NFL Week 2 – Leverage Lane | DraftKings & FanDuel DFS Strategy

But what were your thoughts on Gibbs from last week and what we can learn from that and apply it over to this week? Yeah, I was very pleased with the kind of way that we talked through Gibbs last week, and specifically the idea that it's not just who you play, it's who you don't play. And the way that that really came to fruition in last week's slate is if you chose not to play Gibbs and you...

Let's say I had a lineup, for example, that had Brees Hall and Bucky Irving without Gibbs. If you told me ahead of time I was going to get twenty-plus from those two guys, I would have been very pleased with how they performed, and yet... I was behind the eight ball with my running back selections because Gibbs got thirty six. And similarly, you know, someone could have said, oh, man, you know, at $7,700, three hundred dollars cheaper than Gibbs.

I can play a much lower owned B. John Robinson. And then they go out and get over thirty fantasy points from B. John Robinson at like twelve percent ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗. On paper, that looks really, really good, except. Those lineups lost by five to the lineups that had just three hundred dollars more invested in Gibbs. And so it's it's really, I think, a good reminder of why expensive running back chalk can be as valuable as it is.

It's not so it's not just like what that player gives you when they do well. It's also that there's just very little benefit to fading themFadeTo fade a player is to leave him out of your lineups on purpose, usually because you expect him to be popular or you think he is a poor play.Fade with a reason, not a feeling. If you can't say why a popular player will disappoint, you're probably just giving away points.Full explanation ↗ a lot of the time, because when your guys do well, when the pivots you go to do well, they still have the obstacle of doing so well that they separate from the really good running back chalk. Yeah, I'm going to talk about that when we get to Bijan for this week.

Not everybody watches this, but on Mondays, I do a show called The Takedown Breakdown on the Ship It Nation YouTube station. I was using dfsos.com. You guys can check it out. But the perfect lineup, this was just interesting. And it's the perfect lineup. It's obviously the optimal. It's everything. It's especially when what I was talking about was software pricing. When you get like a thirty eight from a $6,700 Derek Henry thirty five from DeAndre Swift, you know, Gibbs is still there.

But then you need that, you know, the God or like this lineup kind of worked. It was it was Bryce Young, Coker, Swift. Right. You had the mini stacks in here and some of the other spots, too. But it was just to show off that, like, here's your Olave. Gibbs did end up in the lineup. Usually we talk to the past where it's like those secondary stacks. You know, sometimes people are forcing them.

In this case, it just happened to work out if you weren't on, um, Burrow, Chase, Higgins, any type of that setup. A lot of people were on Ja'Marr Chase, obviously, and he hurt them. Well, then it was the Bengals. If you weren't on Loveland, it was DeAndre Swift at low ownership. A lot of what we thought still ended up happening. It's just when the pricing is so soft this early in the season, there's a lot of ways you can go.

And that's what I want to talk about now. I want to bring it across to Bijan for this week. We just saw, you know, Swift score. By the way, Monangai scored not on there, but it was pretty well. I think they ran for like two hundred and sixty yards or something on that Carolina team. And now you've got Atlanta at home. Same thing. Who would have known that Bijan's getting ten targets with Rush in there?

Well, obviously he's getting ten again this week, Alex. We already can put that into the projection. So you got to remember, you know, it's not always going to be the same. But just how are you thinking about a guy like Bijan bringing this across versus Gibbs last week in this spot? Yeah, that Bichon pass usage was pretty insane. He was targeted on forty five percent of his routes. Drake London only earned a target on fifteen percent of his. Sorry if you can hear this, this bang.

I don't even know where it's coming from. But yeah, so. The thing with Bijan this week, I think that's the major difference from Gibbs is that they both have the rushing efficiency. They both have the incredible receiving volume. But one of those players has much better team environment, scoring equity, and that's Gibbs. And so for me, if I don't go to Bijan this week, it is almost solely because...

There there are runouts for this game where Atlanta just doesn't do enough offensively for bijan to post the kind of score that he posted himself last week or that uh that gibbs posted last week and I think that's the major difference between these two guys and uh and it shows up by the way in in our ceiling projections like bijan's median outcome his his just overall projection is fairly close to what gibbs was last week But Gibbs was like four points higher in ceiling and about five points higher in our super ceiling, which is the average score, the top ten percent of his outcomes.

So I think that's really telling. And it does make me want to be a little bit hesitant here with Bijan. The other thing is. Is I think we have some really, really strong running back plays at cheaper price tags. So I'm not going to pivot off of Bijan for McCaffrey, for example.

If I'm pivoting off of Bijan, it's like the most expensive I'm going is Derrick Henry, or I'm going back to Bucky Irving, who now we see is a really good role. And now this matchup with Cleveland is really, really good. And so I think that's the way that I'm thinking about it.

But Certainly, I think like the lesson from last week, one that we already kind of knew, but it's always good to get that reminder is if you're pivoting off of Bijan, you should be thinking about, okay, what kind of lineup can I build where I'm right about pivoting off of Bijan, even if he goes out and gets twenty eight, twenty nine, thirty fantasy points, something like that. Well, yeah, that was what I was going to say.

You said it, and it's like mixing both of our thoughts together now, but you just explained how the outlier event that Bijan got last week that we weren't fully expecting that could happen again. But even if it ran out the exact same way, rolled out, ran out, whatever you want to say, for the exact same result is what I'm trying to say. It's like, it's not like we're lacking other options this week. You know, Derrick Henry, Saquon, Jeanty.

I'm just naming the ones people actually might want to play, right? Javonte Williams, for sure. Brees Hall is still going to get a little love. Bucky Irving is still going to get a little love. Like these guys will get played. And then Aaron Jones. Chalk takes up a bunch of lineups, which we'll get to him when we get to the common build. So when there's softer pricing, there's multiple factors at hand.

And this is just a quick example of like when I talk through, I call it like the penthouse effect where I'm talking like thinking through different levels. It's like Aaron Jones is Chark. But that's fair. And we know why. And it's all there. Jordan Mason hit the IR, but my point, and he's $5,100. It all makes sense. But like you have Addison at the exact same price at a different position.

You have Hawkins who's like a double whammy because you get he's cheaper than Schultz chalk, which we'll get to. And then he's also a leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗ play off of Jones, a different position, onesie position. You could just fill him out there. He could get nine catches.

Sixty yards and a touchdown and that'd be amazing and even if it's like it's not

Like the gib situation where there's like oh but there's ten other guys that could still compete or the Bijan one like I said like there's still ten other guys it's like did Schultz do that maybe not well now you've really crushed the position there did anybody do anything at tight end usually nobody or just a few guys so it's like that's kind of how I look at it there's just other ways you can take these things and move it around and then get different you could have wide receiver in the flex and maybe you just play Derrick Henry and Saquon Barkley well that's going to be extremely unique you can almost put any stack around that at that point especially if you've got Derrick Henry Saquon Barkley and you're

Accounting for Aaron Jones by playing hawkinson in your onesie position like people what does that have to do with each other it does you're you're still you're not leaving stuff out and then you got to think about okay am I going to play giovante Or am I going to get in on that passing attack? Or am I going to leave that game alone? Well, that game probably is pretty good.

It's got a decent total, but it also has pretty condensed offenses that you could use. So that's what I'm looking at there. But where do you want to start? Anything else you want to comment on that type of stuff? If not, we can start looking at the common build and breaking it down. Yeah, I think we're going to talk more about Addison. I think he's one of the strongest plays on the slate. Not just the leverage off of Jones, but also leverage off of Justin Jefferson.

There was a game last year with Wentz at quarterback against Philadelphia where Addison went nine receptions off twelve targets for one hundred and twenty eight yards. And, you know, Jefferson was was held to five for seventy nine. And so if Chicago really comes out and has a game plan designed around stopping Jefferson and making sure that every single guy has help against Jefferson, then maybe Addison gets a lot of one on one opportunities.

And he puts up that kind of yardage total and that kind of target total. So I do think he's one of the better plays on the slate and is projected for really good. Really, really low ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗ since he did absolutely nothing last week. Much better play this week, I think. Much better situation, I think, for this week. Not just the matchup, but also Jawan Jennings is out, and so there's less target competition, role competition for him. So yeah, I'm very much in on that play.

But yeah, as far as the... As far as the... Just like chalkChalkChalk is the most popular, highly owned play on a slate. The term comes from sports betting, where the favorite is called the chalk.Don't label chalk good or bad. Ask whether each popular play deserves its ownership, then decide which chalk you'll eat and which you'll fade.Full explanation ↗ build is concerned, I think it's a little bit harder to kind of identify this week and talk through it because there isn't the clear game stackGame StackIn the NFL, a game stack usually combines a quarterback, one or two of his pass catchers and one or more players from the opposing offense.Target games where the spread is close as well as the total high. A high total with a lopsided spread can turn into a blowout where only one side keeps scoring.Full explanation ↗ that we had last week with Detroit and New Orleans. We're going to see much more spread out quarterback ownership and overall stack ownership.

And I think most of the chalk is more about just like the individual plays at certain positions that are very clearly going to be popular. And then we can kind of So I think maybe for the chalk bill, we kind of build it out that way and then say, okay, here are the stacks that people might go to that are going to fit. Yeah, I agree. It's harder than usual from that perspective because most times people say, oh, it's easy, just do this.

But we know this too. It's just a matter of like, okay, the most obvious starting point is this and then sort of working backwards from there. But to Andrews question, that's going to come up. We're going to find out. I will say Jayden Daniels getting a lot more love around the content space right now than I expected originally.

