499: Mailbag 4/16/21

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the Late Podcast with your host JJ zacher Retha J J. Zacher reson What's up everyone? It's JJ Zachares and the editor in chief at Fandel and at Number five dot com in this episode four hundred and ninety nine of the Late Round podcast with many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. Thanks for tuning in, Fantasy Baseball fans. Fandel has a special contest running for you every single day. The Fandel home Run Challenge is free to play. All you have to do is draft a team of three players and you'll receive points for each home run that they hit. Compete for a chance to win a part of the ten thousand dollars prize pool. Head over to Fandel and play the home Run Challenge for free. For more details is at fandle dot com or download the Fandel app. Today. Eligibility restrictions apply. Today's a mailbag episode. Let's get to it. The first question this week is from at Tuba Guy three two four seven eight HIJJ You Rock No, You Rock? Touba Guy? Was the James Connor trade good or bad? For Chase Edmonds? Is the upside? There? Can we envision a path to RB two status for Chase Edmonds. So on an episode a few weeks back, I mentioned how I was selling Edmonds after Kenyan Drake signed with the Raiders because a move like this one was inevitably going to happen. With that being said, I think a move like this is probably a good one for Edmunds because if it was a given that they were going to add a piece of that backfield, adding a piece like Connor, who I think is more of a replacement level running back, that's far better than adding someone in the draft like Davonte Williams. Now, the odds that they spend their limited draft capital on a running back is smaller. They may not get one until their round five pick, given they don't have round three or four picks. If that happens, then it's a good win for Edmunds. I don't think Edmonds is gonna be some two hundred and twenty Kerry running back, though he's a good pass catcher. But Edmunds this is a little bit undersized, and he has just two career games with more than eleven rushes. You can say that he's never had competition in his backfield that's been this mediocre and I generally agree with you, but he was still playing behind a bad David Johnson during Johnson's last year in Arizona, and I'm not sure Kenyan Drake is a special running back. What I think this move did was now Chase Edmonds value is not completely torpedoed. I can see a path to RB two status for sure, but I don't think that's really saying much. We really need RB ones in fantasy football. If we want true difference makers, we need top ten running backs, at least that's what I found through my research. I don't think Edmunds, just as a player is going to offer that upside. And it's not because he can't catch, but because I'm not sure the volume on the ground will be there. And then you're competing for touches at the goal line with James Connor, who's a bigger body back who's capable of taking those touches, and then Kyler Murray as well. You know, last season the Cardinals really really opted to not you he was Chase Edmunds at the goal line. Kenyan Drake was tied for third in the NFL on goal line rushes with twenty two, and Kyler Murray had eight chase Edmunds, he had won one goal line rush. That's a huge reason that Edmunds is still more of a floor play rather than a ceiling one. The last question is an email and says, hello, JJ, love your content, listen to all of it. Thanks. I think you approached this in the past, but can you talk about which positions outside of tight end are more or less dependent on athletic testing when prospecting incoming rookies and how you were dealing with that this year with no combine and pro day testing issues. Thanks Dan. You know so, I answered this one about a month or two ago, but I got the question a couple of times this week, so I figured that i'd talk about it a little bit more. From my research and what's in my model. Athleticism testing doesn't matter that much at a high level. I say at a high level because I think there are instances where you subjectively may want to change how you view a player based on their testing. Like if there's a d fop ball receiver who runs a four five, five point forty, that's probably not the best sign in the world. The reason I think athleticism testing numbers don't seem to matter much is because there's so much already embedded into those numbers. It's very rare for a highly sought after prospect to test like a suburban dad, because if that player is highly sought after, that means he was good and probably productive in college, and it's hard to be good without being athletic in some way. There's also a lot more to the wide receiver position. In order for a wide receiver to win and get the ball, a lot more needs to happen versus a running back seeing the ball. That's why I think we see running back combine measurables mattering a little bit more than a wide receiver, or at least