404: Mailbag 8/28/20

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the lad Podcast with your host JJ Zachertha Jake Zacherson. What's up everyone, It's JJ Zachares and the editor in chief at FanDuel and at number fire dot com in this episode four hundred and four of the Late Round Podcast, one of the many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. I'm still here, Thanks for tuning in. I tweeted a thread about Leonard Fournette this week. I knew that he was polarizing in the fantasy football world, but I didn't know that he was this polarizing. I started the thread with quote, Leonard Fournette checks almost every box that you don't want in an early round running back. Send tweet. But then I followed that up with some thoughts on why I feel that way. I've got him at RB twenty right now, and that doesn't seem that bad in the context of his running back ADP, and it's really not. But I would be taking basically all of the wide receivers in that range over Leonardotte. And here's why. One of the things that I don't think is helpful is looking at where a player finished during a previous season and simply equating that to the following year, especially a running back, because right now at running back, we have perfect information. Everyone is healthy. We have players who finished below Leonard Fournette last year, like Alvin Kamara and Saquon Barkley, who are no longer hurt. And then on top of that, we've got a new rookie class that just came in with Clyde Edwards, Hilaire and Jonathan Taylor, and there's some upside and second year players like Miles Sanders and Josh Jacobs. So saying but Leonard Fournette was the RB seven last year is kind of meaningless to me. Here's my overall general fear with Leonard Fournette. Though. I think he's just another one of those RB twos who can absolutely live up to expectation on volume alone that absolutely can happen, similar to pre injury David Montgomery. But I worry a lot about his ceiling and an offense is projected to be pretty iffy and it's a team with a four and a half win over under according to Fandel's sportsbook. I've done a Late Round podcast episode on this topic before episode two hundred and eighteen on how good players and good running backs in fantasy football often come from good offenses. Now, this was done in twenty nineteen, but according to the study that I did of the ninetieth percentile or higher running back season since twenty eleven in fantasy football, half of them came from top ten offenses. And for the record, I defined those offenses in which offenses were good or bad by number fires expected points model. Meanwhile, only five percent of the ninetieth percentile or better running back seasons were from offenses that rank twenty fifth or worse, and seventy seven percent of them were in offenses that ranked in the top half of the league. This doesn't mean that a running back and a bad offense is incapable of having a good season, you guys. It just means that it's harder for him to have that good season. That's a knock on Leonard Fournette. What's also a knock is the fact that his team tried to trade him this offseason. Maybe that means that they end up just riding Fournett into the ground this year, But maybe it also means that they don't care because they know they're not going to have Leonard Fournette next season. What if they want to see what else they have at running back. What if Reikwaal Armstead sees more work than we're projecting him to see. Now, to this point, we can't assume that Fournette's workload is automatically going to translate from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty. There's a new offensive coordinator in town in Jay Gruden, and with Jay Gruden comes Chris Thompson, a pass catching specialist. Now, say what you want about Chris Thompson and his ability to stay healthy. What's funny is the fact that Fournett's actually missed a similar percentage of his game since entering the league than Thompson has over his last four seasons. But let's just brush that aside. These are facts. Chris Thompson has seen at least ten percent of his team's targets in each of the last four years. What if he digs into Leonard Fournette's high target share. It was a target er that allowed Fournette to see one hundred targets last year. Now, the retort back to me is, Okay, you can cut that in half and he'd still see fifty targets. And I get it, But my fear goes back to what I said about this team overall, They're not gonna be good. What happens if Jacksonville is in a negative game script and Leonard Fournette isn't their go to running back, He's off the field. There are other running backs who are being drafted ahead of Leonard Fournette right now who are also in very mediocre to bad situations, like Christian McCaffrey and Saquon Barkley also aren't in great spots. The difference is that not only is their overall backfield market share projected to be greater, but we know those two guys are not leaving the field because they're ultra talented. What if Fournette is more of a two down back with Chris Thompson in town and Laviskas Channelt too, we can't forget about the kind of football that he brings to the offense. Sixty one of Fournette's one hundred targets last year came when the Jags were trailing by seven or more points, and Fournette also ranked fourth among running backs and percentage of team running back targets, meaning the Jags were throwing to Fournette in that backfield at a very high rate. That all helped him see the one hundred targets that he saw last year. Now, yes, positive touchdown regression is coming. You guys