Like people are starting to think about flip the Dak side over or whatever because they you know if they don't want to stack Dak with Lamb and Pickens they like Gervonta already it's like you you can see it kind of migrating that way I also will say because we're going to get to all this stuff we get to leveraging it even with you know leveraging this build with Addison like you just talked about but Kalen Black still on the injury report.

And that's interesting because if it does somehow flip on Sunday morning or we got news about that, maybe people would start thinking about a little more. Again, not thinking like he's really affecting CMC that much anyway. I'm just saying, you know how people's brains work on a Sunday morning. It's like, oh, and this guy's going to be out and everyone's on Bijan. Oh, I better flip to CMC now. It's like that you see people making those decisions.

So I think that's important to think about as well. Yeah, we'll get to all this stuff. There's a bunch of good stuff. There, one I saw, though, was this contest selection question. This is probably better for you because I know like one to five is sort of up your alley and how you handle it. So it says, is it better to do five lineups in a five max nineteen hundred player contest, in your opinion, or three in a five max, but only three hundred entries?

Or is it just preference? Uh. I think it's the first thing I'd say here is like, I don't totally understand. Oh, I guess maybe if maybe if the three hundred entry one is a higher dollar and, you know, they have a specific amount that they want to spend. But otherwise, I was thinking like this is weird, like either or why can't you do five in the five? But that makes sense. Personally, I would want to do the three and five max with only three hundred entries.

Now, that does depend a little bit on the payout structure. As long as that three hundred entry contest is top heavy, then that's the one I would want. Give yourself the higher chance of that really, really high end outcome that you're you know, that we're all chasing on a week to week basis.

And I would say that, you know, with with only three entries in a five max, like the fact that you don't have a fourth and fifth is not giving you a disadvantage the way, you know, when you're in a mega Milly. And you only have one and you're playing against guys who have twelve like that's that's a disadvantage. But only having three when some others have five is not a disadvantage. You still have enough to diversify in a meaningful way. And so you can that that's totally fine.

I have no issue with that whatsoever. Yeah, this is more like a slice and dice, like, you know, not really leveraging anything. Like if you're playing Bijan, you can just cut into Bijan's ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗ with somebody that's lower owned if you want. Like we talk about this with, who did we use yesterday? Like Aaron Jones this week. If you play Aaron Jones and play him with the Vikings D, that could be a good way to get different because most, a lot of people have Aaron Jones.

Not many will have the Vikings D at all. So it's like, if you think that's a way that it could be handled, but this would just be a secondary stack. Well, that comment's a little funny because Kirk Cousins is not on the Falcons. Also that, yeah, I didn't even see that part. I was reading the Titans Coker run backBring-BackIn the NFL, a bring-back is usually a wide receiver, tight end or running back from the team facing your quarterback stack.Pick the bring-back who gains the most when his team falls behind. In football that's usually the opponent's top pass catcher, not a running back who loses carries in a comeback.Full explanation ↗, but yes, also you would not be using him.

Yeah, and I have no issue or I have no interest whatsoever in Cooper Rush, but I will say that I do think Drake London is a really good leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗ play off of Bijan this weekend. Our JPP scores very much say that as well. It's just like this guy has to be able to get off. I mean, can't rush, can't throw. Like, he can't do either. His name's Rush, but I'm just saying he can't really get much off.

It's just tough, but maybe this week with the matchup and at home and everything else. Now, let's try and build this out. This is where... Look, I think Schultz is going to be pretty popular, right? Yeah. Well, so the first thing that I would say here is I definitely agree that both Bichon, I mean, I've got Bichon like almost at fifty percent in single entries and high stakes. I do think Aaron Jones is going to be a popular second choice.

But for me, the second thing behind Bijan is not Aaron Jones. It's at least one of Derrick Henry or Mark Andrews because it's a matchup that we know that people want to target now. Henry's coming off a massive performance. The Ravens offense looked incredible. And... With Declan Doyle. And now no Zay Flowers, no Lane. So it's like every pass catcher is kind of projecting really well. Mark Andrews projects extremely well. We know Baltimore's going to score.

It's reminiscent of Detroit last week, right? The vast majority of lineups had some piece of the Detroit offense. I think people are going to kind of look at Baltimore's offense the same way. I mean, think about it. Baltimore's offense... They're implied for a very similar amount of points as Detroit was last week. Baltimore now has one guy in the seven Ks. And then like the second most expensive guy is Andrews at $4,400.

And last week there was a ton of ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗ on a similarly projected offense when it was Gibbs at $8,000. I'm on our St. Brown, nearly $8,000. Jameson over six LaPorta, I think, was forty five. So like LaPorta last week was more expensive than Andrews this week. Had all that competition above him and still ended up like fifteen percent. So I think I think Andrews and or Schultz for sure.

But at least one of Henry or or Mark Andrews is going to be in the vast, vast majority of lineups, in my opinion. I think so as well. I think one of the things that's interesting, it's still, you're not, it's not quite a, you know, even money swap, if you will. But like Derrick Henry Schultz could be Javonte Andrews and then they feel like they've got their Baltimore piece and then that maybe changes.

So if you see a Schultz Henry version here, you might see Pickens. Be like, okay, now I'm good with Pickens because he's cheaper than lamb and he fits and I can just play him and I'm not on Javonte, whatever. If someone goes Javonte there, I think that's where they're like, okay, I'm getting Andrews then. And now I'm going to whatever I want at wide receiver.

My, my biggest tricky is like when we get to wide receiver to then figure out the stack, it's like the quarterback is, you know, seemingly Dak, but Jayden Daniels has crept up, you know, Brock Purdy's in the mix too. So like the, But I think it's probably Dak that you'd put in here. So what does this end up looking like? Like Dak, Pickens... Is there a cheap guy people are using? Where do you go after this?

I think McLaurin will be a popular bring back. I also want to say before we even kind of build all this out, double tight end last week was used in almost forty percent of high stakes and single entrySingle-EntryA single-entry contest allows each user exactly one lineup. It can be a cash game or a tournament.In single-entry, one or two contrarian decisions are usually enough. Pair a strong, popular core with a lower-owned piece instead of fading everything the field likes.Full explanation ↗ lineups. So I also think that one option here is to say, OK, what if people use both Mark Andrews and Dalton Schultz and now they don't feel the need to save money at running back?

And so we see Bijan, Henry, Javonte, like that to me is going to be very much in play. And I don't think people are going to have an issue playing Derek Henry and Mark Andrews together this week. Yeah. Well, I mean, we'll have, we'll have to see how it shakes out. I think like something like this is probably a rough estimate we can, we can run against, but I've got Dak Pickens McLaurin. You get the Coker Bijan secondary.

You get Schultz, Derrick Henry, and Aaron Jones as pieces that people like, and it just lands on the Ravens D. I just threw it in there. I don't think they're going to be super popular, but I do think, you know, they're going to be up there, right? It's just whoever people can get to. I do think that's part of it. The other thing is, I think a lot of people will play, wherever they land down here as well.

Like some of these cheap D's will get into the mix if people need them or want to move up. But I think something along this, this type of lineup could be what you see. And this has a lot of chalk, right? Overall, like if you'll quarterback chalk is spread out, but Dak's going to be up there. We know these three running backs are all going to have high ownership.

Um, Schultz is definitely going to get ownership somewhere in that vicinity with Pickens, uh, McLaurin digs. Like those three, two of them could be in the mix. Coker had a big game last week. He's across from Bijan. People could land there. Maybe they don't. There's other guys that you could shimmy the defense down. If you like Parker Washington or something like whatever you decide you like off of last week. What's most interesting to me is that it does seem like majority of lineups.

That's what matters to me more that I'm thinking about because the plays are the plays, but but it's the setup of, you know, like we talk about in golf. Like if you see a Scott lineup, you just know now that's pretty obvious. There's going to be $6,000 guys in there and like, okay, now, you know, the eight Ks are getting skipped.

It's like most lineups to me, at least are going to have, two pay ups and a pay down and then balanced receivers. So you're not going to see a lot of people paying up at receiver this week. It just no real version lends itself to that. So I don't have any thoughts on that, but I mean, this is, this is kind of where I'm at. Anything you want to switch here or you think we should talk through before we go into leveraging it?

Uh, no, I, I think the, the main thing though, is like, let's recognize that, you know, a lot of lineups are going to look similarly to this, but then it's not going to be Dak Pickens McLaurin. It's going to be some other game.

And so, um, I, I think that, you know, the, uh, the part of the chalkChalkChalk is the most popular, highly owned play on a slate. The term comes from sports betting, where the favorite is called the chalk.Don't label chalk good or bad. Ask whether each popular play deserves its ownership, then decide which chalk you'll eat and which you'll fade.Full explanation ↗ build this week that we are really competing with and trying to leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗ is the shell of like, okay, these very popular running backs, these very popular, uh, tight ends. And then the quarterbacks and wide receivers, like, yeah, there are going to be popular quarterback and wide receiver plays, but, uh, It's not going to be crazy. Last week, Ja'Marr Chase got to thirty nine percent single entries and high stakes.

I don't think he's getting I don't think anyone's getting close to that right now for my single entry ownership. Like the highest I have is CeeDee Lamb at twenty three point two percent, only three wide receivers in the twenties. So, yeah, I think that's where people are getting different. And, and they're, they're not even necessarily getting different at wide receiver, you know, cause they're making the active decision to say like, okay, I just ate a lot of chalk at running back in tight end.

