362: Mailbag 4/3/20

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the Label podcast with your host JJ zacher Resa, JJ zacher Reason.

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

00:00:12
Speaker 1: It's JJ Zacharyese and the editor in chief at fandel and at number fire dot com in this episode three hundred and sixty two of the Late Round podcast on many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. Thanks for tuning in. Before getting the mailbag questions this week, I wanted to send you guys another reminder about Racing dot FanDuel dot com. With sports on hold, fandels doing its part to continue to bring sports fans excitement by offering users the chance to bet on horse racing. Use your existing fandel DFS login credentials to gain access to tutorials to learn more about the sport, including understanding how the odds work, the various types of bets, and most importantly, how you can win on those bets. Watch all the races live across over three hundred tracks and fill the void left in your sports fandom today For more details. Was it racing dot fandle dot com or download the FanDuel app. Eligibility restrictions apply. The first question this week is form my buddy at Davis Maddock. It says, if Jonathan Taylor goes in the first round of the NFL draft, is he a top five pick in Fantasy and twenty twenty. I thought this question was pretty interesting, but others on Twitter said things like wouldn't you need to know what team Taylor was drafted to in order to answer this properly? I'd argue that, yes, we can be more precise with this answer if we knew what team he was drafted to. But from a workload standpoint, a team willing to take Taylor in the first is likely going to feed him the ball in year one as long as that team is int The Seattle Seahawks top five is pretty rich, though, and I love Jonathan Taylor. I'd have a hard time drafting him a head of Saquon Barkley, Christian McCaffrey, Zeke and Michael Thomas. At the very least, right there is four, and I think that you can make arguments for Dalvin Cook and Alvin Kamara.

00:01:56
Speaker 2: I do think that.

00:01:57
Speaker 1: This is a lot closer than people realize, though there are question marks with plenty of later first round picks. Whether you're looking at Dereck Henry in that offense is regression you got Aaron Jones in the potential for a split backfield and touchdown regression. Joe Mixon's a question mark in the offense. Nick Chubb saw bad splits with Kareem Hunt, and I'm just naming running backs there because we know wide receiver is flatter and there's less differentiation from one player to the next outside of Michael Thomas. From a projection standpoint, I think if Taylor falls are a pretty good spot, and if he's a first round pick in the NFL draft, the argument would be more of a one to two turn type of player rather than a top five to one. Maybe that sounds crazy, but I think that's where the argument would start. I doubt I'd be taking him there in redraft, but things could change. I've got him as a very very good prospect. This best question is an email says, hey, JJ, thanks for the great offseason content and it's been good to go back and listen to the Evergreen podcast. Thanks. I've been in two startup Dynasty drafts over the last month. As I'm a total degenerate, Normally I take a wide receiver heavy approach is their value seems to be less volatile over time with the annual consistency stickiness of passing offenses. But I've noticed this year that wide receiver quality is so deep and I'm able to get people like Mike Williams late and as a wide receiver six. With this in mind, could we benefit from taking a more running back heavy approach to redraft next year as the quality at wide receiver should be there later on. I appreciate your thoughts, man, and hope the Zacharyesen Klan are all keeping safe. Cheers Dan from Nottingham UK, Thank.

00:03:31
Speaker 2: You appreciate it.

00:03:32
Speaker 1: So I think this goes back to what I talked about in the episode earlier this offseason on the death of the elite wide receiver.

00:03:38
Speaker 2: We're seeing fewer and fewer.

00:03:39
Speaker 1: Unicorns at the position, and while that makes the true unicorns really valuable, like Michael Thomas, it also means it's really hard to obtain that player, so you shouldn't force it. I don't know if running back heavy is the approach, though. I think mixing in running backs is and always has been fine. But the issue in going running back heavy, especially in Dynasty, is that we're not seeing these guys get good second contracts, so they're not getting opportunity sometimes past their fourth year of production, and if a back has a late start, then you're not squeezing out many years of production. That's for dynasty purposes. For redraft, I think it does make a little bit more sense, but I'm still very much a drafter who pounds the running back in wide receiver positions early because they're the highest in demand positions in most leagues. I don't think it's time to move away from that. I don't think it's necessarily time to say I'm not drafting early round wide receivers in redraft. I would probably skew towards the running back position, but that hasn't changed that much for me over the years, only slightly. And obviously the league's settings matter a lot too. But I also just think that it's about extracting value at both positions early, rather than feeling tied to one of those two positions.

