571: Mailbag 10/28/21

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the lad Podcast with your host JJ zacher Retha Jay Jake Zacher reson What's up everyone. It's JJ Zachares and the editor in chief at fandle and at number fire dot com in this episode five hundred and seventy one of the Late Round podcast. So many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. I'm still here. Thanks for tuning in. Don't forget about this week's fandel Podcast Network Listener League. Check out fandle dot com Slash League Slash Listener League to join. It's a rake free contest that costs five dollars to enter and has fifteen hundred dollars in prizes. You can enter up to three lineups to the contest. Again. That's fandle dot Com Slash League Slash Listener League. To join. Eligibility restrictions apply. Go to fandle dot com or download the fandle app for more details. Today's a mailbag day, so let's get to it. The first question this week is from at the Underscore Bosco git us with some hard hitting facts about why we should drop slash sit. Some players with bigger names slash higher draft capital that are harder to move on from or that we need to hang with I e. Alan Robinson, Antonio Gibson, Tyler Lockett, help me readjust my expectations for some of these guys, if possible, please. I mean, the easiest way to think about this is that we got new information, so our opinions should change with this new information. That new information for Alan Robinson is that his team is run heavy and his team isn't throwing the ball effectively. I said earlier in the week on the ten Trend Show how some teams have double the number of passing yards of Chicago this year. That's massively hurt Alan Robinson. With Antonio Gibson, we've learned that the receiving work that was possible that he'd see entering the season just isn't there. Gibson's upside entering the season came in the form of him seeing an uptick and receiving volume that's not there. Not only that, but his quarterback got hurt and he's hurt. So we adjust our expectations with Gibson because things have changed with Gibson and then with Tyler Lockett. Obviously, Russell Wilson got hurt. He doesn't have one of the best passers in the game throwing him the ball anymore. Of course, these players are good, and so you're nervous about benching them or, in Alan Robinson's case, dropping him, but plugging them into your lineup no matter what is going to cost you games. Think of it this way. Let's say you bench one of your big name players who's been underperforming, like Tyler Lockett. Let's say you bench Tyler Lockett this week. It's not like you're taking a zero in that slot. You're putting someone else in that lineup slot who can outperform Lockett. And even if Lockett goes nuts, at least you know it's still possible for him. Just because it happened on your bench doesn't automatically mean that you lose your week or that the player that you replaced him with can't have a big week too. I mean, the fact of the matter is that we're not good enough at predicting this stuff to hold onto our preseason evaluations so tightly. Like seriously projecting what's gonna happen in football at an individual level is just flat out hard. Just because we thought one thing in August doesn't mean that we have to hold on to that belief into October, especially if they're obvious changes with that player, whether it's that player battling an injury or seeing his environment change with a quarterback injury. When there's a reason to move on from a player in your starting lineup, when there's a clear cut reason, then you can feel good about whatever move you make because you're being logical. Fantasy football is about winning the process. Battle names don't score fantasy points. Production does. Speaking of names in fantasy football, this next one is from at Imbresia Mania and it says there are a lot of people out there who look at guys with low value but name recognition, like Tyler Lockett, and they say you can't cut them, that you should try to trade them. But how do you actually do this if you're playing with savvy players? And what should you target in return? Love the show? Yeah, you can't trade them. I try to be as realistic as I can when I give recommendations on the fifteen transaction show Tweak, because, like I always say, the recommendations aren't just about the players themselves, They're also about the market or how people are viewing those players. It's why I try to shy away from obnoxious transactions like sell Tyler Lockett because I assume people aren't idiots. We all know Russell Wilson is injured. We all know Geno Smith is not a starting caliber quarterback. We all know that's gonna hurt Tyler Lockett. In cases like this, you've got to just hold on to them and hope things turn around for Lockett. You have to hope that Russell Wilson can heal fast and get back on the field. You don't want to drop him because what if that happens and Rusk gets back quickly? But you also don't want to start him because his production sucks with Geno Smith, and you can't really trade him because you can't assume your league mates are dumb, So you have to hold. You have no other choice. It's one of the more unfortunate parts of fantasy football. This beast question says, why do you focus on target share rather than targets per game when evaluating receivers. Targets per game would seem to be the better measure of opportunity if adjusted for game script. Thanks so, I got this question a couple of times this week, and it's a good question, But I do want to say that I focus on both instead of just saying targets per game. On this podcast, though, I talk about the target share for a particular player before making reference to that player's team, environment or situation. In other words, is that target share part of a big or small pie. Target share is actually more helpful than targets per game for projection purposes because it's better at showing us intent. How are teams utilizing this particular player. Game scripts and game flows can change game to game, and that causes teams to throw the ball a lot more or a lot less, and sometimes they'll just run fewer plays in total. That can skew the way that raw targets look. Target share, though, allows us to generally know whether a player is stafe or not to see volume in a given week because it wasn't some one off situation where the team threw the ball a lot. But make no mistake, I'm looking at raw targets too. You need to look at raw targets. I just look at target shair because it helps more with projections