I need to go get contrarianContrarianA contrarian play or lineup is one built around choices most of the field will not make, such as low-owned players, unpopular teams or an unusual salary structure.Pick one or two contrarian spots per lineup and ground each in a real reason. The rest of the roster can look like the field.Full explanation ↗ here. It's just that there isn't enough consensus at the wide receiver position when it comes to game stacksGame StackIn the NFL, a game stack usually combines a quarterback, one or two of his pass catchers and one or more players from the opposing offense.Target games where the spread is close as well as the total high. A high total with a lopsided spread can turn into a blowout where only one side keeps scoring.Full explanation ↗ and you know, what, what games to target for anyone to get a really, really high on there.

Yeah, and I also think too, like position eligibility or position scarcity, I guess, as a whole, like that's the other factor is, you know, last week when a lot of people didn't have a clue yet, it was like when you got Mayer at $2,900 and we can just run double tight end. And then they're like, wait a minute. These running backs are all putting up thirty plus like I'm screwed.

And now this week, you're not seeing any like mayor only went up slightly. $3,600. You've got Schultz who's right there at $3,200. If you want to, you could play Schultz and Andrews. But what? Nobody's going to do that. And I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying it because you're really giving up some big boy possibilities at these other positions of what you can get to. But my point on the first part was like, let's go back here.

Let's go to wide receiver by price. Above Pickens. Okay, Lamb for the game stack, some. Chase, because he's Chase, fine. I definitely think Jefferson, I think we're light on him right now. I don't think anyone's playing JSN. I know it says twelve percent, but it's like that could be nine or eight by the time we get there. And by the way, he's the afternoon slate at the same price, essentially, as CMC. So there's like that.

Most people, if they were really clicking in, maybe he's a better late swap. So he pops up because people are on other running backs or they save that spot. Now they want to play JSN. I don't know. But really, my point being. Egbuka, Waddle, Evans, Smith, Olave, most of these guys not getting played. And then even with pickings down, sure, like Garrett Wilson, some Parker Washington, but we're waiting on Ladd news, but it doesn't even seem like that many people are going back to Waddle.

I don't know. There's so many ways that you can go at wide receiver and that would lead you into your stacks. But my thing is you still got to beat It's what you talked about earlier. It's like we're still competing with that other shell of those running backs that everyone are using. And that's where it gets exciting to me because that's the same thing. Now, here's where we know what people are doing. And it's some form of this. Right. But there's a lot of guys down here.

Go back to the well on Swift. I don't think Davis Montgomery is getting three touchdowns again, but he's down here. You got Brees Hall, Barkley, A-Chan, you know, Jeanty, Stevenson. I mean, I know Henderson back and debuting this week, but there's still, that's a big group of names that you could find thirties out of or twenty-fives out of. And if anything up top fails, it immediately drops down to that group being the hammer. So what's your thoughts here?

First thoughts as we go into looking at how we can leverage this chalk build. Yeah, I think the first thing that comes to my mind is what if we try to leverage the field through the tight end position? There are some really good ways to do that. I think going right back to Colson Loveland is one of the best ways. I also think you could just pay up for Trey McBride.

It's a really difficult matchup with Seattle, but I think to some degree McBride's a little bit matchup-proof. He's just... So ridiculously good, and he's going to get peppered with targets over and over and over again. Also, as someone who's now doing projections more seriously and more intensively than I ever have, one of the things that I'm struck by is I've associated McBride with someone who gets targeted a ton before the red zone and then doesn't get targeted that much.

And the more I look into his data over the last few years, the more I think like, my God, he just ran so, so cold with the touchdowns. And if he goes out and scores thirteen touchdowns this year, like I'm not going to be surprised in the least bit.

So I think McBride might actually be undervalued still at the tight end position, despite the fact that so much of his success last year was on just an absurd amount of volume because they set records for pass volume over a two-game stretch and a three-game stretch and a four-game stretch. It was just nuts. So that obviously has to come down, but I think he's still a really strong play whenever you get this type of ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗ on him.

I think both of those guys, Loveland and McBride, are going to be less than ten percent And then the other thing you can do is like, you know, we saw Mayer last week have like a very, very median outcome type performance. And I think when people use someone like that at forty five percent, like almost in their mind, they're forgetting that like the median outcome is exactly what he did. Something like five or fifty or something.

You know, it might have even been like five or forty or four. Everyone quoted that as like it would be all good if we got that from them. They got it. And then like, damn, it wasn't all good. So that's funny. Yeah. Where it's like it's the kind of score that if you used him, it doesn't hurt you. Right. Unless some other like really.

So like if you used, you know, Schultz this week and he did that and Mark Andrews at twenty five percent or thirty percent, whatever he's going to be, you know, goes out and catches two touchdowns, then sure, Schultz hurts you. But if you get, you know, the the mayor performance from last week in the tight end landscape like last week, that doesn't hurt you at all, but it does give us the opportunity to go find the guy who separates from, from him.

And so obviously like the, the way one way to potentially do that is to go get Loveland or McBride and hope they put up twenty five, thirty draft games points. The other option is to look for actual pivots. And particularly if you can find somebody cheaper than Schultz, where you're like the extra two hundred dollars, three hundred dollars is meaningful and it gets you a combination of plays that if you went to Schultz, you could not get. And maybe that guy does really well.

And for me, that guy this week is Davis Njoku. Similar situation in the sense that you're talking about a player who is now gets to play with the main pass catcher off the field, Nolad McConkie, this week, just like Schultz has no Nico Collins, and just like Andrews has no Zay Flowers. So it's a very similar situation, and I'm not sure people recognize just how many routes Njoku ran last week. He actually led the team in routes run with eighteen amongst the tight ends.

Kolar only had twelve. Gadsden only had five. I think we'll see a meaningful uptick for Gadsden this week. And I think we're going to see Njoku on the field running a lot of routes because he's very clearly a much better route runner and receiving threat than Kolar. And the other thing there is like there were only three guys for this Los Angeles offense last week who were productive on a per route basis. It was Ladd McConkie far and away the number one.

And then Njoku and Gadsden. So it just makes sense when you take Ladd off the field that you get those other guys who are actually productive on the field kind of as much as possible. And so I think Njoku's probably my... Well, I don't think he's probably my favorite cheap guy. He is my favorite cheap tight end if you're looking for a pivot off of that Schultz and Andrews chalk. And then I'm also very interested in Loveland and McBride, if you can get to them.

But one of the reasons why their ownership is as low as it is, is not because people don't want to go to them. It's because it's very, very difficult to build this week when paying up for a tight end. Agreed. And I'm going to spend more on that in just a second. I will say I like the Njoku call. I mentioned it earlier, though. I also like Hawkins.

If you're looking for a pivot down there, like I said, if you're not, I mean, Aaron Jones can do the version of Mayer that we just talked about because most people say, well, $5,100. I mean, if he gets, you know, eighty yards and a touchdown, I'm pretty happy. Well, are you when three other running backs score thirty to forty?

If I'm not saying they will, but if they did like then you're not going to be happy because that's not good enough at that point. I have way more confidence in that running back pool we looked at earlier of multiples coming out of there that can beat the chalkChalkChalk is the most popular, highly owned play on a slate. The term comes from sports betting, where the favorite is called the chalk.Don't label chalk good or bad. Ask whether each popular play deserves its ownership, then decide which chalk you'll eat and which you'll fade.Full explanation ↗ core that we're up against than I do of Dalton Schultz leading the slate and breaking it or something like that. I think that's also a contest selection kind of thing, right?

Where if you're in a large field contest, even if you're in the five, five, five milli this week, You need crazy upside from that flex spot.

If you're in a small field single entrySingle-EntryA single-entry contest allows each user exactly one lineup. It can be a cash game or a tournament.In single-entry, one or two contrarian decisions are usually enough. Pair a strong, popular core with a lower-owned piece instead of fading everything the field likes.Full explanation ↗, I think it's much more viable to go double tight end because then the chances that you're up against a different lineup, like let's say there are three running backs again this week that go for a The odds that somebody in the five, five, five Milly has that combination of three is high. So you need somebody in the flex spot who can compete with that type of ceiling. Yeah.

The odds, if you're in the, you know, two hundred seventy seven dollar with or sorry, the two hundred dollar with two hundred seventy seven other people is The odds that someone in that contest has the right combination of three lineups is a lot lower, so you don't necessarily need to have as much ceiling. You might be fine with, you know, twelve from Schultz and twenty from Andrews if you go double tight in that way or something like that.

Yeah, and that's why, again, I don't know how much double tight end I'll have, but I will say from the thinking pattern of a couple notes was I just look at it always like, again, not everybody does this. Some people say this is unique or whatever, but if I'm playing a guy like Hawkins, I might do this. I'm just throwing this out there. This is way more than enough to just move on, and you can literally do anything you want. It's aggressive, but I'm just showing it.

Like, I might just play these two as my cheap guys and jam in everybody I want now. And you're like, holy shit, how did they get to that level? Well, I'm not playing Derrick Henry because I'm going to use Walker to leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗ him. And I got Hawkins to leverage Aaron Jones. But that only cost me $6,900. A very nice number right there. Now I can put anything I want. I'm not building the whole thing out.

I'm just showing you an example of how I would look at leverage where what if the Henry, who I have a ton of, but what if the Henry situation turns into a the Bijan situation from last year when

London was late scratched in the morning and everyone's like gotta get in on Bijan now it's gonna be the biggest day ever and they're like wait a sec we can just make this guy throw to Tyler pitts and whoever's worse and just see how that goes well it's different because we're talking about Lamar Jackson here but I'm saying there's already enough to look after that's why I feel a little safer but what if it ends up being this people are looking to go to Mark Andrews people are looking to go to um henry I got pez walker You can even do Bateman if you like him more and he's probably really the guy.

