450: Mailbag 11/20/20

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the lad Podcast with your host JJ Zachertha j J Zacherson.

00:00:11
Speaker 2: What's up everyone.

00:00:12
Speaker 1: It's JJ Zachares and the editor in chief at FanDuel and at number five dot com.

00:00:16
Speaker 2: And this is episode four hundred and fifty.

00:00:18
Speaker 1: Of the Late Round podcast, so the many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. Thanks for tuning in. A lot of you are listening to this on Friday, since that's when the Mailbag episode drops each week. Now go look at your calendar and see what you're doing at three thirty Eastern. Now block off a half hour at that time, because at three point thirty I'll be on FanDuel Live with my colleagues Jim Sonas and Brandon Gadoula, and we'll be doing our weekly Snake Draft. We'll also answer any fantasy football questions that you might have once the draft is over, and we'll also be giving away a free ticket to the Sunday Million on FanDuel right after the draft ends. For more info, subscribe to FanDuel's YouTube page or follow FanDuel across social media to make sure that you don't miss it. Now, let's get to these questions. The first question this week is from at FF rocket Science. They sent a few tweets, so here goes it says anecdotally, it feels like this has been a really tough year for streaming quarterbacks, and then it's been exacerbated by a pretty decent edge gain by those who spent up for mahomes Kyler Russ pre injury, Dak to Sean and Josh Allen to you, is this born out in the data at all? And does this increased market efficiency coupled with their comparative weekly advantage floor sealing combo from rushing touchdown efficiency over a mobile touchdown dependent streamers, alter your future quarterback strategy at all? Or is this, like most years, hope you hit on a late value like Rogers, or snag the Herbert pickup and otherwise piece it together as you go at a lower opportunity cost. So basically, what this question is asking, should we be drafting our quarterbacks earlier moving forward because it has been a bad year for streaming quarterbacks And I do think that it should alter your quarterback strategy a bit, But this was something that was kind of foreseeable. I talked about this very topic at length before the season started. Now I don't say this to pat myself on the back. I'm saying this because my handle on Twitter is Late Round QB. My career was built off of the idea and the strategy of drafting quarterbacks late. So I feel like I need to defend myself a little bit. But the thing is, I wrote that ebook, that original Late Round Quarterback ebook, back in twenty twelve. Things have changed since then, but most importantly, the market has changed. Back in May, I did an episode of the Late Round podcast called the Evolving Late Round Quarterback Strategy. I based that episode off of an article that I wrote on whether or not Lamar Jackson broke how we approached the quarterback position because he was so dominant last year. Now, I think this would be helpful, So let me read the conclusion of that article, which was published on May nineteenth. It says, you know, the truth is the question about the Late Round Quarterback strategy and fantasy football this year shouldn't really revolve around Lamar Jackson. It shouldn't be about whether or not you're willing to take Jackson in the top twenty five or the top thirty. Instead, our focus should be on the fact that the fantasy football world has gotten smarter in the past. The season like Ryan Tannehill's twenty nineteen would have almost assuredly catapulted his cost the following year into the top ten at the quarterback position. Yet today, the following year he's being drafted as a mid range QB two. Historically, fantasy managers didn't put a premium on quarterback rushing production. They ignored what's been dubbed the Konami code of fantasy football. We don't see that anymore. The consensus top seven quarterbacks this year are all players who bring that extra juice with their legs. So no, Lamar Jackson isn't what could break the idea of drafting quarterbacks late in fantasy football. You are as the fantasy football world gets sharper, the late round quarterback strategy may slowly morph into the round quarterback strategy. So this question makes a ton of sense to me. I was expecting these types of questions to happen before the season started. The late round quarterback strategy the idea of streaming. It's never been about a game of chicken. It's not about you being the last team to draft a quarterback. It's been about value, and historically quarterbacks haven't given you that big of an edge in fantasy football. The good ones weren't that much better than the replacement level ones or ones that you could get through streaming. Not only that, but the good fantasy football quarterbacks have often come in the late rounds and will continue to see late round quarterbacks hit every single year because of the nature of the position. Since you're only starting one in a traditional league, it means that usable ones are going to be available late. It makes sense that there's going to be one or two of them every year that hits. But the market, like I said in that article, had gotten efficient this year. It's what forced me in a lot of leagues to go with a guy like Josh Allen or Russell Wilson. I didn't go after Lamar Jackson or Patrick Mahomes, but Josh Allen is my highest rostered quarterback this year because of this very research, and I play in a lot of leagues where people are drafting quarterbacks late.

