487: Mailbag 3/5/21

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the Label podcast with your host JJ zacher Retha j J zacher reson What's up everyone. It's JJ Zacharyson, the editor in chief at fandel and at number five dot com. And this is episode four hundred and eighty seven of the Late Round podcast. So many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. Thanks for tuning in. I haven't opened up the Mailbag episode with anything of substance recently, so here goes. Earlier this week, there was a report from ESPN that talked about how the Ravens aren't likely to go after Kenny Galladay and Alan Robinson in free agency, that they won't pursue a number one wide receiver like those players now. ESPN Mike clay Is tweeted about it, so I quote tweeted that tweet, and I said that it was a good thing for those players and their fantasy value because at the end of the day, as long as Lamar Jackson is quarterbacking the Ravens, they're likely to be a run heavy team in neutral game scripts. Over the last two years, Baltimore has been the most run heavy team in football both seasons, and if they're a run heavy team, it's going to be hard for wide receivers there to thrive. Maybe that changes if Greg Roman's not the offensive coordinator in the future, but that still plays into why this is good for Galladay and Robinson. They're either walking into a situation where there's not a lot of volume, or they're walking into a situation of ambiguity where we don't know if for when that offense will ever have enough passing volume. With Lamar Jackson under center, I got responses thinking that I was referring to Lamar Jackson's poor quarterback play with my tweet, but that wasn't the case. I was just referring to the offensive situation. I also got responses that related the situation in Baltimore to the one in Buffalo. How Josh Allen spent two years as a starter, he had a ton of accuracy issues. The Bills then got Stefan Diggs, then poof Josh Allen became one of the most accurate quarterbacks in the league. And I get the idea behind that. Really, I think it's good to find comparable situations to help us predict the future. I just wanted to bring up the notion on today's intro because This is also a trap, and it's a trap that's easy to fall into. When we're looking at anything football related. It's important not just look at one ideal outcome when we're evaluating things. This is one of the reasons that player comparisons can be tricky when it comes to prospecting. Typically, when we make a player comp, we inherently are doing it with some sort of bias, like, if we like a player, we're gonna likely find a comp that's favorable for that player. But the truth is, for a lot of guys, you can go in either direction. What we really should be concerned about is when the comps are overwhelmingly favorable or unfavorable, instead of just singling out one comp. So, yes, hypothetically, maybe a true alpha would elevate Lamar Jackson, maybe it would make him a more accurate passer, and we could see a jump like Josh Allen saw, But we have to keep in mind that Allen's year two to year three jump is really something that we haven't seen until this past year. It wasn't a normal thing, and banking on something like that that's gonna result in a loss far more often that it's going to result in a win now. Before get into the questions this week, because it is a mailbag show, I want to let you guys know about FanDuel's nightly NHL breakaway contests between March third and ninth. If any player in your lineup scores a hat trick, you'll win a share a five thousand dollars in bonus cash, and that's in addition to your regular contest prizes. So head on over to fandle today and play Daily Fantasy Hockey for more details. Was a fandle dot com or download the FanDuel app. Eligibility restrictions apply. The first question this week says Hi, JJ love the show, appreciate the work you do. Thanks. Having offered up the teas at the end of episode four hundred and eighty six about discussing sleepers like Straan and following your success with James Robinson, I'd love for you to discuss your favorite wide receiver and or running back sleeper. Thanks Adam. Yes, I already talked up some running backs on The Running Back Show that I like more than the consensus, like Kylin Hill. I think Ramandre Stevenson has a lot of upside of things hit for him too. And then digging deeper, I've seen more people talk about Jakwan Hardy and I think he makes sense as a deep sleeper this year. He's from Tiffins who He's from a smaller school, and he has a pretty strong production profile. But he's also listed at five ten two and twenty five pounds, so he has an intriguing size profile that could get him noticed by a team. It's still early in the process though. A wide receiver, you mentioned Michael Straan, who I think is the small school guy that I'm most interested in, and then on the Wide Receiver show, I talked about Jalen Darden on a North Texas. Both guys are very different in size, but then Darden has the better production profile. So those are just some names to keep an eye on. The next question is related to that last one and it's from at Fantasy Ladder. Do you factor in smaller school prospects playing against lower quality competition typically lower star recruit pool compared to Power five conference in your prospect model. James Robinson was an epic hit last year. Any small school guys your model likes right now? So yeah, I just talked about the guys that I like from smaller schools. But I do want to answer this question regarding smaller school