I'm just saying, it's like, I don't care. I'm just showing that you can go cheap and leverage something, two things, multiples, but it's more than one way leverage because like Hawkins is a cheap tight end that's in between Andrews and Schultz. So you're getting a pivot plus leverage to Jones up top. And then the same thing going on here with Bateman, even at $4,400.

But now you can play lineups that others Likely don't have or they just don't match up from a composition factor. Yeah, I think that's the best argument against the Schultz truck, too, this week, where you referenced that Bichon game last year when there was no London. Nico Collins is the engine of the Houston offense. There's a very reasonable chance that that offense just looks really bad.

Schultz could have a and not have a, not have a, you know, many scoring opportunities and end up with the same sort of thing, right?

Uh, six for fifty, five for seventy, five for forty, you know, anything like that, where it's just, you do not in any way, shape, or form need to have it, and you can absolutely find separation even among some contrarianContrarianA contrarian play or lineup is one built around choices most of the field will not make, such as low-owned players, unpopular teams or an unusual salary structure.Pick one or two contrarian spots per lineup and ground each in a real reason. The rest of the roster can look like the field.Full explanation ↗ guys around him, uh, because the offense just doesn't get their, and makes it really difficult for Schultz to put up a meaningful score. So I definitely think that Schultz is the the chalkyChalkChalk is the most popular, highly owned play on a slate. The term comes from sports betting, where the favorite is called the chalk.Don't label chalk good or bad. Ask whether each popular play deserves its ownership, then decide which chalk you'll eat and which you'll fade.Full explanation ↗ tight end that I am most willing to to fade.

Not having any Mark Andrews is a little bit scary because I think Andrews is a really, really strong play this week and has one of the better projections. I think he's yeah, he's the second highest projected tight end for me. Only behind Trey McBride, slightly ahead of Colson Loveland. And then there's a very clear, like big time teardrop to the fourth highest projection. So not having any Andrews is going to be difficult for me.

I think the only way I would not use Andrews is if I use Henry and the opposite is potentially not, not true, but I, it's a tough one to think through, right?

Like on the one hand, I feel very strongly that the entire field is going to use some type of, you know, at least one, kind of rule between Andrews and henry but I also think that that's a smart thing to do and so there's a good chance that I'm going to use it as well yeah I mean there's other ways to look at it too you talked about McBride that's where I wanted to spend some time as well I do think the tight end position is interesting this week because of those factors now there's a couple ways to look

At this if you think the Houston offense is no good you can't do this but another thing if you think it's gonna be fine or it's priced fair enough you could have like Stroud um let's go here and get booty in You know what I mean? Like this isn't, you're, you're double whammying it again. I'm not, it's not going to be Schultz. He's not going to be needed. It's going to be through the passing game that doesn't include him.

And then later on, if they're up or it's a back and forth, it's going to be running the ball and passing it off. And, and it might not be him, but now I'm going to play McBride for a higher price guy there. And now you're using lower price receiver to help fit this in a lineup.

That's still going to correlateCorrelationCorrelation describes how two players' fantasy scores move together. Positively correlated players tend to have big games at the same time, usually because one player's success directly adds points for the other.When you build a tournament lineup, ask which of your players need the same thing to happen. The more of them that do, the higher your lineup's ceiling.Full explanation ↗ with, and make sense and obviously you could add a second pass catcher if you wanted there's enough value on the slate that you don't have to if you don't want to but you could definitely get away with something like this the alternative and again probably going to go down to uh most would have Andrews in this spot but like I said earlier if you want to do something with lamar We just talked about it earlier.

Like they say, very important, super helpful. Don't think this offense dies though, without saying it's that's, that's my thinking. And so again, however you want to do it, but this would be a way where if, if you know, very, a very high majority, as Alex said, which he's very correct on is going to have at least one of Derek Henry or Mark Andrews.

You also could just do this if you want it or one of those guys, not even both, but what, what if it is just Lamar on the ground or, eating the lunch of henry and Andrews around the line even or when they get up there and then his other stuff is like big plays through the air and it's there's no zay out there but these guys are who finds their way open so uh we've definitely seen it in the past they both can get separation we know that they can get open and we know lamar can hit them this is you still have all

The money in the world what's the difference $15,100 again big difference in projection probably but just noting I care I Much less about that if it makes sense and we're leveraging and we're doing different things. There's other factors to it always. But what did we say? $15,100. Dak. Pickens. Where is my stuff, man? I can't find it. It should make this easier. Pickens. And let's just use McLaurin. $17,900. So the difference now is like, who would it be? Aaron Jones.

Up to what can you get like Saquon Barkley or more, right? Saquon and the Philly D maybe or something. Go up two more spots off that type of setup and be fine. And yeah, it's not the Washington Dallas game, but it's not always going to be that game. There's thirteen games on this slate. So that's just one way of showing it. You can apply it to any game. It's not about me saying it's Lamar Bateman and Tez Walker week. I'm just explaining the concept.

You can now go apply it for your lane to find whatever it is you want to build out. But that's how I'm looking at it, at least. And then you wouldn't have in that example, you wouldn't have Aaron Jones not needed and you wouldn't have Andrews or Henry. Well, you've already broke out of the shell some and you can play Bijan in that who has Bijan with Tez Walker in a lineup together, let alone all the other stuff. You know what I mean?

So any other added thoughts on that or anything else you want to show here as far as we go through it? No, I want to ask you a question while it's on my mind and while we were already talking about this game. Um, it sounds like you and I both agree that Jayden Daniels has a chance to steam and, and people have, you know, that it's, it's going to be a pretty common quote unquote sneaky thought to say, Oh yeah. Everyone's on Dallas.

Well, I'll just flip to the, you know, the fantasy superstar from two years ago, Jayden Daniels and go Jaden McLaurin. And now I get my pick of, of Dallas guys and maybe I'll go Javonte and a wide receiver.

So my question is, How many people do you think are flipping to Jayden Daniels, but then also saying, I'm not just using McLaurin, I'm going to double stack Washington instead of double stacking Dallas, where I think most people who are going to Jaden are just going to McLaurin and then whatever Dallas guys they want.

And so I think even if Jaden steams and gets to like, and McLaurin steams and gets to like, Personally, I think that from an ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗ perspective, you're still pretty protected on the double sacks because I just don't see any other Washington guys becoming that popular. Yeah, I agree on that part. I think a lot of people think about Jaden with his legs.

And so like, well, I don't, you know, it's, it's a way, the way they used to do with Lamar, you know, as a prime example, it's like Lamar is going to run a bunch. If I'm stacking him, it's like one of the receivers or one of Mark Andrews or whatever, you know, I'm talking even before, like back in the day. So to me, that is, I think how people are thinking about Jayden Daniels.

So when they flip it, it's probably just, in most lineups, it might just be moving Dak to Jaden. And I think another part of that equation is that as much as we see ownership on Pickens and I believe it, and it's correct, like it's fine. I still think a lot of people don't, they'll see Javonte and be like, Oh, let me go to, you know, I got to move Dak over now. Cause I'm playing.

And then they might just be able to move. They like, I just didn't feel the whole thing out, but with the same sort of running back shell, uh, I threw in a Mark Andrews and then I put Luther Burden in there as like another receiver that people can go to.

And, you know, he's a secondary stack with Jones that people might like or whatever, but you still have forty three fifty left and you got a cheap D somewhere or like even the $3,800 D's or $3,500 D's still let you get somebody you want in there. So I don't think as many people will double, but I think people feel comfortable with this kind of build that I'm putting on the screen here right now. Yeah, I agree there.

And personally for me, I think I love the double because I like the fact that we saw... A very clear elevated role for Stefan Diggs. Wasn't sure what we were going to see from him in week one. You've got gets to join the team kind of late in camp, all that stuff. So I was very impressed with his role. I was very impressed with his route running.

He made Cooper to Jean look bad on a coop on a couple of routes, which is very, very difficult to do. And, and Daniels really looked his way in some key situations. So I think, I think we're going to continue to see a really big role for Diggs and we're going to see a pretty concentrated offense. If, if, If Washington starts to expand Antonio Williams role, I think it'll be harder for those two specifically in McLaurin and Diggs to always just dominate production.

But Williams ran fourteen routes last week. You got double that number from Diggs. And so at the moment, I think it's a pretty clear double stack that I really, really like.

And again, not only is that very affordable, but I think it's going to be pretty unique because I think that even as Daniels popularity grows, that combination, the trio of those three guys, Daniels, McClure, and Diggs, is just going to stay very unique because as we kind of have talked through here now, I just don't see many people going to the double stack there.

Yeah, one thing I'll add to that too, and you know I love this move, is filling out all the wide receiver positions with the game. Like just lock it down and move on because then it tells its story. And again, not many people end up with that as much as you will. Everyone does that. We just explained they don't.

And so it's like that's not – and then finishing it with an extra wide receiver or putting a fourth wide receiver in the flex from a different game, but just saying like use a leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗ spot from a different game. And maybe Addison in your flex – Again, games are different. I'm just saying like timing matters. You put them in the flex. I'm saying maybe you have Addison instead of Aaron Jones and he's the same price at a wide receiver position, but you're using a fourth as a flex.

So it all makes sense if you think about it. But just noting it, I think Pickens, can really just, man, that was a fifty-yard walk-in touchdown that he dropped last week. It's not saying that he'll get that again, but it's just funny how, like, you get information the previous week, and people only drag some of it across.