00:05:11
Speaker 2: Now.

00:05:11
Speaker 1: I don't know what this will then look like moving forward, because we need to react to the market, not what those individual quarterbacks are doing. Necessarily, that's what really dictates this strategy. But with fantasy football managers getting sharper each year. I would imagine that the late round quarterback strategy is going to become a little bit less appealing. It's still going to be a very viable strategy, especially in leagues where people reach for quarterbacks. So don't get me wrong, it's just that historically, middle round quarterbacks have really sucked in fantasy. But that's changing. And it's not just changing because we have these dual threat quarterbacks who are really good passers. That's part of it, but it's not all of it. It's changing because the market is recognizing the importance of that dual threat ability. This has questions from at IDP student. When building your projections to do rankings, do you rework them if you're completely different to the other industry experts, or do you trust your process. I'm a huge fan of the show, thanks, so I'll be completely honest with you guys. I don't consume anyone's content during the season. I don't listen to podcasts, I don't read articles, I don't.

00:06:15
Speaker 2: Have time to.

00:06:16
Speaker 1: I look at where the consensus is at each week for the matchup show, but I'm not changing anything based on that. I've got a process that I'm confident in now. Sometimes I'll talk to some trust and analysts about where they're at on players because there's a lot of toss ups in fantasy football. I don't know which direction to go when it's like a fifty to fifty proposition. But there's not a whole lot of reworking going on each week. And the other thing too, is that any projections that I build around the back end and they're not consumer facing, so it's easier for me to not care a whole lot about perception since I'm the only one really working off of that stuff. But no, I don't rework them unless there's something glaringly obvious that I missed, and sometimes that does happen, but I just trust my process. This ask question is from at Fantasy seven four to two zero seven three. At what point do we say, well, Todd Gurley may be a good bye inefficient, yes, but he has volume, and he has red zone carries and he is the RB six and standard all right. So first off, my analysis is done from a PPR standpoint, From a points per game perspective, Gurley is actually the RB nine in standard leagues when you look at running backs with five or more games played. Overall, he's the RB six, but on a points per game basis, he's the RB nine, and in PPR leagues he's the RB thirteen. But regardless of all of that, Gurley is still exceeding regression expectations. That's really what this question is about. It's saying, hey, yeah, Todd Gurley's not very efficient, but he's seeing volume and red zone carries aka touchdowns, so he must be good, right, And that's true. I'm not downplaying that Gurley's seeing enough volume to get by the real problem is the touchdowns. Even though he is seeing red zone work and he is seeing goal line work, he's still exceeding touchdown expectation. And I'm not saying that from the perspective of yards to touchdowns, or look at the number of yards that a player has versus the amount of touchdowns that he has. That's obviously just a high level way of looking at touchdown regression. You can adjust for where players are getting touches. I've got a regression model that looks at this, and the model says that he scored about one and a half more touchdowns than he should have this year, and that's based on where he's seeing touches, and you can cross reference that to other models like Pro Football Focus. They have an expected fantasy points model too, and that says the girl he should have seven point four rushing touchdowns when he actually has nine. More importantly, despite this, despite the fact that he scored so often and then he should be scoring less than he has, he still hasn't been that big of a difference maker. That's the reason I'm never gonna have someone like that as a by candidate. Like do I think that he's fine? Yeah, of course he's fine. He scored nine touchdowns this year. His usage has been good all things considered. But I'll never buy this type of production because it's really volatile and it goes against my own process and it's different than like Derrick Henry. Yeah, Dereck Henry also thrives on touchdowns, but he also does a whole lot more on the ground than Todd Gurley does. He has way more predictable volume each in every week. This last questions from at Fantasy ronan is JK. Dobbins Worth rostering if I already have depth at running back or should I be looking to strengthen other positions or handcuff with another running back. I still would have a hard time dropping Dobbin since we know that there's some general value in that backfield and he's been really efficient this year. He's a really good running back. Injuries could happen, the Ravens could decide to feature him. I know it's already week eleven and that hasn't fully happened, so we shouldn't assume that's going to happen. But I do still think that there's a chance that that upside ends up hitting. And like I said on the show, Baltimore has a good fantasy playoff schedule too. It would depend on the handcuff, but I don't see him as any different than the majority of handcuffs out there. And remember a lot of times we overestimate what a handcuff ends up doing when he steps in for an injured player. Still hold on, But I do understand this question. I think it's a very very reasonable thought, and it's actually something that I've considered in a league that I have Dobbins. This has question is from at B underscore like underscore, Mike Underscore underscore, and maybe there's one more underscore preparing for playoffs and stashing defenses. Which type of player would you drop Goddard if you have Kelsey or Duke if you have better running back options, leaning Duke as Goddard would be a more valuable pickup in the league. So I would say this stashing defenses is certainly not a bad idea. I'm doing it in leagues, and I do it all the time, hence the fifteen transactions recommendations from this week. However, I do think we should keep in mind that Number One, there's a lot of volatility with defenses. They're usually jammed together so close and scoring each and every week, so there's a lot of turnover each week.