players in the model. I factor in competition, but I found that it matters less at running back than it does at wide receiver. And that's when you consider all the inputs in my model, like draft capital, because obviously better players are going to a Power five school, and those better players are being drafted higher, so it all works together in some way. I think that's always important when I talk about my model. Just because it likes or doesn't like something doesn't mean those things are irrelevant or relevant. It just means that with all the factors that I'm looking at, it just doesn't seem to like it, or it does seem to like it. So at running back, it doesn't really care what school you're coming from. A wide receiver, it most definitely does, but I think a lot of that is usually captured in Draft capital. This says question is from at not really hat What are we doing with Kyle Pitts for rookie drafts? We've heard the basically a wide receiver line for tight ends plenty before, but Pitts seems legit. Does it work to plug them into your wide receiver model? Or are are there any other adjustments you're making and projecting him? So I don't have a tight end model, but I generally know what I'm looking for in a tight end and a lot of it is athleticism combined with production. But the athleticism side is more important at the tight end position than it is at running back and wide receiver. And Pitts is definitely athletic, but he also is a production freak who produced really early. He's got a great breakout age. I'm viewing Pits in Dynasty as someone who should be valued just outside the elite tier of players. His pass catching profile is just better than the recent tight ends that we've seen go high in the draft, and Pitts should have high draft capital. Now that's a separate answer to what are we doing with Kyle Pitts for rookie drafts, because in single quarterback leagues with no tight end premium scoring, Pitts has a chance to be overvalued only because of the position that he plays. Tight End just matters less. But as a prospect, I'm all about Pits and in leagues where you get extra points per reception for tight ends, or in leagues where you start multiple tight ends. Pitts is a slam dunk top half of the first round rookie pick in my opinion. Now I've plugged him into my wide receiver model and he still does look pretty good, but he doesn't look nearly as good. He's not like the best wide receiver in the class when I put him in the wide receiver model, but there are a handful of guys ahead of him, And that's the thing. His allure is that he's giving you that edge, a tight end that isn't super easy to find. But at the same time, fantasy managers can overstate that edge based on supply and demand because you're only starting one tight end in most leagues, so it's a balance. Like I said, in normal leagues, I think he may be a little bit overdrafted just because of how good this class is overall. But in leagues where tight ends matter more, it's hard to overdraft him. This experson says, JJ, with your recent request on rookie pass catchers, I find one name as an interesting sleeper. I do not, ever recall so many highly graded slot type wide receivers. The vertically challenged guys waddle more the other more. Three of the top five or six wide receiver profiles are all around five foot ten and one hundred and eighty pounds. But there is yet another top pound for pound wide receiver who is also a high recruit out of high school at the same height, but coming in at two hundred and ten pounds. He brings a much higher BMI and we have seen BMI impact long term NFL success. So what is your opinion of a Maari Rodgers if he shows well with athletic testing? Sincerely, Neil, So, first off, I haven't found that BMI is that big of a deal at wide receiver. More on that on a future podcast, though. That's what we in the business call a tease. Is there anything more nerdy than teasing a fantasy football podcast about BMI? Anyway, I could see Rogers being someone that film people are going to like more than analytics people, because from a numbers perspective, there's not a ton to love about him. He's not in early declare, he has a later breakout age. His production numbers in my model, they're not that great. But I'll say this, when players project to be slot guys at the next level, I tend to care a little bit less about their overall pro because playing the slot is just naturally easier than playing everywhere else or playing outside and being a true alpha. That's one of the things that scares me with players who are locked into slot roles, who we absolutely know will only play in the slot. They need to find the right landing spot. I mean, Hunter Renfro from the same school as Amari Rodgers. He wasn't some mega producer in college, and he's a fine slot receiver in the NFL. He's not amazing, but he's fine. And I do think that Rogers' size is gonna naturally bring more upside than what someone like Hunter Renfro brings. But there are just a lot of different types of wide receivers and we should evaluate those types differently. Now, my model doesn't break it down on that level. It gives an overall score, though I do think that draft capital being an input it helps with this. Teams aren't gonna spend a fifth overall pick on a slot receiver, so I'm not writing off of Mari Rodgers at all. And if you think that some of the other players who are being highly touted right now are strictly going to be slock eyes, and maybe they will be if they find an uncreative team. But if that's do you believe, then you should