00:04:50
Speaker 2: This last question is from at Ike Azar.

00:04:53
Speaker 1: Everyone has obj bouncing back this year, but with Stefanski's slow pace in low.

00:04:58
Speaker 2: Play volumes, wouldn't he need to be super efficient?

00:05:01
Speaker 1: So? Last season, according to Football Outsiders, Minnesota actually ranked thirteenth in overall pace. They were eighth in pace during the first half, and they were eleventh in pace in neutral game scripts. So I don't know if slow pace is the right phrase to describe what Stefanski did last year, which was his first full year as offensive coordinator, but he definitely skews in the more run heavy direction and that can lead to fewer plays sometimes due to sustained drives. And Minnesota did rank twenty seventh in plays run last year to your point, but it's not like we're talking about Seattle or San Francisco and neutral game scripts last year, which is when games are within six points, Minnesota ranked twenty third in pass to rush attempt ratio. They were third lowest in overall ratio, but much of that has to do with the fact that they were pretty good. They ran the sixth fewest plays while trailing last year. That allowed them to be fairly run heavy. And not only that, we know last year that OBJ saw one hundred and thirty three targets on a new team while also being banged up throughout the year, and Cleveland ran only three more plays than Minnesota did. I think the worry is less about Stefanski for OBJ and more about how things are going to be distributed in that offense, not just from a target share perspective, but also who's scoring their touchdowns? Like I always say, elite players find a way to see elite target shairs, but the touchdown scoring component is gonna be the volatile piece. So's OBJ likely going to see one hundred and sixty targets next year? No, I don't think so. My projections actually have him right back at one hundred and thirty three targets, but I'd be a little bit surprised if he plays sixteen games and he's under the one hundred and twenty target mark. This best question is from at SF Underscore, David Geo, catching up on your prospect models now that I've had time to do my own research. Always my favorite articles. Thanks, and I notice you changed the categories for wide receivers from pure reception yards and touchdown shares. I like it, but was there a specific reason for the change. So this question is referring to my articles in pods on running backs and wide receivers who produce like studs in college for.

00:07:03
Speaker 2: Any of you who are confused.

00:07:05
Speaker 1: But the reason I changed things up was that I wanted to be more transparent with my prospect models this year, so instead of looking at more traditional metrics, I just looked at what my model looks at and where there were flaws with these players.

00:07:17
Speaker 2: That's all it is.

00:07:18
Speaker 1: If you guys would rather see me go back and do it the other way, I can totally do that next year. This last questions from AT's only wonder boy, is there any practical reason why superflex leagues aren't just two quarterback leagues instead? Don't see any reason why you'd ever start another position over a quarterback, so just curious. Love the pod, Thanks, thank you. I think most of it has to do with the limited supply during times like bye weeks. If you're in a twelve team league, all teams are going to have at least two quarterbacks, and in the majority of them are going to try to have three, and in dynasty formats you'll see teams with four or five. If you don't have that flexibility, you can be taking zeros at the position in a given week. So maybe you're thinking, well, you should plan better. Sure, you can plan better to have a backup plan, but crazy stuff happens in the NFL and guys also get hurt. So the flexibility is what does it for me? And why not just have that flexibility. If you know that you're getting an advantage by having two quarterbacks, just play into that and adjust accordingly. But I don't see the downside of it being a super flex league as opposed to it being a two quarterback league, especially in leagues.

00:08:23
Speaker 2: Where other positions see boose, because.

00:08:26
Speaker 1: Sometimes that makes them actual options in that super flex spot. This next question is from at DwC eighty six. I'm trying to recall the measurements you rely on when trying to spot a breakout tight end.

00:08:40
Speaker 2: Last season.

00:08:41
Speaker 1: You were all over Waller, which was awesome. Who's shaping up to be that tight end this year? So I haven't done enough research to know who that tight end's going to be this season, But there's really not a ton to work off of aside from a really simple formula of athleticism and opportunity. Waller had both of those last year, especially after Antonio Brown left town as did Mike Kasicki, And maybe Mike Kasicki is that late round tight end this year. He just didn't work out until the end of the year last year. But you want athletic pass catching tight ends. Episode two hundred and sixty one with rich Reebar from last offseason discusses this a little bit. This last question says, what do you think of James Connor's talent versus production? And is he capable of sticking around in the league if let go from the Steelers. So let's pretend the Steelers don't sign Connor after this season's over, since he's a free agent.