00:10:51
Speaker 2: Even though we like a matchup, that.

00:10:52
Speaker 1: Doesn't guarantee that we're going to get a good performance, And with other defenses likely available, that means it's not to totally necessary to stash one they're less valuable. That's especially true when the opportunity cost of stashing can be great. I would say that players like Goddard and Duke Johnson, especially if they can help other teams, that might be too high of a cost. I just would need to know the depth of your league and what's really available to accurately answer this. But my overall process for stashing defenses is number one, be a realist. Know that your stash defense can easily flop, and since so many are out there, their value isn't significantly high. But number two, look at the landscape of your league. If dropping a player for that defense could really help another team, or if you know that it may hurt your own team, you should be more inclined to hold. Now, I'm not saying don't stash defenses. I do it all the time. Like I said, I'm just trying to be realistic about it. This asks questions from at Eric Bulair. Is it too early to tell? Or with concrete examples and digs and hopkins, can we finally put to bed the wide receivers changing teams don't produce narrative. So I think this is one of those cases where we probably take a narrative a little bit too far to begin with, because think about what all of this means. Think about what this narrative means, which is, when a wide receiver changes teams, that wide receiver generally doesn't perform to expectation.

00:12:18
Speaker 2: There's an inherent problem with that.

00:12:20
Speaker 1: There's a sample bias because not all wide receivers are changing teams. Generally, wide receivers who aren't very good are changing teams because if they were good, their teams would want to keep them. So my take isn't far off from my take earlier this offseason. It's just that over the off season we had this pandemic and it led to a lot of ambiguity with guys like Digs and Hopkins. But my take is that if there's real evidence that a wideout is good and he hasn't hit a wall, then we shouldn't be overly concerned about that player in fantasy football when he's switching teams. We still need to analyze a player's new situation, of course, but simply switching teams as the sole reason that shouldn't be enough to fade a guy in most cases in my opinion. But I can dig into this topic a little bit more over the offseason. This says question is from at Keith AMC.

00:13:05
Speaker 2: Court.