probably be avoiding them in your rookie drafts, just giving their probable cost to acquire. Because being only a slot receiver doesn't provide a ton of upside unless you're really really good and you find a really really good situation. It's a safer bet to draft wide receivers who can work everywhere. The last question says, Hey, JJ, this may be more of a football question, but has some effect on fantasy. I think we can all agree that Wentz was hashtag not good last year. Yes, I think so too. But do you think it's possible for Wentz to have a career revival like Tannehill after his move to Indy. Tannehill had limited success with Miami, then moved to another team with better coaching, a better offensive line, and a better defense. Now, with better players around him, he's even gotten close to a super Bowl. One could argue that Wentz had a better peak in Philadelphia than Tannehill had in Miami and now goes to a team with better coaching and a coach he loves and loves him, a better offensive line and a better Defense. Thanks as always, JJ Eric. I haven't updated this study in a really long time, but a handful of years ago, when we did more real NFL content over on Number Fire, I did a study that was similar to my bailing on Unproductive Rookies episode that it did last year. The gist of the study was that we generally have a good idea of how good a quarterback is going to be just after his first season or two. Not the time of the article, Tannehill was still a question mark because I wrote it after his second or third year. But of the quarterbacks who ended up panning out after a tough start to their careers, it was clear that they panned out because something significant happened to their situation. Drew Brees went to New Orleans, Alex Smith went to Kansas City. Jared Goff ended up being matched up with Sean McVay. But it doesn't happen often. It's just good that we can latch onto this narrative for Wentz and say that he's not toast, at least compared to how others think about him. I'm actually fairly bullish on him being reasonable. I don't think he's like a QB one, but I took him in a Dynasty Superflex startup in January before that trade went down for that reason, because we've seen these turnarounds happen with a change in situation, and then he ended up falling to the best possible spot in my opinion for his development given that Frank Reich reunion. But like I said at the top, we shouldn't compare situations like this to the best possible outcome. We should definitely be aware those outcomes are possible, but we shouldn't assume that's what the outcome is going to be. I think Wentz will be better than what he was in twenty twenty because of the scenery change, but I don't think it's necessary to say he's gonna have this Ryan Tannehill like turnaround only because that's really tough to do. The last question this week is from at BDFFB. Are you projecting league wide passing regression in twenty twenty one or is it a case by case basis thing ie Rodgers' touchdown rate, bills past a rush ratio, et cetera. Twenty twenty felt a lot like the twenty eleven lockout season, so I haven't done any projections for next year. I usually do those after the draft, But to be clear, the way I build projections isn't to set some league wide number, for like to rush ratio, and then adjust from there. I don't say there's going to be five hundred passing touchdowns across the league this year and then divvy things up that way. I'm looking at what's predicted from previous seasons and projecting at a team level first, not a league wide level. It may turn out that those projections show regression in total, but the process for creating projections is not going to change based on what happened last year, if that makes sense. Basically, I don't think the things that you asked in the question are really in conflict with one another. Asking if I'm projecting league wide passing regression or am I taking it case by case. The answer is probably both. As I've said before on the show, I would be surprised if we saw some of the same passing numbers that we saw this past year. I would be fairly shocked if that was able to be maintained year over year. I think there are reasons that we saw a better offensive play that are sustainable, like fewer offensive holding calls, but it's hard for me to ignore the fact that it was a different type of season. In general, the lack of prep could have easily hurt defenses earlier in the season more than offenses because offenses dictate so much of this game, and then teams playing on the road they didn't have to deal with crowd noise, so they could do more at the line of scrimmage. To me, it just makes logical sense that offenses would see a little bit of a bump at least early in the season. That's why before the season started I had talked about the overs hitting at a higher rate because that's what we saw back in twenty eleven because defenses weren't prepared and offenses know what's coming. So, to reiterate the answer to this question, everything is case by case, and then my guess is, with all of those cases being inputed, the projections will show some regression at the league level, But that obviously depends on the metric that you're wondering about, and I don't know what that metric would be based on this question, but overall, yeah, I'm sure that passing will regress in some way. 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 podcasts can be found, and never forgets. Follow me on Twitter at Late Round QB. Thanks for listening everyone, enjoy your weekend. I will talk to you next week