Stealing Signals, Week 14, Part 2
Late games, SNF, MNF, and recapping Week 14
Going to try to make this quick again today, and in honesty I’m torn about doing it at all, because I know I won’t do my best work, but I don’t want to leave anyone hanging. So what you get is me kind of half-assing it, and apologies for that. This is my disclaimer that there’s probably some other analyst out there who is worth listening to more than I am this week, as you prepare for the playoffs. So much of this is you get out of it how much you’re willing to put into it, in terms of thinking through contingencies and ranges of outcomes and those things, and right now, I’m just not in a great place to think about stuff as much as I’d like!
I keep mentioning the sickness, and I hate to be a complainer, but just in terms of explaining, I did get prescribed a few different things, and I have a terrible headache today and all that. I don’t write that so anyone feels bad; I write it because I don’t want you to mess up your season listening to advice from me if I don’t have the same level of focus this week that I’d like to have, and didn’t think through a situation half as much as I normally would have.
I did this two weeks ago calling Zonovan Knight “Noise,” even though I wrote some positive stuff about him in that note, and how he looked great. That was the first week I was feeling sick, but it annoyed me that I didn’t think through that better, and I made a point to circle back in the Input Volatility post later in the week to clarify that I really did like his setup for the short and long term. That was helpful for anyone who had added him, or plays in a sufficiently shallow league where you could still add him Saturday, but for anyone who was reading Stealing Signals and thinking through it earlier in the week, my half-assed take on the Jets’ RBs that week may have cost you a more aggressive bid. And I just kind of hate that; you never know which note will be the most important one, and it’s a lot to cover, and I’m glad I recognized that I wanted to emphasize some positive stuff about Knight later in the week, but I wish I’d done better on Monday/Tuesday that week.
Anyway, that’s obviously bugged me since then, and you might have noticed some overcorrection since that week’s Input Volatility in how I’ve written about Knight. And this week, I’m still going to write the column, but my concern is I do that again. So if you’re trying to break a crucial waiver wire tie, or have some big start/sit, please don’t let some vague note I have this week decide it for you. I’ve been there, like “Ah, but I keep going back to something [Person A] said,” and I’ve talked about this 100 times where I’ll be talking with comanagers and they’ll point to how some analyst has Kicker B ranked at spot X and Kicker C ranked at spot Y in their rest of season rankings, and my response is always, “I’m not trying to throw shade, but if you think that person — who also writes content, does podcasts, and does weekly rankings for every position — has given a ton of thought to the intricacies of their rest-of-season kicker rankings, such that they would defend those very specific rankings for those two exact players if they were to magically have an hour available in their day and were asked to sit and debate just those two players… you’re probably mistaken.”
And like I said, that’s not meant to throw shade, because there are undoubtedly people who do incredible rankings and really do stand by every rank they offer, every week, because that’s their thing. And hats off to them. But I mean, that’s definitely not the case in every situation, right? And when you’re a consumer of content, you can wind up being like “[Person A that I trust] thinks this, so I need to take that into consideration,” even when Person A would privately admit they haven’t looked at their rest-of-season kicker rankings seriously for two weeks and you digging into the matchups and all this stuff is probably more research than they’ve done on that specific head-to-head decision, so you should trust your own conclusions. And yet, the consumer in those situations often does not trust their own conclusion, and instead trusts the analyst (who doesn’t even necessarily want to defend that specific one vs. one debate), and then makes a decision no one really supported (including the analyst) just because it was buried in some ranking no one had looked at recently. That’s a convoluted thing that’s sort of hard to follow that I nonetheless would nearly guarantee happens more than you think.
