts in percentage chance that he gets the 15 points in my simulations. He is the clear number two for me. Probably feel differently, but I think he's the number two, especially at the salary. Just five targets last week, but for those who were downfield, his A dot was over 18 yards, which you just don't really see at tight end. So that's really good if it's 6, and we know that Zachary is just gone. Yeah, that means he has yardage upside, which isn't true for most tight ends, which is why I have Kyle Pitts first, because I think it's really hard to find yardage upside there. He's had 119 plus yards and two straight games, including one with Calvin otherly active. He has 28% of the deep targets. If we look at just the games Ridley has played, including the games where it seems like they didn't really know to use him. Pitts had four deep targets last week alone. The Panthers led up 71 yards to Tyler Conklin, 58 to touchdown to Dalton Schultz, and Pitts's role is better than those guys by a little bit. So I think Pitts worth prioritizing this week for the same reasons you mentioned. My favorite value tight end is Tyler Higabee again. I know you'll be shocked, shocked. That boozled. You are blown out of your seat, but I'm talking about Tyler Higabee as a love. But hey, he's $5,300. Plays every snap. Touchdown upside. 27% of the team's red zone targets this year. Multiple red zone targets in for the past five. He has just two touchdowns despite that. I tweeted about this yesterday, and multiple players in my same dynasty accused me of trying to pump his trade value because I have him. They've been desperately trying to move him in that league. Two people from the same league accused me of this. But hey, $5,300. I need help getting to Henry and not using value-wide receivers. He helps me get there. So money's fake. Let's go Tyler Higabee. Tyler Higabee. Yeah, it's another one of those questions that like, you can say the same thing for quarterback. It's really pits. You could maybe say Gisicki has like yardage upside, but the matchup's difficult. Tyler Higabee. So if you say, hey, Kyle Pitts, you know, doesn't really go over 15 fandal points. I don't see it this week. You might as well save salary. Higby has not had more than 46 yards since week one. It's encouraging. I feel like if I was recommending Tyler Higby constantly, it'd be one of the spots where you would take offense. Potentially. I can't push back on that. What you got to defense? I'm going to go with the Chargers at 39. Coming off a bye to face the Patriots. Fourth and adjusted past defense based on number fires metrics. They will give up rushing, which I don't like, but Mac Jones hasn't been efficient enough to make me too nervous. I figure they play from ahead. And I mean, I'm good with it. I'm just searching for something really quick, because I think I might have another recommendation for a low salary tight end. I need to just say, though, you could probably guess it if you want. Actually, no, I don't know if we even talked about this, dudes. Maybe you can't tight end. Yeah. Is it Mo Alley? No, he ran nine routes last week. Just kidding. He played 63% of the snaps and ran nine routes, but he's got three targets and he's amazing. Whatever. I hate the goals. Anyway, my love is Washington. I'm not going to go like nuts with them, but I do think that they're the best salary saving defense. They're generating a lot of pressure. But they haven't turned it into sacks. And Teddy will take some sacks. They've, Washington has faced a bunch of really good offenses so far this year. The Broncos could be better with Jerry Judy back, but I wouldn't put them as being like a great offense. So I'll take some swipes here at Washington. If I need to like save a lot of salary, which I generally do. I will use the Chargers, who you discussed. I will use Chicago at times, despite the fact, I think that the 49er should be like more heavily favored. I will use Cleveland. I will use Denver. Just anything to save salary to make Henry easier to get to. So pro football focus has an offensive line, defensive line, like matchup chart. And I've never fully understood what the matchup scores are, but their percentages and they go from like, obviously they can go below as you have like a negative matchup. Yeah. But somehow the Patriots have a 104% matchup on the ground against the Chargers. Yeah, that makes sense. You know, that sounds about right. 104% is pretty wild. Man, Damian Harris going to go for like, going to go crazy with 80 yards and maybe a touchdown. Just going nuts. Love it. 20 carries, 120 yards, one touchdown to get you like 18. And it's fine. People will be Victor Lapping on Twitter. Meanwhile, Cordero Patterson scores to the 15th time and has 28 points, but no one here says anything. And like to clarify, 18 points from a back under 7,000 is fine, but that's like all he 80th percentile 90th percentile outcome. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Any final thoughts here, Brandon, before we close up shop for week number eight. I think we talked about a lot. Very clearly we're in on one game to stack. And I think we have a clear one, two. After that, it gets a little bit spotty. So it's just, I think going to be a week where I have more one-offs than usual. Yeah. Another week to have more non-bringback options for your quarterbacks for Josh Allen and Tom Brady. I think that that is viable once again this week. So different process, but I think a necessary retooling, given the way the slate breaks down. That is all that we have here for today, but plenty of good stuff here on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed at NBA and NHL back via Tom Vecchio, USC via Austin Swame, NASCAR. I'll be talking Martinsville tomorrow. We have PGA every week as well. So make sure you are subscribed to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed. Wherever you get your podcasts and while you're there, leave us a rating interview as well. Brandon, if people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? Macadola 13, G-D-U-L-A-1-3. And I'm at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the FanDual Podcast Network at FanDual Podcast. Big thank you to everyone for tuning in for today. Good luck to you with your lineups. Good luck to you on week eight. We'll talk to you once again on Monday to wrap it all up. This has been the Heat Check Fantasy Podcast powered by Number Fire.