at the individual level. Those target shairs feed into the team level information. This next questions from at the Fantasy Fox. Have you noticed a decrease in quarterback rushing. Seems like Dak Kyler Josh Allen are not running like they used to. Even the sneaky guys like Burrow, Tannehill, and Herbert are not providing that extra production. So I was curious to see if the data agrees with this, because in the end, if rushing isn't happening at the same rate for a handful of quarterbacks, then those quarterbacks aren't going to give us the same kind of edge in fantasy football. It would allow more traditional pocket passers to be relevant. So I looked at the data at a high level. First, this isn't perfect because by weeks haven't all happened and we're just halfway through the season, so just be clear about that. I just wanted some sort of baseline to work off of here. But this season we're averaging about five hundred and fifty nine quarterback rushing yards per week. That's less than what we saw last year when it was five hundred and eighty eight, but it's will the second highest of the last decade. And here's the other thing so far this year, and by the way, I'm recording this before Thursday night's game, So this data is just through Week seven, but so far this year, quarterbacks have accounted for sixteen point three percent of all rushing yards across the league. That's actually higher than last year, and it's pacing to be the highest rushing yard share over the last ten years. That's just where I look back to. Quarterbacks have accounted for twenty one point nine percent of all rushing touchdowns as well. Last year the number was twenty three point six percent, so a little bit higher, but twenty one point nine percent is still the second highest total of the last decade. I think the reason you might be generally feeling this way is because a couple of higher profile picks from this year they're not running as much. Those players being Dak Prescott and Kyler Murray. Coming into this year, Dak's career low and rushing yards per game in a single season was seventeen point three. This season, it's eleven point seven. Now again, to reiterate, I'm recording this before Thursday Night's game, but entering that game, Kyler murray'sushing yards per game it's just eighteen. Last year is fifty one. But Josh Allen is averaging more yards per game than his previous two seasons. Ryan Tannehill is actually having a career year in rushing yards per game. And then all the while, we've had some really, really good performances from traditional pocket passers this year, mainly Tom Brady and Matthew Stafford, And so our brains are sitting here saying, well, maybe quarterback rushing is down this year because these pocket passers are doing so well. And I would say it's down very slightly overall, but not to the point where last year looks like some sort of outlier. There are just some quarterbacks who have seen a different type of playing environment this year. This espress is from at save Barnes FT nine, Bateman or Tony rest of season. Need to make a trade for running back help, and was gonna offer one of the above, but I'm torn on who to keep. So I'm assuming in this case, when we're looking at two players who are either late round picks or waiver wire pickups, we're not really relying on these guys week in and week out. They're not starters on most teams. I mean, they can be starters, and we'll throw them in our starting lineup at times, but right now, I just mean that there's a decent chance that they're like your wide receiver four, wide receiver five. If that's the case, you should be chasing upside. And since our small sample of Kadarius Tony is freaking amazing, I don't know how he could possibly make the argument that right now today Rashad Bateman has more upside than Kadarius Tony this year. So I would go with Kadarius Tony, even though I think both players need to be rostered right now and hopefully Kadarius Tony can get healthy. This asks questions from at Zak to the future. I have Hurts and Lance in my twelve team league with deep rosters, and most managers typically carry two quarterbacks, with Hurts essentially getting by on garbage time points and Lance riding the pine. Should I look to drop Lance for Jones or Ryan, both who are currently free agents, or just ride it out. It feels like most teams are probably not carrying two quarterbacks of day. Kiel Jones and Matt Ryan are free agents in the twelve team league. I'm just throwing it out there because they're both top twenty quarterbacks right now. Regardless, I think that Trey Lance should still be rostered. I actually sent a tweet out earlier this week about how Trey Lance might be the perfect ad for someone who has Jalen Hurts, because when Jalen Hurts potentially gets benched, it may coincide with the timing of Trey Lance becoming the starter in San Francisco, so you'd be replacing one cheat code quarterback for another if you're a little bit more concerned about Hurts. I like Daniel Jones' rest of season for when those skill players get healthy for New York. I really do. And he's obviously a good streamer this week, and Matt Ryan has been low key pretty good over the last month. But Lance is the upside play, and like I said, it sounds like people aren't hoarding quarterbacks that much in your league if Daniel Jones and Matt Ryan are available, so maybe just stick with Lance for that upside. But if you want to play it safer, Daniel Jones is probably my preferred option. This next question is from at jer Sieges. How do you feel about out rostering just one quarterback or one tight end in a non deep league if you have a top three player at either position, are you better off using that roster spot on an extra running back or wide receiver. Yes, in most leagues, especially when I have a really good quarterback or a really good tight end, I don't roster a second player at those positions. Of course, if you're in a deep league that changes. But for ninety eight percent of you listening to the show right now, the types of leagues that you play in, you can almost definitely roster just one quarterback and tight end. And if you ever wonder if you're in a league where you can do something like that or not, just look at your waiver wire. If your waiver wire has legitimate quarterback starters, like if you can easily get a streamer each and every week, then you shouldn't be holding a second quarterback unless that quarterback is very very good, of course, and has some sort of value. And with tight end, I mean there aren't