Anyway, this is just my way of saying I think it’s worthwhile that I tell you that I feel like shit and don’t even know if I’ll stand by these takes in two days’ time, so take my notes with a grain of salt. I’ve gotten questions that are like, “I know you write in the Biggest Signals and Biggest Noise that you’ve ranked things vaguely, and I know you’re not trying to give specific waiver advice, but can it be surmised that your ranking of Player D and Player E on those lists indicates who you’d prefer in waivers?” and I am absolutely not mocking that because I totally understand where that question is coming from. Like, I love the idea that it’s not just asking me my opinion on who to pick up on waivers but is actually reading my content and trying to figure it out independently, but is trying to confirm it’s interpreting things the right way. That makes you a good subscriber, asking that question.
And yet, I’m not sure I got back to that question, and that’s on me, and usually if I do read something and don’t get back it’s because I’m like, “Hm, I don’t really know, I need to think on that,” but then I don’t find the time/circle back. (This is also why I hit on so many questions in the actual newsletters, because they are ones that stuck with me, and when I have time to write, then I’m like, “I want to get to that question!” It’s all because I can’t give a simple answer to anything in life, which you all know, because it’s literally what I’m doing right now.)
Anyway, this whole, long introduction is me saying that my Biggest Signals and Biggest Noise are not going to be ranked in any order I want to stand behind this week, and that there are things I’m undoubtedly going to miss in these writeups, and that some of my commentary will be hollow and not that great, even if I was still curious enough to peel back some layers I saw in yesterday’s writeup, and I found some stuff I thought was pretty interesting. But again, grain of salt.
Let’s get to it. Data for Stealing Signals is typically courtesy of NFL fastR via the awesome Sam Hoppen, but I also pull from RotoViz apps, Pro Football Reference, PFF, RotoGrinders, Add More Funds, and I get my PROE numbers from the great Michael Leone of Establish The Run. Part 1 of Week 1 included a glossary of important statistics to know for Stealing Signals.
Chiefs 34, Broncos 28
RB Snap Notes: Jerick McKinnon: 57% (-5 vs. previous season high), Isiah Pacheco: 43% (+3 vs. Week 10-14 low), Latavius Murray: 53% (-15 vs. W13), Marlon Mack: 32% (+23 vs. W13), Mike Boone: 15% (injured)
WR Snap Notes: JuJu Smith-Schuster: 81% (highest since Week 9), Marquez Valdes-Scantling: 51% (-4 vs. low), Jerry Jeudy: 83% (first time over 40% since W8), Brandon Johnson: 74% (+27 vs. W13)
Key Stat: Jerry Jeudy — 0.50 WOPR (Greg Dulcich — 0.52 WOPR)
The Chiefs roared out to a 27-0 lead against a team that ostensibly has a good defense but just can’t score — in fact, the Broncos had yet to score 27 all season, topping out at 23 and scoring more than 16 points just twice all season entering this game. That’s right, in 10 of 12 games entering this one, the Broncos had scored 16 or fewer points. That seems impossible. Anyway, they put up 28 in this one, getting into a position where they had the ball for two separate drives down 6 in the fourth quarter, but weren’t able to gain any first downs. By that point, Russell Wilson had been knocked from the game, and Brett Rypien was in.
Isiah Pacheco (13-70, 3-3-23) again led the backfield on the ground, but Jerick McKinnon (6-22, 9-7-112-2) had a monster game through the air, going for over 100 yards and two scores, including a 56-yarder on a shotput from Patrick Mahomes that you’ve no doubt seen the highlight of by now. The backfield was more or less as it had been, although McKinnon’s routes rising to 55% of dropbacks was mildly notable. He’s typically in the forties. Melvin Gordon was inactive in this one, while Ronald Jones was active but didn’t play.
Mahomes also hit JuJu Smith-Schuster (11-9-74-1) for the Chiefs’ only second-half score, and JuJu had a strong game in his highest snap share and route share since Week 9. Travis Kelce (9-4-71) also got his customary volume but didn’t have a big day, and then no one else really did anything. Marquez Valdes-Scantling (3-1-20) was down to a season-low snap share, though he ran routes on 75% of dropbacks, which is decent. His problem is he doesn’t earn volume and also can’t do anything with it when he does (outside the occasional big play deep, which he’ll undoubtedly hit for soon). Justin Watson (2-0-0) continues to run a bunch of routes and turn in nothing to show for it.