that's what I've found. But in the end, for a lot of these guys, I take a case by case aside from certain thresholds being hit, and I'll change things in my rankings based on the kind of player that I'm analyzing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. One thing I do hate, though, is that people that think the combine equals analytics. They think analytical and numbers driven people are judging players strictly by the combine. That couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, I'd argue that teams weigh the combine more than numbers driven analysts. Do we see fast receivers being overdrafted in the NFL draft all the time? And that's the other thing, by the way, with these measurables, one of the reasons they may not matter as much for models that use draft capital is that draft capital is capturing everything. Like if a player runs a fast forty maybe in some world that would have had some sort of signal, but that's probably gonna boost a player's draft capital. So if draft capital is an input in the model, which it is in mind, then that means the forty time itself is more irrelevant. This last questions from at Deep Dive Dynasty, how do we view the Tampa Bay backfield now with Fournett resigning and Bernard being added to the mix? Is this a situation to avoid or is someone like Geo worth a late shot really late in redraft. I also got a lot of questions around this Tampa Bay backfield this way week, including some questions about the whole ambiguous backfields thing. And those questions, by the way, about the ambiguous backfields, those are from the real ones, the ones who know all about how I like to target ambiguous backfields, so I appreciate that. Last off season I did a study on spotting breakout running backs. One of the main things that I found was that later round running backs who far outperformed their ADP, they were generally part of ambiguous backfields or backfields where the starter wasn't selected very high in fantasy football drafts. That's what we're definitely running into with Tampa Bay. The Giovanni Bernard signing just made that backfield a disaster on paper and from a projection standpoint, no one's really gonna stand out as like a clear cut high end RB two in fantasy football. But you target these backfields because we think we know more than we actually do. Things change, situations change, players get hurt, players emerge. If there's one bet that I'd make on a player emerging this year in that backfield, it would have to be Leonard Fournette given what he did in the play, But whether I target him or not will depend on his ADP once everything settles. I don't think he'd be a bad value, though he was kind of a nice best ball value before this Giovanni Bernard's signing, and while Bernard may cap the receiving upside for Fournette. There's also a chance that Bernard is as irrelevant as Lashaan McCoy was for Tampa Bay last year. You have to just play the odds. This last question is from at Skinny Elvis sitting at one O two via trade in a super flex start two tight end league, assuming Lawrence goes first, who is your pick? I'm good at quarterback with Jackson and Herbert, good at wide receiver with Juju Moore, Metcalf and Samuel Okay, at tight end with Goddard and Tanyan, but thin at running back. Thanks. I think he can go in a lot of different directions here. And I also don't think it's possible to have an absolute locked in answer right now before the draft, Like if Justin Fields goes to San Francisco, which by the way, I have zero sources, but I still think he's gonna end up in San Francisco. But if Fields is a forty nine er, I think he's probably the one O two regardless of your quarterback situation because in super flex dynasty quarterback is currency. Now, if we assume mac Jones goes there and feels doesn't have the same type of upside in a different environment, I may lean Kyle Pitts in this spot. I don't know how many teams are in your league, so I can't fully answer this with a ton of confidence. But in a start two tight end league, Pits becomes a whole lot more valuable, and I feel better and more confident in Pits is a prospect long term than a lot of the other players in this draft. It's just that he plays tight end, so he naturally falls a bit in rankings based on the position that he plays. But I think that you could even consider Naji Harris if you're thinn at running back. I just think the better long term solution is likely Pits in a format like this. This last question says, hey, JJ loved the show. Last year, we saw the top ten quarterbacks all score three hundred and forty plus Fantasy points. The previous five years combined, there were ten total that hit three hundred and forty points. We had a couple of high passing and rushing touchdown seasons that seemed out of the norm. Do you see this scoring output as an outlier or a trend? Yeah, I think I see it as a little bit of both. The reason I think this could be some sort of outlier is because the season that we just had was