Like, oh, Bijan has to get ten targets again this week, and Derek Henry's gonna do it again and run, but Other stuff, there's no way it could happen in their mind. You think about other stuff with Montgomery. He doesn't need three touchdowns. I'm not advocating for him. I'm just noting where people are like, he sucks. Did you see how he got his touchdowns and what the stats said? The same shit could happen this week and he can do it.

But it's like you got information last week. Here's another really good example. It's not my lane for today, but it is one that I like for this week. From a picks perspective, but just putting it together for the slate dynamics. Trevor Lawrence, everyone liked him last week. Nobody wanted to, like, you couldn't stack him because they just couldn't figure out in their brain, myself included, like, what are you going to do from the Cleveland side? Well, you don't have to do anything.

There's twelve games. There's a ton of value plays out there. You could literally have just played Lawrence and Parker Washington if you wanted. Myers got in.

I get all that, but I'm saying you could have just shut it down and then filled it out with coker and swift and what like you could add other stuff last week that made sense and you now people realize that but they're still not dragging that across like you can just play Lawrence and Washington this week and oh I gotta throw

Waddle in there he's gonna bounce back too maybe he does and that could be smart he would drive that game but you also might just not have to run it back maybe you could just play Lawrence and maybe he is gonna continue to score fantasy points like he has Maybe that's all you need him and him in Washington, fill the rest of your lineup out in different ways, but just saying it, people don't bring all the information across. Yeah, I think there are two things here.

The first is I think that thought process is definitely more viable when the opponent isn't getting much ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗ and when the offense that you're talking about isn't getting much ownership, right? Because if this week, as you said, let's say Waddle hits a big touchdown and you don't have him because you decided not to go for the double stack, that's not really going to hurt you because there aren't going to be many game stacksGame StackIn the NFL, a game stack usually combines a quarterback, one or two of his pass catchers and one or more players from the opposing offense.Target games where the spread is close as well as the total high. A high total with a lopsided spread can turn into a blowout where only one side keeps scoring.Full explanation ↗ from this game.

Waddle's going to be really, really, really low-ownedLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗. If, on the other hand, Waddle was going to be fifteen percent, you just thought, I don't want him, so I'm not going to play him. And then Waddle gets the long touchdown. Now that kind of buries you because, you know, other other people are going to have a better version of your lineup because they have that bring back. So I think that's an important point to make.

The second thing I want to say here is. I also think this is a very important distinction. Like when I say, you know, I want my lineups to be really correlatedCorrelationCorrelation describes how two players' fantasy scores move together. Positively correlated players tend to have big games at the same time, usually because one player's success directly adds points for the other.When you build a tournament lineup, ask which of your players need the same thing to happen. The more of them that do, the higher your lineup's ceiling.Full explanation ↗. I want a double stack with a bring back. I am not saying that no matter which quarterback and wide receiver I really like, I'm going to force in a double stack and force in a bring back.

What I'm saying is if I don't like the second wide receiver from a team or a second pass catching option from team, and I don't like any bring backs, I'm just not going to use that stack. I'm going to go elsewhere. And, uh, and I actually broke that rule last week, uh, with the, with the Chargers, I had a lineup that didn't use a bring backBring-BackIn the NFL, a bring-back is usually a wide receiver, tight end or running back from the team facing your quarterback stack.Pick the bring-back who gains the most when his team falls behind. In football that's usually the opponent's top pass catcher, not a running back who loses carries in a comeback.Full explanation ↗, uh, because I couldn't choose between, uh, the Arizona guys. And you know what, immediately, like now looking back, I regret it.

And I think I would have been better off going to McBride and just laying off my love for Loveland in one lineup that would have been okay. Or I could have trusted my instinct on Kendrick Bourne having a really nice role. And Vele ends up scoring the touchdown, but through three quarters, it looked like that you know, Saints Detroit game was really going to fail or at least underwhelming in a big way.

And Bailey was going to be stuck at like nine, in which case, you know, I would have created an advantage with Kendrick Bourne instead of a lie.

And, uh, and so, yeah, stuff like that, I think is, uh, is worth, we're talking about and, and, The key point there for me is if you want to be double stacking, you want to be using a bring back, you want to really lean into correlation with your builds, and there's a game you like, but you don't like the players you would have to pick to get the construction you like, then either...

You've got to just decide, all right, I'm letting go of the construction or you say, I'm letting go of this game. I'm letting go of my conviction on those players and I'm going elsewhere. And maybe the easier thing to do there is like, let's say you really like Lawrence and Washington, but you don't like anyone else in the game. Then just don't use Lawrence. Just use Washington as a one-off.

That's I think much, much more viable than going to the skinny stack without a bring back. Yeah, I think, again, like looking at it from a call, one thing I would also love, because you have this data, I'm not going to send you on a project, but I'm very curious what your data says for this.

So if you have time or think about it, just a friend asking over here, but I'm very curious now that we talk about it like that, because you gave a great example of the Arizona spot last week. It was like the Cleveland spot. We just didn't... I didn't, I liked the Jacksonville side. Didn't like the Cleveland side. I liked the charger side. Didn't really like the Arizona side. I know McBride was a clear option, but it was like, I don't love that still.

And just the way the slate dynamics are, et cetera, et cetera. But what I'd like to know is in weeks one through five, when the pricing is still super soft and, has there been less? Cause your data shows not giving it all away, but noting what it shows is like, obviously the correct ways to stack lineups and what you should be looking for and what shows up in the top one percent more often than the field uses it, et cetera, et cetera.

So that's fine. But what about weeks one to five when the pricing is just so, so soft? Like, you know, if you didn't have, there was great Jacksonville lineups last week that didn't have Boston in them with a touchdown or didn't run it back with anybody on the other side and got away with it just fine. Obviously results oriented. You can get away with things. I'm just saying, I'm wondering when there's so much cheap pricing versus trying to force that.

And I'll give an example this week, San Francisco, Miami, love Purdy, love Mike Evans. I think Debo's Debo again, like looks fine. Don't really love anyone on Miami. I know a chance there. You could do it. I know make up every guy that scored last week, Douglas, but if you want to retry bell again, you want it, whatever you want to do from that team, you can go ahead. I'm just saying, I don't love it now.

What you're saying a little bit, and I'm not saying it's, you know, in a bad way, I'm just saying like you said, like you could have just went with your, your gut on a guy last week. Like I could just play Douglas and maybe he does it again and just do it because it fits that proper build. But if I don't need to play Douglas, can I still just play Purdy Evans and Debo and be good?

Like that's, that's what I'm thinking about are just Purdy and Evans. That's a big boy stack. Could be two touchdowns from Mike Evans. And I, what if Debo fails it? And I just had the right to like, what's your thoughts on that early when we have all this value? Yeah, I, I definitely see the, uh, the thought process that you're kind of, you're talking about there.

Um, I think the way to verbalize it is like the main reason we stack is because it's hard to get every spot in your lineup correct that they all play really well. And when pricing is this soft, it's easier to pick the one-offs that end up being really good values. There were weeks last week when pricing got tight in like week ten, week eleven.

It was like, goodness gracious, I can't build a lineup where I like five of my players, let alone every single player in the lineup. So I very much...

Um see that train of thought but the data last year was pretty clear early on in the season like there was no real difference there you still wanted to stack part of that though is like there you know when you're looking at that small of a Sample you're looking at a lot of selection bias because remember in those weeks early last season like there wasn't anywhere near the scoring that we just got in week one.

And so when you did find a game that actually went off, it became that much more powerful. If we continue to see week after week this year, offense after offense is putting up thirty plus points. There are multiple forty point performances.

Then I think it's going to be an environment where it is a lot easier to just play your your favorite plays if like every single offense is performing but uh I I have absolutely no reason right now to think that we want to deviate from the the really correlatedCorrelationCorrelation describes how two players' fantasy scores move together. Positively correlated players tend to have big games at the same time, usually because one player's success directly adds points for the other.When you build a tournament lineup, ask which of your players need the same thing to happen. The more of them that do, the higher your lineup's ceiling.Full explanation ↗ lineups and to that point like I think the San Francisco is a really interesting example where I would say absolutely you want to bring back here because potentially the biggest obstacle to the purdy stack really hitting this week is that they just don't get pushed and that they're shutting it down in the Early in the third quarter, they're just starting to run the ball.

By midway through the fourth, the starters are out of the game. I think you really want a Miami guy so that San Francisco actually has incentive to keep scoring and pouring it on in the second half. Yeah, I don't disagree. I just feel like this is what makes it tricky for me. That makes a ton of sense, but you are playing roulette with that decision on the Miami side. Is it because HN or is it not? HN would speed the game up.

What about an early touchdown? Boom, now we got a game. You're excited to have that stack, and I get that. And I'm not deviating from stacking. I'm just saying like... Malik, this is my example. I like Evans, Samuel. I like Purdy. Malik Washington $4,000. What if I chose to play booty instead? Because I don't want to pick which Miami guy it is. And I'm just using exact dollar for dollar. I don't want to play Schultz chalk.

I know booty is going to get some love, but he's not going to get that much love at $4,000, but I just, I prefer him. No Nico. Maybe that's a the game can still get pushed enough. I just don't have to be the one selecting who the guy is that pushes it to leave myself empty there. When we have like really good values everywhere, you could flip it.