probably remember me talking about that relentlessly last year. But if the offense is bad, then that positive touchdown regression won't be all that significant. My greater point with Fournette is that there are a lot of red flags and there seems to be a lower ceiling than where some people are projecting him. We can't just take previous season finishes and place them onto the current season. We can't assume that Leonard Fournette is going to have a similar role. Could he, Yes, of course, but we can't just assume that. And to me, it's easier to see the downside for a player whose team wanted him gone this offseason versus a running back on the opposite side of that spectrum. Fournette is becoming properly priced with his diminishing ADP, but in the third round or in the fourth round, ahead of some of those high upside wide receivers. That's where I'm not going to draft Leonard Fournette. Before we get into the questions this week, because this is a mailbag show. I want to let you guys know that best Ball leagues are back on FanDuel. Unlike standard season long fantasy football, where you have to constantly make changes to your starting lineup and roster, you only have to focus on one thing, and one thing only. In a best ball format, the draft. All you have to do is draft a twenty player team and you're done. Each week, your top scoring players automatically start and will count toward your season long total. The team with the most points at the end of the season wins. No setting your lineup, no waivers, no trades, just draft. It's the easiest way to play season long fantasy football. For more details is at fandle dot com or download the fandel app today. Eligibility restrictions apply. First question this week is from at Miles Underscore g Spoon. You've mentioned Cam as maybe the late round quarterback to own this year. Does that mean you're also bullish on Patriots skill players. Cam has to accumulate points somehow, but even with their discounted ADPs, I still feel dirty take them. What am I missing? This is a good question, but I don't think that you need to be super bowlish on Patriot pass catchers. If you're into Cam being a good quarterback value with the quarterback position, we're shooting strictly for upside. Cam has that upside. He's been a top four fantasy quarterback in five of eight seasons where he's played a significant number of games. That's why we're into Cam Newton, and that upside is happening because of his rushing, not his passing. If he's used like he's been used historically, a large chunk of his fantasy points are going to come from the ground game, and that doesn't help his pass catchers. We've seen this happen with Cam in the past. Cam has only produced four top twenty four wide receivers over his career, and then there was Greg Olsen, who is a very steady tight end one. But Olsen type numbers could easily be distributed in the Patriots offense to multiple tight ends, multiple running backs, and multiple wide receivers. Basically, what I'm saying is you don't need Patriot pass catchers and skill players to far exceed their ADP in order for Cam to be a higher end QB one. I think it's fine to target them and see if a player like Nikhil Harry hits, sure, but it's not necessary if you're looking for Cam to hit, given how he scores points. This last question says, forgive me if this has already been covered, but can you discuss how your models like Damian Harris if he gets a crack at the RB one job in New England. So, if he gets the crack at the RB one job in New England, my projections are gonna like him because he has more pass catching upside or appears to have more pass catching upside than Sony Michelle, and he's being selected late. That's a main reason that I've been drafting him over the last couple of months. He was one of the later round picks that I actually got in the scott Fish Bowl. But in terms of my prospect model, it saw Damien Harris as pretty average. Part of that is because he shared a backfield in college with Josh Jacobs, so his numbers weren't that good. But then draft capital and his teammates score that did give him a decent enough percentile ranking, but he was just pretty average overall in the model. My take is that I would be pleasantly surprised if Damian Harris is like some true RB one, I say pleasantly because I've drafted him a lot this offseason given his cost. But if you recall, I did an episode earlier this offseason unbailing on unproductive rookies generally speaking, and again this is from a probability standpoint, but generally speaking, players who don't do much during their rookie seasons don't go on to be studs. That's what we're looking at with Damian Harris, and also with someone like Darryl Henderson. If their costs were higher, I would not be buying into them, but they're not. The opportunity cost to get Henderson or get Harris is not significant. It's not a full proof method to say this guy sucked as a rookie, so he's never gonna be good. It's just a probability thing, and at their cost, to me, it makes sense to invest despite what that data shows. So my model isn't like in love with Damian Harris. But when I'm not spending significant capital on someone, those models become a lot less important since you're chasing semi outliers. Anyway, this last questions from at Mischugana, any teams that drafted a top wide receiver or running back, but then drafted a second one later in the draft, and that's the guy we should be keeping an eye on slash targeting. I mean, I think the obvious answer here is Brian Edwards. The Raiders got Henry Ruggs in the first and then they