00:09:31
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty one.

00:09:32
Speaker 1: Do I think he's gonna walk into a situation and be effective for fantasy purposes? No, I don't, and it pains me to say that. I'm born and raised Pittsburgh. I went to pitt James Connor is one of the most inspirational players of all time, and he went to my alma mater. I love James Connor, but being objective, I don't think he's an overly special talent, which is what you need to be in order to get a lucrative second contract and in order to walk into a situation and see a lot of work. I think he can be a committee back, but I doubt we're looking at a situation where Connor's a starter on a different team. This is all part of the reason that a couple of months ago, when someone asked for a lower key team who could spend up at the running back position in this year's draft, I mentioned Pittsburgh. I also mentioned Detroit. The thing is, the Steelers don't have much early round draft capital, but they could always trade up. They could always trade in and get one of those better running backs. But I'm not someone who believes that Connor's gonna have long lasting fantasy value. This last question is from at blue Chip Underscore ninety five. How do you feel about Teddy as a late round quarterback next year? Using the same logic as with Jamis last year of highly touted weapons CMC, DJ Anderson and a division with minimal defense, and he can even use his legs. A little bit curious to hear your thoughts on him. I don't think it's necessary given the depth of the position. I know that's my answer for a lot of these lower tiered quarterbacks, but it's true, and there's a pretty big difference between Bridgewater and Jamis Winston as quarterbacks. Winston's not afraid to throw it deep and has done and that frequently throughout his career. He's been a DGAFF quarterback. Hence the interception totals, Bridgewater's been more conservative. That might look better from a real football perspective. I don't necessarily agree with that, but some people might see it that way, but it's definitely not better from a fantasy perspective. Teddy might be a surprise useful quarterback, and I think there's some intrigue there because that offense is going to look completely different, and you've got some really good offensive minds working that offense, and the Panthers defense is probably gonna suck and they're going to have to keep pace with Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Matt Ryan. All of those things are good for Teddy Bridgewater, but I'm not sure this is just like Jamis. Given the style of quarterbacks that we're working with here, Bridgewater does seem like a decent later round option though in two quarterback leagues. This last question says, Hey, JJ, what do you make of Darryl Henderson right now? In dynasty formats? Are you looking to sell now that Gurley has gone? And if so, what are you looking for in return? In terms of twenty twenty rookie picks, Love the show. Jesse from Minneapolis.

00:12:00
Speaker 2: Thanks Jesse.

00:12:01
Speaker 1: The Daryl henderson situation is kind of a tough one for me. I can at least tell you that I don't see Henderson being a workhorse like Todd Gurley was. Henderson wasn't really a workhorse at Memphis, and then obviously he didn't see a ton of work last year either. And then on top of that, like I talked about on episode three hundred and forty three on bailing on unproductive rookies, Henderson's rookie season.

00:12:22
Speaker 2: Really doesn't bode well for future success.

00:12:24
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, elite players in fantasy football are guys who have given us multiple top twenty seasons. They usually produced well as rookies because they're good. So Henderson's outlook from that perspective looks kind of bad, but it's not all doom and gloom. I think you can easily argue that Henderson's situation is pretty unique given what happened to the running back in front of him, and I did like him as a prospect. I think you're going to see Henderson's evaluation kind of all over the place right now if I'm looking at him in his situation, Like I said, I don't think he's gonna be in RB one. I think we're looking at a situation where he's more of a one A in that eye and in a committee. If someone's trying to buy him as a workhorse, then I would sell. If someone's trying to make the argument that Malcolm Brown is better than I would buy. If you're equating this to draft picks, I'd likely be more comfortable with the higher end running backs in this year's class than Darryl Henderson, So the traditional top five guys in this class, I would rather have them. That means that if I'm trading a pick for Henderson, it would have to be a late first or an early second round pick. That's going to do it for today's show, though, Thanks to all of you for listening. If you've get to subscribe to the 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 at Late Round QB. Thanks everyone, Keep staying inside and keep staying safe, and I'll talk to you on Monday.