unlike any other season we've ever seen. Because of the pandemic, you had no fans, Opposing teams were able to control more at the line of scrimmage on offense than they otherwise would have been able to do. And then with the lack of preseason prep, offenses were at an advantage they know what plays are being called. Defenses aren't as cohesive as a unit. That's why we saw so many overs hit at the beginning of the season. But there is some reason that these fantasy point totals are somewhat sustainable. Offensive holding calls were down this year, and the group of quarterbacks that we have across fantasy football at the high end, they're all dual threat quarterbacks. They're more dual threat than we've seen in the past. And as we know, a quarterback running the football well has always been a cheat code in fantasy football. So I'm sort of in the middle here. I don't think last year is the new norm, but I think our new norm is better than what we saw in twenty nineteen, twenty eighteen, and so on. Speaking of good quarterback play last year. This next question is from at J Flanman eighteen. Should Josh Allen be considered a regression candidate? He was QB one overall and Drew Brees is the only quarterback in the last ten years to repeat as QB one the next year. I have Kyler on my dynasty team, but considering trading to trade for Allen to stack with Diggs. Torn on this decision. Okay, So one of the things I try to ignore is using a ranking from the previous season to justify some sort of stance, only because the previous season could be nothing like the upcoming one and injuries have already happened. Like when someone says this player has finished as a top twenty running back for four straight seasons, he's got to be in the top twenty this year. I don't buy that, because when we're projecting, we're working with perfect information. No injuries have happened. A stat like that one could just tell you that that player was healthy. That's it, that he didn't get hurt. But we've got to think about what being the QB one, or really the top player at any position, We've got to think about what that means. It means that player had an insanely good season. And when you have an insanely good season, you likely aren't going to repeat that season. It's just hard to It's like anything else you do. If you go out and play around a golf and you shoot five to ten strokes better than you typically do, would you expect to do that again and again and again. Probably not. The thing with Josh Allen though, is that historically qb ones would have these monster seasons because they very clearly had unsustainable touchdown rates. They were throwing touchdowns at a higher rate than they should have been, like Aaron Rodgers last year. Josh Allen's touchdown rate last year really wasn't that absurdly high. And if you look at his rushing numbers, he's been doing this now for three seasons. He scored eight, nine and eight times over the last three years, and he's hit four hundred and twenty or more rush yards in each season. He's not as crazy efficient as he was during his rookie year, but as of today, probably over the next few years at least, Josh Allen will get it done on the ground. So as a result of that, he may not finish as the QB one again this year, But that's not what rankings are about. You're looking at which player has the highest probability of doing that, And just because someone finished there during the previous season doesn't mean they won't or can't the next year. It's just that generally there's reason that they won't. For Josh Allen, those reasons aren't as hard to overcome, so I think he's actually in a good spot. The last one this week is from at Portland Rippers. Can you do a deep dive into Antonio Gibson's situation. I hear people saying that Samuel is going to hurt his value and that his touchdowns will take a step back because they have a competent quarterback. I just feel that if Samuel hurts anyone's value, it's JD. McKissick, and a good quarterback may set Gibson up for more touchdown opportunities. Am I wrong in thinking this? Thanks man, Okay, So let's start with this Curtis Samuel narrative. That's apparently a narrative. I'd agree that Samuel would hypothetically hurt JD. McKissick more than he would hurt Antonio Gibson. But keep in mind that if McKissick is used the same way that he was used in twenty twenty, then that's hurting Antonio Gibson. I know Gibson missed some time, but mckissic kind a nineteen percent target share last year in that offense. That's capping Gibson's receiving upside. Now, the hope is that Gibson, who played wide receiver in college, that he can build more into that receiving role in year two, and I think that he will. But if Samuel is digging into McKissick, then there's at least some digging into Antonio Gibson. By default. That's not really how I view these situations though, That's not how I build projections. I'm just noting that McKissick last season was in the way of Antonio Gibson, and then I think in