I mean, I mean, you could go to the $5,000 guy here with Debo and, And I don't know if you're not in on that other spot, like maybe it's just digs instead of Debo. And it's like, you're, you've got Javonte in this lineup or something too. And it still is correlated. It's just, I'm saying it's going to be a big Mike Evans day and I don't want to figure out the rest. So I think matters too, for like field size and stuff like that.

Like we've talked about this a ton in the past as well, like in the large, I guess like what I'm thinking about is like the twenty dollar Milly Maker. This is mostly a single single entrySingle-EntryA single-entry contest allows each user exactly one lineup. It can be a cash game or a tournament.In single-entry, one or two contrarian decisions are usually enough. Pair a strong, popular core with a lower-owned piece instead of fading everything the field likes.Full explanation ↗. So for your point, makes perfect sense.

But for me, just for those that are playing in the larger field stuff as well, I guess I'm saying early in the season, I'm finding in my research and just going back to my lineups and how they've got crushed in the past in these weeks is that it's usually I'm overstacking or I'm almost too heavy on the stacks. And there was just like a prime value play right there.

But I tried to make Malik Washington work when I could have just played the other guy that was in a really good spot for $4,000. And that's how I'm looking at it. Yeah, I mean, the other thing here is like, you know, you brought up the optimal lineup from week one, but a lot of takedown lineups were double stacks last week with a bring back. They, you know, they used Shuck.

There were even some really good triples that were Shuck, Olave, Johnson, and Vele with... You know uh I if there was even one with like a double room back so you had that from the same side and then you had gibbs and I'm on russian brown and again it still annoys me looking back that like goodness gracious that that that one it was dead through three quarters and then it just came alive in the fourth.

And then of course they both, uh, you know, both sides of that stack, uh, benefited from, from overtime as well. So, uh, really good run out for, for those lineups last week. But, but point being like, even in this environment where a lot of offenses are producing and we do have, you know, a lot of really underpriced players throughout all of the DraftKings pricing, uh, it's still true that that also means that there are entire teams that are really underpriced.

I think of Washington this week. Daniels could be an extra thousand dollars. McLaurin could be an extra thousand dollars. Gibbs could be an extra five hundred. And then as bringbacks, Pickens could be an extra thousand. Lamb could be another five hundred. Williams could be another five hundred. So Sure, you're more Likely to be right about the guys around the stack as one-offs because of the pricing, but you're also more Likely to be right about the entire stack because of the pricing.

And you run into fewer issues where you start to get into the portion of pricing where guys are inversely correlated. We've seen in the past... When Ja'Marr Chase gets to $8,000 and next to him is T Higgins at $6,800. It's really hard for both of them to put up ceiling performances for their prices. $7,300 and $6,300 for Lamb and Pickens this week. That's much, much, much more attainable there for for both of them to put up really strong performances.

Yeah, I was I was looking at this line. There's definitely a bunch of double stacks in there. But like the winning lineup last week had love with Watson. And that to me is like thinking about it like a Purdy.

Situation with like evans or something but he ended he still ended up getting gibbs and henry he went with the secondary with coker and swift Goedert but he's not on uh hertz or Barkley who we had a lot of talk in the industry last week about like different situations there played a one-off in DJ Moore and then had which is connected to a good quarterback obviously and unfortunately injured now but just noting it and then Steelers d was in the prime spot last week against rush I believe correct Yeah, so I mean, like that's an example.

Again, a bunch of good double stacks in here, but I just thought about it from that perspective. Like when you're seeing it this week and looking at it, I guess I'm trying to help people make, you know, go down the route that you're going on. I'm not disagreeing with Alex.

I'm saying that, I just really have spent a lot more time looking at my lineups and critiquing them where it's like, sometimes I think I go too far down the stacking route in the early part of the season when there is so many values and options and ways to get unique in your lineup while still staying very correlated. Like you still have a secondary stack. You still have a stack.

I'm just saying like your point and you, you said you broke your rule last week and you did it too. And you wish you didn't, but it's like that to me made sense. I had a Herbert, um, a Herbert, McConkie, Quinton Johnston lineup with no run backBring-BackIn the NFL, a bring-back is usually a wide receiver, tight end or running back from the team facing your quarterback stack.Pick the bring-back who gains the most when his team falls behind. In football that's usually the opponent's top pass catcher, not a running back who loses carries in a comeback.Full explanation ↗ as well in one of my mains. And it was, I just liked it. In the Sims, it was good. So, you know, Shadow, you got Sims over there at Black Analytics as well.

So, you know, you can see what these things break out like. And that to me looked fine last week. And so I just trusted myself. It didn't work, by the way, but just noting it, it's like those are the little things and lessons that I try and, you know, think about and pass along. And it's nice just to be able to talk through it with somebody else who has the data, can see it. So I was curious, back to the original question.

Can you bring that back up? I want to talk about that fifth lineup for a moment. I think there's kind of a cool thing in here, too. So this fifth lineup was a Bryce Young double stack. And the reason I bring this up is because I think if you ask this guy, like, okay, if you had single stacked, what would that stack have looked like? I think it probably would have been something like Bryce Young with Tet.

And then instead of Coker going to like the chalkChalkChalk is the most popular, highly owned play on a slate. The term comes from sports betting, where the favorite is called the chalk.Don't label chalk good or bad. Ask whether each popular play deserves its ownership, then decide which chalk you'll eat and which you'll fade.Full explanation ↗, you're the higher probability Quentin Johnston. And obviously we know how that played out, right? Like Coker beat him by thirty five DraftKings points. So you also if you're double second, if you're correlating, you run into these scenarios where like you would have made the incorrect decision of which receiver to pair with him. But because you used both, you ended up getting the massive performance that really helped your quarterback.

And sure, the other receiver you used, like Tet, could have been somebody better, but that's not the decision you would have made. And so it gives you a much higher probability of finding the ceiling performance within your stack if you go to the double stack. And, and like, so for example, this week, like if you have a Jaden stack and you think, oh, I just want to single with McLaurin.

Well, what if digs goes for like eight and a hundred and two and McLaurin only has, you know, seven receptions for like, you're going to be really disappointed with Jaden McLaurin. You're going to be very happy with Jaden digs McLaurin and it could very easily play out that way. And so I, that was just another kind of point I wanted to make that it's, It's not just about getting everyone in your lineup to hit.

It's just getting somebody in your lineup to give you that difference-making performance that you need to have on the slate. If you had Coker, and that, by the way, is maybe more true in the small field stuff when you don't need to hit in every spot of the lineup, right? You didn't need a two-hundred-seventy-two-point performance to win a small two-hundred-dollar single entrySingle-EntryA single-entry contest allows each user exactly one lineup. It can be a cash game or a tournament.In single-entry, one or two contrarian decisions are usually enough. Pair a strong, popular core with a lower-owned piece instead of fading everything the field likes.Full explanation ↗ last week. Where it's a lot easier to take and survive the eleven-point performance from McMillan.

But yeah, I think that's a really key reason why double stacks are as effective as they are. It's not that you get the ceiling performance from both. You don't actually need the ceiling performance from both. You need the ceiling performance from one, and that gives you a better chance of doing that. Yeah, and like I said, there's a lot of factors at play here. So it's not a disagree. We're not saying... I'm definitely not saying not to stack.

I stack everything and Scooter brings it up here. Like it's obviously, you know, in the higher dollar, smaller field stuff or just smaller field stuff in general, you can get away with a lot of those situations. And that's why the double stack works better. The example Alex just gave actually of like when Diggs doesn't... When Diggs goes off, but McLaurin doesn't come through in a hundred dollar single entry with a thousand people or less, but Diggs still has... I forget who you said went off.

Let's say Diggs goes off, but McLaurin doesn't, but McLaurin still has like twelve. You could still be fine, but that's not even going to come close in a twenty dollar Milly Maker. And so to the rebuttal part of the other factor that I'm bringing up is I'm not not stacking. Like I said, I'm using like a example of this week, like I said, where it's like Purdy Evans Deboe.

It's there I'm saying it's not when in week seven and beyond when the pricing is way tighter that's why we've always lobbied for the exact point alex just made even in the higher the higher larger fields it's like look man just throw in Malik Washington and hope it's him that pushes the game and makes the other stuff work and you have one less spot to choose from and that's why we've been selling that and talking about that for years what my original question was and what we sort of got into the good conversation here is about the early season data.

It's not just like people say like, oh, like I'm going to now have to guess who's right in that one other spot. I'm saying I don't want to guess who the Miami guy is. I don't even know if it's going to be a receiver. I don't want HN. I don't have him, but I know I have like four other plays because the pricing is so soft. That are projecting well, unique enough, still sim well, still look good. Like everything's good. And I'm not playing Schultz.

It's actually still a leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗ play. I'm just using the booty example. So I'm just choosing to play booty instead of Malik Washington. And it's really just one wide receiver spot, but I'm still actually leveraging a tight end chalk week by playing this guy. And then maybe I have Derek Henry and another good running back and something else. And you still fill it out nicely. It's like, you still have a ton of stuff going on there.

You just don't have to choose the Miami guy if you don't want to. And I still have a double stack and I'm still going to need one of them to push it to make that game work. But I just didn't pick them in my build. That's what I'm thinking about. So again, good conversation, good back and forth. I think that's kind of the point of all of it. But Should be double stacks. There's one more thing I want to mention on this.

I think there are some really strong arguments for why a double stack would be less effective in an MME contest than in a single entry. But I would also just remind people that it's also used more in the single entry stuffs, right? So it can be equally underused even if it does make more sense just in a vacuum to do the double stack with a bring back or even triple stacks with a bring back in the smaller field contest.