00:13:06
Speaker 1: Love, love, love what you are doing, but would also love to hear some Dynasty info at the end of your buy sell takes such as sell Jerry Judy unless it's Dynasty, than he's a hold for next year.

00:13:18
Speaker 2: I'll beg if I have to.

00:13:20
Speaker 1: All right, So let me explain this, because I've gotten this request a couple of times this year, and I get it, I understand it. But just so people know, the majority of the Late Round podcast audience is going to be Redraft players, even if there's a larger proportion of Dynasty players than I even realize, at least I know there's a redraft baseline. The majority of Dynasty players also play Redraft, And to be honest, I don't want to more for Redraft content with Dynasty content because first off, it can be confusing, but second it's a completely different beast, so.

00:13:49
Speaker 2: It's a lot more work.

00:13:51
Speaker 1: Like, I'm not an analyst that just says, hey, go sell Jerry Judy. Don't ask questions, just do what I say, go sell them. That's not what I'll ever be about. My goal is to teach. My goal is to make you a better Fantasy player by acquiring good process. So if I say to sell Jerry Judy in an article or in a podcast, but then at the very end I say, but buy them in Dynasty, then I'm gonna have to explain why I would buy him in Dynasty, And honestly, that's a hell of a lot of work, and then I'm not going to force a recommendation either. Like if I say sell Jerry Judy in my transactions list, I may not have a strong opinion on whether you should buy or sell them in Dynasty. So just because it's on that list doesn't mean I'll want to give specific advice on a player in Dynasty as well. So hopefully that side makes sense. But another thing too is that Redraft is a lot more reactionary than Dynasty is we only have ten to twelve weeks to really get our lineups ready for the playoffs via adding and dropping and buying and selling, because trade deadlines are a thing that's a whole lot different than literal years of seeing and waiting for players to develop. What that means is that my buy and sell recommendations are going to be influenced a lot more by a two or three week span, But in Dynasty that's typically not the case. Like I think Savon Ahmed is a great player right now to have on your roster and Redraft, I mean he's a great player to have in Dynasty too, but getting him on your roster is going to matter more in Redraft because chances are his long term value in the NFL is not going to be him being a workhorse back. So it's just very difficult to put that all together into one concise article or podcast that's both Redraft and Dynasty focused. So the only way to really do it is to split it up. And if I split it up, that's a whole lot more work. And I'm just being realistic about my time. If everyone played Dynasty, I would shift the majority of my focus to Dynasty leagues. That's just not the case in the end, guys. I'm just trying to be as smart and as efficient as I possibly can be with all the content that I produce. Of course, I wish that I could do more. I wish that I could give more Dynasty advice, but it's just really really difficult in season, so I shift my focus a little bit during the off season when more Dynasty players are active. The last question this week is from at Foe thirteen five four nine nine four eight. What are the chances we look back on this season and think starting Robbie Anderson for so many weeks is a bad idea.

00:16:11
Speaker 2: He might be droppable.

00:16:12
Speaker 1: Targets are there, sure, but if this keeps going all of this effort and faith in his potential was for nothing, So I was a little bit confused by this question this week. Robbie Anderson right now is a top twenty four wide receiver this year in PPR formats on a points per game basis, and he's ranked that high with just one single touchdown. Even though his usage close to the end zone is an ideal. He should score touchdowns at a higher rate from here on out, and if he maintains this target share, he's going to be in good shape. I mean, he's one of very few wide receivers seeing a twenty plus percent target share week in and week out. I can't imagine in any competitive league that you have an option better than Robby Anderson sitting on your waiver wire right now. So no, don't drop Robbie Anderson. That's going to do it for today's show, though. Thanks to all of you for listening. If you've got subscribed to Late Round podcast, make sure you are by searching for it pretty much anywhere podcasts can be found, and don't forget to follow me on Twitter where I fleet now at Late Round QB. Thanks everyone, I appreciate you listening this week. Enjoy Week eleven, and I'll talk to you next week.