got a really good value in Brian Edwards later on, and Edwards is apparently doing some good stuff in camp according to reports, and I'm not surprised by it at all. Ruggs was someone I talked about who I'm fine with because of draft capital, and my model doesn't mind him as a result of that draft capital. But Edwards had the superior college production profile. It wasn't even close. Edwards had the best breakout age in this entire class, and despite the draft capital not being super super great, he was an eighty fifth percentile wide out in my model. Anything above the eightieth percentile is really good. So Brian Edwards, I think, is the obvious go to answer here. The sext question is from at Phillip Wilson fifty six JJ, could you please explain potential contradictions to me on your recent podcast you gave your bold takes on the fantasy season, which appear to conflict with your twenty twenty rankings. I'm sure there is a simple explanation that I am missing. Many thanks for your fine work. Yeah. So, just so it's clear, the bold predictions that I go through aren't based on my rankings. Rankings are a median outcome and how you think teams should hypothetically draft. I have my thoughts about rankings and why I don't think they're great for the fantasy industry as a whole, but that's an entirely separate topic. The bold predictions episode an article is about looking at multiple things breaking in certain ways. It's looking at the higher or lower range of outcomes. You can think of it this way. When I talk about players to avoid or target, I might be looking at like the thirtieth percentile outcome to the seventieth percentile outcome. With bold predictions, I'm looking at the tenth percentile outcome all the way to the ninetieth percentile outcome. Instead of looking at more towards the median outcome, we're looking at the extremes. So those bold predictions won't always be reflected in my rankings, but I would assume that most players I was high on or low on in those bold predictions that I'm high or low on them versus the consensus in my actual rankings. This next question says, theoretically, shouldn't Lamar Jackson have a higher than normal touchdown rate given the style of offensity plays in A lot of his plays between the twenties with no intention of getting a touchdown are runs when the normal system would be passing the ball. Yeah, I mean, I think it's fine to say that Jackson is going to have a higher than normal touchdown rate throughout his career, at least early on. But there's a difference between better than normal and nine percent. Even a six percent touchdown rate is high. So sure, I think Lamar Jackson can consistently have a higher than normal touchdown rate, But I don't think it's logical at all to assume that he can maintain the second highest single season touchdown rate of all time. This last question is from at Beard O six. That's the best way for fantasy football, hard course, to take advantage of guys who only began taking interest in fantasy football just before the drafts. I think you're at an advantage because you understand what's happened over the summer when your league mates don't, So you know the journey that some players have gone through, but your league mates have no idea. But this year is all so different, and that we're really going off of reports when it comes to how certain players look and where they might land on the depth chart. And as a result, I think that we've become really, really reactionary. Players are often hyped in particular moments. Last week, Nikhil Harry couldn't do anything. He couldn't do anything right now. The opposite is true. Ronald Jones couldn't catch a pass one day in practice, and then the very next day he had a good practice. So if you were drafting on the day that Jones had a bad day, you honestly might have found value in Ronald Jones. That's how fragile things are. So someone who hasn't studied up may see the headline that Jones couldn't catch a pass in practice and then not draft him as a result. Whereas you know that Ronald Jones has gotten a lot of love out of camp this year and that Keishan Vaughan is behind after being put on the COVID list, so you may end up getting a value on a player like that, so it's important to utilize all the information that you've gathered, not just the most recent information. Others don't have that advantage. This question is one of my favorite topics. It says, whenever a player moves teams, we try to project tendencies based on what they've done in the past. For example, Cam loves throwing the tight ends because Greg Olsen was his best receiver in Carolina. Is there any data to back this up? Or should we treat these tendencies with a grain of salt. There's data that backs it up, but it's more of an issue of correlation and causation. Yes, Cam seemed to target Greg Olsen a lot in Carolina, But was it because Cam's tendency to throw to just any old tight end or was it because he had Greg Olsen, who was the best pass catcher on that team for years and years. Usually you can see how real these types of trends are when situations dramatically change. Take New England, for instance, Rob Gronkowski became a thing in twenty eleven. From that time through twenty eighteen, New England averaged a tight end target chair per season of almost twenty five percent. There were two seasons where that number dipped well well below that mark. One was in twenty thirteen and one was in twenty eighteen. In twenty thirteen, Rob Gronkowski played only seven games. In twenty eighteen, he wasn't totally himself. That led to his retirement. Then, last