Jerry Jeudy (9-8-73-3) had a monster performance for Denver, but mostly due to hitting for three scores, as his 21% target share wasn’t massive, and his 0.50 WOPR actually fell just shy of Greg Dulcich’s (8-3-42) 0.52 to lead the team. That’s obviously not meant to say Jeudy didn’t have a good game, just that there are varying degrees of good games, and this is one of the weaker volume-earning explosion games you’ll typically see. Other than Jeudy and Dulcich, Kendall Hinton (6-5-38) was the only other notable WR or TE.
Latavius Murray (8-32, 5-3-(-1)) lost more snaps this week, even as Mike Boone (3-2, 2-2-27) was rolled up on and exited the game on a cart. Marlon Mack (3-15, 3-2-62-1) had a long touchdown reception that helped buoy Wilson’s passing line, but there’s not really much in terms of signal there.
Signal: Latavius Murray — snap share back down to 53%, routes down to 42%, even as Mike Boone left early (Marlon Mack played as the No. 2)
Noise: Jerick McKinnon — no substantial role change, just a spike week, though that’s obviously a good sign and should solidify his playing time with Melvin Gordon on the roster now; Jerry Jeudy — big fantasy day, 3 TDs (had a really nice game, but only a 21% target share, was still behind Greg Dulcich in WOPR; it was more about stacking touchdowns)
Panthers 30, Seahawks 24
RB Snap Notes: D’Onta Foreman: 47% (-6 vs. W12), Chuba Hubbard: 32% (-10 vs. W12), Travis Homer: 91% (return), Tony Jones: 9% (-25 vs. W13)
Key Stat: Panthers — 88 total air yards (Sam Darnold — 3.7 passing aDOT)
The Panthers won this using a run-heavy gameplan at a -9.6% PROE, and settling for underneath throws. The big stat that made its way around Twitter was that D.J. Moore (3-0-0, 2-6 rushing) didn’t catch a pass for the first time since his first career game, and Sam Darnold’s 3.7-yard passing aDOT played a substantial role in that. Laviska Shenault (4-4-31, 1-7) led the WRs in targets, receptions, and yards, and his aDOT was -0.5, meaning a half yard behind the line of scrimmage on average in his swing pass role. Terrace Marshall (1-1-18) caught his one pass with his legs, while Shi Smith (2-2-17-1) and Ian Thomas (2-2-11) had the only other receptions for WRs or TEs in a game where Darnold also completed just 14 passes.
D’Onta Foreman (21-74, 1-1-1) split work with Chuba Hubbard (14-74-1, 3-3-25), who frankly looked fantastic. Foreman has of course looked very good this year as well, and going back to their college days both of these guys had strong production profiles coming out and were guys that were interesting in dynasty circles, so the Panthers just have a fun RB duo. Of course, Raheem Blackshear (4-32-1, 1-1-17) wound up hitting for a TD while playing just 14 snaps.
Travis Homer (9-26, 3-2-8) played 91% of the snaps in a pass-heavy game for Seattle where they ran the ball just 14 times against 36 passes. I don’t mention the PROE there because their expected pass rate was extremely high in this one, but they did go over it with a +3.1% PROE that’s frankly more aggressive than it seems when considering the expected pass rate was four percentage points higher than any other team’s this week.
D.K. Metcalf (10-5-71-1) and Tyler Lockett (9-5-60-1) did their stuff, and then Marquise Goodwin (6-5-95-1) had a really nice game in the No. 3 WR role, while the TEs were quieter this week.
Signal: Chuba Hubbard — strong game, not necessarily coming for D’Onta Foreman’s job but good enough to split the work with him
Noise: Travis Homer — 91% snap share (obviously a huge number, but completely dependent on health of teammates); D.J. Moore — no catches (3.7-yard passing aDOT, -9.6% PROE, 14 total completions on the team level were the big factors)