And so when you're building many lineups the way that you often are, Tambo, like... It's also very true that like, you know, you can pick one or two lineups or even more than that where you're not doing the full stacking and you can still be overweight versus the field on how many lineups you have the double stack with a bring back or triple with a bring back.

And so you can still play that really, really well when you have lineups that don't do it. And you know, you can pick your spots like maybe in that Miami stack. Personally for me, like it would be a chance to bring back instead of having to choose all those between all those receivers. But yeah, But yeah, I think a really kind of productive conversation. And now I'm excited to kind of talk about some of our favorite convictions. Yeah, I'll let you roll first on that.

I just ranted enough there. But just anything else that you want to cover before we get to that? Do you want to do a new segment that's like, what's the field most overconfident about this week? Because I think that was something we wanted to talk about a little bit too. Yeah. And it sounds like you do. So now I'm excited to do it as well. So yeah, you start and then I'll roll after you. I'll see what you get. All right.

Let me think of which one I want to start with because I've got two and I think there's a decent chance that you're going to hit it as well. I think that All right, I'm going to go with the team level. I think that people are going to be too confident in what they saw last week from each team continuing over to this week.

There are times where you absolutely want to learn from week one, and I think where that's especially true is if you had a strong conviction about a team coming into this year, and then they backed up that conviction in week one. You should be slightly more confident about it here in week two than you were in week one. Doesn't mean you should feel like it's guaranteed to happen, but you absolutely should adjust for what you saw.

And similarly, if a team surprised you, you should be a little bit less confident in your preseason evaluation of that team. But let's also remember that last year in week one, the Patriots lost to the Raiders and the Raiders looked like one of the most explosive passing offenses in the league. I think Gino Smith had like eleven explosive passes or something against that Patriots defense. The Patriots continued to be really bad through the air for the first few weeks.

I think Christian Gonzalez being out for the first few weeks last year had a lot to do with that. But then for the rest of the season, like the Patriots didn't allow explosive passes. We know how bad that Raiders offense turned out to be. So Yes, we should learn from week one, but let's also remember that certain performances from week one are going to look like complete aberrations compared to that team's entire season's worth of play and performance.

And so we should remember that both on the offensive side and the defensive side. And, you know, I think... That's where people are going to be, I think, the quickest to be overconfident about what happened last week is basically saying, oh, this defense is clearly like an amazing fantasy matchup. I want to attack them. Maybe they're not quite as bad or anywhere near as bad as what they look like in week one defensively. Yeah, I love that one.

I think, you know, mine would be along similar lines, but just noting it, I think both, I think the running back chalk and the tight end chalk, I'm taking both. Like, I think it's like, there's just, it's always an overconfidence in week two, but a lot of it is, you know, foolish when you think about it for some of the cases of what we talked about already, like tight end, I'll use tight end because Bijan probably better off.

I had to choose like the easiest one for me is the tight end spot because we labeled it earlier on this very show. Of like five different ways you could do it with using plays, using pivots, using roster construction. There's just so many ways that you can leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗. And you could say that about anything, but it's where is the overconfidence? That's what we're talking about now.

To me, it's like when people are just like, well, I got to have Andrews or I got to have Schultz. And that's taking up a majority of the lineups. It's neat. Like those guys could do their median, like you talked about. And it's just one guy to beat them. Is all you really need. And so you could fill it in or multiple guys can tie them, but at different price points and things like that.

So I think that's where I see the biggest overconfidence this week is going to be in the tight end shock and just plugging these guys in based off what you said at best, the wide receiver injuries could affect them. I think it affects the Ravens less. But the Ravens also have a lot of competition when you've got Lamar and Henry alone. And then there's other options there. It's not just Mark Andrews week.

And then the side for Schultz is like, yeah, he's cheap and he can just make things work. But I don't even really know if you need that this week. Like we saw with how many other ways you can still fit great lineups. And then on top of it, it's like, um, you you've got, um, no Nico. So if, if the said people use that as a positive, that could be a negative to your point. Like I could just shut that offense down.

And that could have been the case. That's another interesting thing. I think there's like a little bit of interest in, in Joku, but nothing chalk wise at all, not even close, but there'll be even less. If McConkie plays, like it seems like McConkie is going the neighbor's route this week of like, he's just going to show up and decide on Sunday if he's good to go or not.

Well, if he plays, that would take even more people, but And Joker was still out there running the road. Like, I think he's still going to be out there no matter what and getting involved. So I think he's fine either way at $3,000, whether he's a one-off stacked up, whatever you want to do. So I just think the overconfidence is more at the tight end position than anywhere else this week. I like that.

I'm going to, I'm going to build on that with, with one more piece here. And that is, I think people are going to overreact to week one and play too much running back or tight end in the flex. And, and of course, like we, you know, we saw, we saw a lot more really good performances last week from running backs and receivers. I'm not debating that in any way, shape or form, but just one season ago, Just one season ago, wide receivers were used in the flex.

Forty two percent of the time and lineups with wide receivers in the flex were overrepresented in both the top ten percent and way overrepresented in the top one percent of lineups. So wide receiver in the flex was really strong. Thirty six percent used running backs in the flex. Twenty two percent used tight ends in the flex. Tight end. Tight end lineups were basically like break even and running backs really were underrepresented in the top ten percent and top one percent of lineups.

So they were bad strategies last year. Here we are one year later. We're in week two, and I'm currently projecting fifty seven percent running back in the flex. Thirty four percent tight end in the flex and only ten percent wide receiver in the flex. So I think that's going to be a really big inefficiency this week.

I think wide receiver in the flex is a really strong way to build just purely because, you know, last year it was a winning strategy when four times as many people were using wide receivers in the flex.

All from uh from week one and the pricing and you know the the available um uh just games and matchups that of course is part of it and it's not like every single week last year forty two percent were used and wide receiver the flex was always the better route but generally speaking wide receiver in the flex was better last year even though it was used far more often than it was in week one and even more so here in week two and so that's uh I think uh a really Kind of an interesting note and a strong way to build this week.

Yeah, I love that because it's a double whammy, right? It's also bringing across your first point of like the week one overconfidence that comes across in general. It's mainly because like people can say, well, it's because of pricing. It's because it's no, it's like legit because last week running back smashed and a bunch of them scored thirty plus.

So everyone's like, no way you could use wide receiver a tight end in the flex anymore or if they're at least doing the next stage it would be like I'll go back to tight end in the flex because it does this for me but you don't see that this week it's like I said it's a majority people are going to be going running back and bringing that thought across I use this all the time but it's the same as the um you get like a tight spread on a Sunday night like a I don't know minus two and a half favorite at home And then all of a sudden they pound the other team, thirty one to three.

And you see five one lineups smashed in showdown. And people like, damn, that's crazy. And then the next night on Monday Night Football is a nine and a half point favorite. So it's funny because it was already going to be busy with five ones. But because everyone just saw five one smash the night before. People start building those same lineups and you always see it go up massively in people's portfolios. Like five ones are just blasted everywhere.

Now the next night it ends up being a tighter game or there's a condensed, they don't factor in condensed offenses and how this is actually going to play out. And it's like, even if this team gets blown out, they throw to like two guys. So that's going to be, you know, it could be a four, two, it could be a three, three, like it's, there's so many other ways. So it's not just to fade the field.

Like people always think, oh, you're just doing the opposite of what everybody does. It's like, just think, for a second, like what makes sense, what doesn't make sense, and then put it together. I know it's easier said than done. It's not saying we're the best at it. It's noting more of like, that's the fun part of the game. And oftentimes it is the pendulum swing from week to week. And that's what we really have to adapt. That's what this show is all about.

So hopefully you guys enjoy it. Make sure to hit that thumbs up and subscribe. We've still got our leverageLeverageLeverage is the edge you gain by rostering a play the field is underweight on, compared with how often it ends up in winning lineups. When that play outscores the popular option most lineups chose instead, you gain ground on those lineups, though the rest of your roster still decides where you finish.Look for leverage on players connected to the chalk, like the other side of a popular game or a teammate who can steal the popular player's touches.Full explanation ↗ lanes to get to Alex. Anything else you want to touch on before we get there? Yeah, I just want to make one more note on this running back versus wide receiver in the flex conversation. Where it does make sense is when you look at the pricing, you just look at projections, and this is going to be true in the industry, but I'm just going to use mine here.

Bijan projects... Almost eight points ahead of Jackson Smith and Jigba. McCaffrey's ahead of Justin Jefferson and Ja'Marr Chase and CeeDee Lamb. Henry's ahead of those guys as well. Down the board a little bit, like A-Chan is ahead of some of the receivers around him. You get Bucky Irving and Javonte Williams ahead of a lot of the receivers around them. Pickens is one outlier there, but then like After that, it becomes a lot more even.

You start to see wide receivers closer in projection to their running back counterparts in pricing. And the other point is while running backs have a clear edge in projection, when you start looking at ceiling and super ceiling, the wide receivers really tighten that gap. And so I think that's another kind of key point where too many people are building for like, what is the median outcome? Not recognizing the fact that this is a ceiling based game.

And, uh, and we're looking, especially in our flex spot, we're looking for those real separators. All right. I want to, I'm thinking in my head, like I'm going to do this because I know what I want to use, but it might be yours. So I want to see, but you, you can go first. No, I want you to go first. Cause I have two and I went first last week. Okay.