many tight ends in general who are worth rostering, let's be honest. So in most cases, if you have a plug and play option, you probably don't need a second tight end or quarterback. You're better off using that bench spot for a higher upside player like a running back. Handcuff. The last question this week is from at literally underscore a fish in a ten team non PPR League. I have Henry Mitchell, Harris Edmunds, and Javonte Williams. Is it worth trading Edmunds for Jeff Wilson to lock up the San Francisco backfield rest of season given that Edmunds is currently my fourth or fifth running back option? Or should I hold on Wilson could fill my empty IR spot? Okay, I get questions like this all the time. I've talked about stacking backfields before on this show and how it's generally not a viable strategy. But I need to break this logic and explain why this is usually not a very good idea. For whatever reason, fantasy managers tend to think that one singular running back almost always emerges from backfields, when the opposite is actually true. We have tons of committees in football where one running back is not the guy. Like, think about what trading for Jeff Wilson would do in this scenario right now. Now, You've got a relatively decent player in Chase Edmonds who may be your RB four, but he's still productive. He's still someone that not only can get you points during a bye week or serve as insurance, but he's got upside as well as something were to happen to James Connor. You get rid of Edmonds and you get Jeff Wilson. Now, what what are you gonna do with Wilson? Is the thought here that he'd be Elijah Mitchell's handcuff or is the thought here that he'd eventually take over Elijah Mitchell's role, Because if you're worried about the latter, then you should just trade Elijah Mitchell. I mean, there are other reasons right now to trade Elijah Mitchell I talked about on the fifteen Transaction Show earlier this week. But if you're trading for Jeff Wilson because you think he's gonna take over that backfield when he returns, then you should be more concerned about Elijah Mitchell and you should want to trade him away. I understand that the thought behind locking up backfields is that you want to ensure that if a player emerges, you have that player. But guys, you can use logic and reasoning and just get that player without having to catch an entire backfield, because when you capture an entire backfield, you're also begging on the fact that you got the backfield, where one back is going to emerge. In hindsight, it's really easy to look back and say, man, if I would have just gotten every back in that backfield, I would have been in great shape. Like with Tampa Bay. Yes, if you drafted both Ronald Jones and Leonard Fournette this offseason, you'd have a great return on your investment right now, because Leonard Fournette is an RB one, he emerged, he's the guy. But for every Tampa Bay situation, there are plenty of other situations where that doesn't happen. And there are plenty of situations where you think you know who that guy is and then you don't. And ironically San Francisco is a perfect example of that. Anyone who listens to this show knows that I'm all about ambiguous backfields during your fantasy draft. I've done tons of research on it. Middle and late round running back hits. They're generally coming from backfields where there's no established RB one. Throwing darts at those backfields is a very very good idea during your draft. But we now have in season data. We've now seen Elijah Mitchell get almost all of the team's early down work when he's been healthy. This is no longer a projection without a lot of substance, like we project before a season starts. We have some substance, we have some evidence. We have to look at these things rationally. What are the odds that Jeff Wilson comes back from his injury and becomes a workhorse. What are the odds of that. I'd say they're not very high at all. I think we'd all agree they're probably not very high, assuming no one is injured. This doesn't mean I wouldn't stash Jeff Wilson just to see what happens. This is not a one hundred percent or zero percent type thing. This is a probability driven thing. We're working with logic. Jeff Wilson becomes a week in and week out starter in fantasy football only if Elijah Mitchell gets benched, which seems unlikely, or if he gets hurt. In that case, he's just a handcuff. But even if Elijah Mitchell gets hurt, we've seen Kyle Shanahan utilize committees, so it's not even a lock that Jeff Wilson would be a bell cow with an injury to Mitchell. With Chase Edmonds, you've got that potential James Connor going down could unlock Edmonds into being a goal line back, and that's being a goal line back and one of the best offenses in football, an offense that's produced more fantasy points per game this year at running back than San Francisco has. I think we get enamored with the upside of the new player who's coming back from injury, and we often ignore the upside of the existing player. I mean, we don't even know when Jeff Wilson is coming back. And again, I'm not saying there's a zero percent chance that anything happens. Maybe the forty nine ers secretly don't like Elijah Mitchell that much and they throw Wilson into this crazy role when he returns. I guess that's possible. But the chance of all these things happening in Jeff Wilson's favor they're not very great. The chance that Wilson comes back and simply digs into Elijah Mitchell's existing role, that seems logical in the most likely scenario. So working off that, ask yourself, so, what Jeff Wilson is doing for your team in terms of the most likely outcome here, Wilson would actually hurt your team, because now you've captured a backfield that's split up more than a Kardashian marriage. You now have zero usable running backs, and then what happens if another one of your backs gets hurt? All of a sudden, you're done to actually needing a player like Chase Edmonds, but you traded him away. Capturing backfields can work, sure, I won't deny that sometimes players do emerge from these backfields, but too often, when you force the issue like this, you're actually hurting your fantasy team. You think you're playing it safe, but you're actually forcing a potential roster implosion. That's going to know for today's show. Thanks to all of you for listening. If you get subscribed 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 for listening this week everyone, I really really appreciate it. Enjoy your weekend, and I will talk to you next week