hope that we'll change a little bit here in twenty twenty one. Now, your point about Fitzpatrick being in the picture now and allowing for more scoring opportunities, that's not wrong. That's not the wrong general idea, But there's an easy way to think about this. I hope everyone's ready for some fun math I'm gonna walk through an exercise and I hope that you can really wrap your head around how to view this kind of thing. If a team scores more touchdowns, which Washington should with Ryan Fitzpatrick, then the players on that team have a higher chance to improve on their touchdown totals. So last season, Washington scored thirty four times, that was one of the lower marks in the NFL. With Fitzpatrick, that might be closer to say forty. That's six additional touchdowns for players in that Washington offense, and maybe it's more. I'm just using this as an example. So someone may look at Gibson from last year and say, wow, he scored eleven times on the ground. That's great news. They're gonna go from thirty four touchdowns to forty touchdowns. But that's not exactly how things work. Gibson scored at a pretty unsustainable rate last year. According to my method that looks at where each running back is getting his touches, Gibson's touchdown total should have been closer to six or seven last year. So regression is if everything stayed the same, I would expect Antonio Gibson to not come close to that touchdown total, and you can see that at the team level. Two. This is why I stress team level regression all the time. Washington had a pass to rush touchdown ratio last season of point eight nine. They had more rushing touchdowns and passing touchdowns. That was the third lowest total in football. That's a number that generally regresses to the mean, and with Ryan Fitzpatrick now under center, we should expect that to regress to the mean. So let's just run through this simple exercise. Last season, Washington scores thirty four touchdowns and they have a point eight to nine pass to rush touchdown ratio. They had eighteen rushing touchdowns out of thirty four total touchdowns. Now, let's project them for forty touchdowns this year. At that same pass to rush ratio, forty total touchdowns would yield twenty one rushing touchdowns. That's three more than last season. That would mean that Gibson would have a better chance to at least come close to last season's over inflated total. The problem is that ratio isn't likely to be the same. Let's say that ratio regresses to last year's average, which was around one point eight at forty total touchdowns. A pass to rush touchdown ratio of one point eight would mean roughly twenty six passing touchdowns to fourteen rushing touchdowns. Now, all of a sudden, even though the team is better, even though they're scoring more touchdowns, those touchdowns aren't necessarily benefiting Antonio Gibson unless he's absolutely more involved as a receiver, and even then you're likely not going to reach the same touchdown total because running backs don't score a lot of times through the air. This doesn't mean that Gibson will be a worse fantasy asset if he's utilized more as a receiver. Those receptions in those yards as a receiver can help him be less touchdown dependent in fantasy football, and i'd expect that from a player who's gone through the positional journey that Antonio Gibson has gone through the last couple of years. There's a reason that Gibson was a bye for me this offseason because he has a lot of talent. He has a lot more to offer on a football field. But I hope this at least shows everyone how simplistic you can think about these situations year over year and sort of how regression at the team level can impact a player's stat line. When we look at Antonio Gibson's twenty twenty one outlook, what we should be hoping for is more usage on the receiving end, because it's highly unlikely he's going to be able to sustain his touchdown production. And that's knowing that they're getting an upgrade at quarterback. That's knowing that they're likely going to score more touchdowns. And I think that canon will happen. I think that Antonio Gibson will be used more as a receiver because he's a talented pass catcher. It's something that we can project a little of, and then if the ceiling hits all of a sudden, we've got a strong fantasy football running back. So I'm in on Antonio Gibson. I just wouldn't make the assumption that with Ryan Fitzpatrick there that all of a sudden, Antonio Gibson's going to see even more scoring opportunities. I think Gibson's upside rests more on Gibson the player and his ability to be a bigger workhorse within that Washington offense. That's going to do it for today's show, though, thanks to all of you for listening. If you've got subscribe to the Late Round podcast, make sure you are by searching for it pretty much anywhere podcasts can be found, and of course don't forget to follow me on Twitter at Late Round QB. Thanks everyone, I hope you enjoy your weekend and I will talk to you next week