year, without Rob Gronkowski in that lineup, no team targeted their tight ends at a lower rate than the New England Patriots. So does Tom Brady like throwing to tight ends or does Tom Brady like throwing to good tight ends? It seems like the latter makes a lot more sense. Now. This is similar for coordinator data. I'm far more interested in a coordinator's general philosophy than how he uses a very particular position. There's usually a lot of noise when looking at the positional stuff because that's often driven by personnel. You guys may not have been around the fantasy community years ago, but back when Kyle Shanahan was the offensive coordinator for the Falcons, people were touting Julio Jones is a great pick because Kyle Shanahan fed his ex receivers And then there was confirmation bias once the season ended, because Julio had two hundred and three targets in twenty fifteen. But then you dig in and Jones's top target competition was Jacob Tammy. Roddy White was way past his prime. They had no other option. And when you're as good as Julio Jones, you'll get fed in that type of environment. And clearly that narrative doesn't matter because no one is using it today. So take all of that stuff with a grain of salt and take it case by case. Like. I think that there's some validity to the philip rivers throwing to running backs thing, given what we've seen historically, but don't let that type of narrative completely overshadow things and force you to make a suboptimal decision. This last questions from at SETI t in bold prediction. You stated Terry McLaurin greater than Amari Cooper. You seem to have credited McLaurin for an increase in opportunity e g. Washington to pass more harmon with head bandage, et cetera, and Amary for a decrease I e. Lamb. But what about the loss of Cobb and Witten? How do you contextualize situations so I know A lot of people look at vacated targets to put puzzle pieces together, but I just look at projections because it's more accurate since it's putting everything within the context of the current season, not the season that just happened. I think the Bold Predictions episode made people think that I believe these bold predictions are actually going to happen, like they're the average outcome that's going to happen. They're bold for a reason. I have a Mari Cooper ahead of Terry McLaurin. It's more so me saying that I think there's more downside than people realize with AMRII Cooper and McLaurin is a potential stud hence the prediction. But regarding Cooper versus McLaurin in their potential volume, I contextualize it all with projected target share. That's how I build out my projections, and there's a scenario where Amari Cooper's target share is lower than expected, whereas McLaurin has a very very high target share ceiling. So regarding the loss of Cobb and Witten, their vacated target shairs are being spread around in my projections, not just their targets. Instead of looking at raw targets, I'm looking at the share of targets. This has questions from at FF Sam twenty three to one zero thoughts on Claypool talk if legit who is left out of the Steelers wide receiver corps for Fantasy options Now, I admittedly did not like Chase Claypool as a prospect. I talked about Brian Edwards and where he ranked my model earlier in Claypool, despite better draft capital, was under that eightieth percentile mark. Athleticisms doesn't matter a whole lot in that model. But the reviews are there. People are loving Chase Claypool. And I said it when he was drafted, and I'm still on the same take. He hurts James Washington the most by far. Deontay Johnson is a better talent than James Washington, and he does more on the field than Washington can. Juju is the slot guy. Claypool would take over the Washington role if he truly truly emerges. That's one of the main reasons that I've been a little skeptical on James Washington this offseason. This last question is from at Fantasy Underscore Junkie from a process standpoint, how do you approach trades? Now, this is something that I think fantasy managers get wrong all the time, and admittedly, you guys, it kind of puts me on tilt. Your consideration set for players to trade for should be huge. It shouldn't be small. You should not be very particular. I'll go through players to buy and sell on my fifteen Transactions episode each week, but that's mostly for process related stuff. I mean, it's still fine to target individual players and trades, but when you do that, please, please please look at the opposing team's roster and fill that roster with something that that roster needs. There's nothing more annoying and frustrating than getting a trade that doesn't make my team better. The goal of trading should be that both teams get better post trade. You're helping a team get better at running back. They're helping you get better at wide receiver. You're giving a team more depth. They're helping you with an upgrade in your starting lineup. Target teams, not players. That's my process. Find teams that need help, that need the things that you have, and offer those things up. It's honestly no different than any other sale that you would make in the real world. That's going to do it for today's show, though, Thanks to all of you for listening. If you've got subscribed to the Late Round podcast, make sure you are by searching for it pretty much anywhere podcast can be found. And if you could do me a favor if you're listening on Apple Podcasts, leave me a rating and review, and no forget to follow me on Twitter at Late Round QB. Thanks everyone appreciates you have a great weekend.