It's a, it's a, I woke up this morning to some nice information that doubled down on what I already had built previously. And I'm actually going to tie it all together. Now I'm using Mike Evans in the flex. Mike Evans in the flex is going to win the money this week. If you're not on McCaffrey, you're not on that spot. Now I'm going to tie it all together. I know you like Mike Evans. I woke up this morning, saw some props.

I said, oh, even better. Now he's all over this too. And I saw projections up and things like that. So if you guys aren't over with Alex in his Discord, we're having a good time in there too. You can check it out. Go to Black Analytics. Get in. You can use code TAMBO to get a discount as well. But just get in there. That's the main point. Get in. Check it all out. But we're definitely... Seeing some stuff.

And that's one, when I woke up to that this morning, I was like, oh man, this is going to be a good week, good show. But now that you said the in the flex thing at the end, I flipped to that from what I was going to be on. I told you guys earlier though, I like Brock Purdy stacks as well. So I could have said that or tied it in.

I do like some other things, but I'll take that one and I'll go Mike Evans and I'll for my boy, Alex, use them in the flex. I think Mike Evans is such a phenomenal play this week. I think he has the highest GPPGPP (Guaranteed Prize Pool)A GPP is a tournament whose prize pool is guaranteed to pay out in full even if the contest does not fill. Payouts are steep: a small group at the top wins most of the money.Before you enter a tournament lineup, ask how it finishes first, not just how it cashes. If you cannot name that scenario, rebuild it.Full explanation ↗ score for me. One of the interesting things that I'm doing this year in my projections, I have various scenarios. They're all derived in different ways. One's purely from the market. One is historically driven.

One blends those two together, but in the most predictive way.

Multiple models kind of trying to model like okay this is what his target share is this is what his average of target is going to be so on and so forth and that goes through the contest or through the game sim that's how I get his projection but then we also have like outlier scenarios like well what if what if all these inputs are wrong what if this is not his role what if his role is meaningfully different and the most common way that it would be meaningfully different this week is what if Shanahan just realizes like, my God, I have an unbelievably good wide receiver on my team now.

And I'm potentially the best play caller when it comes to just like scheming guys open and scheming one-on-one opportunities. Like that was the thing that stood out to me when watching in week one was how many routes and just route concepts are put everybody at various parts of the field and just left Mike Evans in this vast amount of space in one-on-one coverage against somebody, and he just became wide open, and it was an easy pitch and catch.

Then they got to the red zone, and it was a very clear, like, hey, you know what? We have this cheat code in the red zone now where we can just line him up out wide, let him go one-on-one, and Purdy's one of the more accurate quarterbacks in the league. He can put the ball where he needs to, where it's an easy pitch and catch touchdown.

So I think uh I think we could see like a huge huge touchdown type season from evans I also think we could see uh so basically like the the various models All had him between twenty two percent and twenty four and a half percent target share. And then there's this outlier outcome where, well, what if he's just treated as like an alpha and has a twenty seven percent target share and a thirty percent target share in the red zone?

And the thing that I really like about Evans this week is he's a good play in all of the base, like just, you know, spit out scenarios where he's just what all these models think he's going to be. And my goodness, if you get the outcome where he's the twenty seven percent target share alpha. The thing about that is like that's just the you know, that's the quote unquote true target share.

When he's a twenty seven percent true target share player, you're going to get like ten times more games.

Where he's at a thirty five percent target share thirty seven percent target share then you will if he's a true target share twenty two percent type of guy so it just unlocks so much ceiling for him I love the Mike Evans play if you didn't make Mike Evans your leverage lane I was going to so I will switch I gave you the option to go first, but the other thing I just wanted to add quickly is that it's also what's in the range.

Like people will be much more Likely to have Javonte Williams right there. So maybe I can have Evans and something like you can mix it up and get different that way. You could have Ferguson at tight end. We didn't talk about earlier where Goedert just smashed them last week. Oh, maybe that carries over. No one's saying anything about that. Maybe that's overkill to an overconfidence, but no one's really playing him.

So it doesn't matter, but I'm just saying there's other ways you can build. But that was what I liked about him as well, why I threw the flex joke in there, because it's true, he has a flex option, and also that's where I have him right now, but just noting it, you brought that point up about playing a wide receiver in the flex, so I had to double down, but I'll let you roll with yours.

I am concerned about steam for the quarterback and for one of the wide receivers and for the bringbacks, but I'm still going to make my leverage lane the Washington double stack here. I thought... So this is a really cool stat, um, from, from FTN fantasy, the Eagles defense was the best in the league last year at preventing open wide receivers.

Uh, it's just like, uh, I think, you know, um, it's one of the purest measures of how good are you at covering the opponent is how, how infrequently can you give them easy completions? The Eagles were number one in that. They were also number one enforcing tight coverage, uh, same idea, right? It's just, it's the opposite. And it's not just how infrequently are you giving them, um, uh, easy completions. It's how frequently are you giving them difficult, difficult completions? And the Eagles were number one in both.

And in week one against Washington, uh, they were even better than they were last year in both of those categories. And yet Jane and Daniels played well, Jane and Daniels, uh, really allowed them to move the ball. I was extremely impressed with him. I was impressed with Stefan digs, as I mentioned earlier. So I think that against now a Dallas defense that looked like crap against a giant's passing attack, that is nowhere near as good as what this Washington offense can be.

Uh, you know, Shout out to that Giants offense and that Dallas defense last week because they got me an immediate ticket in the Sunday night showdown. That was a really kind of cool way to start the season. And I think that attacking this Dallas defense is going to be kind of profitable throughout the year, as I expected early on. And the other element of that, too, is it wasn't just like, oh, these guys really struggled to cover.

It was like there seemed to be a big, big disconnect between what the new defensive coordinator, Parker, wanted that coverage to look like and what the players were executing. That doesn't seem like something that they can clean up in exactly one week. And so I think this Washington offense has a chance to put up a lot of points, and the vast majority of it will be through Jane and Daniels. And as I mentioned, even if – Daniel steams.

And instead of the nine percent that I currently haven't projected at, which I think is already highest in the industry, even if that becomes fifteen and McLaurin goes to fifteen or twenty, I think that the combinatorial ownershipOwnershipOwnership is the percentage of lineups in a contest that include a given player. Projected ownership is an estimate made before lock; actual ownership is posted once the contest locks.Ownership isn't something to avoid; it's something to build around. The goal is understanding how the field is likely to build, then finding your edge relative to that.Full explanation ↗ of Daniels digs McLaurin is still going to be really low. And then I'm probably not going to use Gervonta as a bring backBring-BackIn the NFL, a bring-back is usually a wide receiver, tight end or running back from the team facing your quarterback stack.Pick the bring-back who gains the most when his team falls behind. In football that's usually the opponent's top pass catcher, not a running back who loses carries in a comeback.Full explanation ↗. I mean, he's one of the receivers. So I think I'm still pretty protected on the overall stack. And so it'll be my leverage lane.

Real quick question on that too. I'm just curious, because would you consider Williams? I know you did mention this a little bit earlier. It didn't seem like you were leaning one way or the other, but was Williams a product of the Philly defense that you just talked about? And that's where you see McLaurin coming back into the mix. Or are you still fine if people wanted to roll the double with him? Because that would be even less.

Even if those other guys do get some steam, Williams would slice into that either way as the second guy, or if you want to go all the way in higher field, smaller stuff where you play all of them. But I'm just saying in general, would you have interest in Williams in the double. I am interested in Williams.

I think that we could end up seeing this season look a lot like the wide receiver dynamic from a few years ago when I think it was McLaurin Crowder and Dotson. Remember Dotson rookie season when he scored a bunch of touchdowns? Maybe Williams... Makes himself really fantasy relevant by being this year's Dotson and just scoring all these touchdowns. But it's worth noting Antonio Williams ran thirteen routes. Deami Brown ran twenty four in week one. As long as that's the case, it's going to be very, very difficult.

Now, The other potential reason why he could run more routes this week being Williams is I believe Chico Conquo has already been ruled out. If not, he's on the wrong side of questionable. Chig ran twenty one routes. Certainly Bates and Sinan are going to make up some of that. But I also think we could just see more three wide receiver sets. And so maybe that gets Williams onto the field more.

I think there's a good chance that he just earned himself more reps and more routes. Based on his week one performance and how ineffective, like completely invisible Deami Brown was. But yeah, until I see that, I don't think that thousand dollars is worth it because I think Diggs is a really, really strong play. Maybe what I would do I also won three tickets into the five, five, five Milly this week from that showdown with the Giants and Cowboys.

So what I would consider doing, if let's say I had six lineups, then maybe I would do something like, okay, I'm going to do a McLaurin-Diggs combo, a Diggs-Williams combo, and a McLaurin-Williams combo. And then all three combos are going to have both pickings or lamb as they bring back.

And so like, I'm putting all my eggs in the basket of this game going off and I'm covering pretty much all the combinations that I think are most Likely of how this game goes off. But with only three lineups or specifically, like I think I might only have one that I'm entering into a lot of satellites like that main one.

I just think the, the McLaurin digs combination is so much stronger than anything else in terms of how to use Washington that I think I'll just go there. All right. Good one for this week, guys. I think it's going to be a lot of fun. Every slate is fun in the NFL, but talking through it and just having more angles that we can approach from how we do it on this show, this is definitely one of the better weeks for week two.

Always a good one every season from bringing the confidence over that people have into week two. So good show, good back and forth. Make sure you guys hit that thumbs up. Check out ShipItNation.com. Check out BlickAnalytics.com. If you guys have any questions, you can hit up either of us on x thank you guys for watching for alex for myself ToeTagginTambo good luck in your contest this week let's ship it