Monday Mailbag: Getting caught up on an offseason of analysis
Plus questions on diversification and three late-round WRs
The YouTube project has brought in a ton of good questions, many of which I hit on the streams themselves. I’ve heard it’s a smart strategy to reply to all the comments you receive on videos, but I also have a habit of giving a lot of analytical energy to any question I get anywhere, so the comments sections have become a place with lots of analysis that probably isn’t being seen by many eyes. So even if you’re not into the YouTube videos themselves, that’s something to consider checking out in the various videos at my channel (subscribe and like while you’re there!).
Today, I thought I’d bring a few of those to the newsletter, because it only makes sense, right? Before jumping into those, though, I’m going to start with a Discord question I saw this morning that basically asked me to wrap up all my thoughts from the first few months of the offseason for someone who is just starting to tune into fantasy football.
From Dylan via Discord:
Just starting a few slow drafts and have done zero reading. Starting to get caught up on the posts, but if anyone has a moment it would be great to see some screenshots of recently completed drafts you were happy with and if anyone has thoughts on draft strategy, thanks!
And here’s what I wrote in Discord, which by the way you can join via this link.
It’s a WR-heavy early year, because you really feel good about the RBs you can get in the Round 8-12 area, and Elite TEs are a major key. Seven strong high-end TE profiles this year, a deeper group of better profiles than I can ever remember. I’ve argued the optimal structure is probably four straight WRs then a Round 5 TE in most rooms.
That’s not to say you can’t take early RBs, but whereas last year I was advocating for RBs in the dead zone, this year I’m back to thinking of early RB picks as “detours” from the optimal structure. To help support a Zero RB or Zero RB-adjacent structure, I hit a lot of the rookie RBs in good spots in Round 13+, because another unique element to 2024 is we have a group of later-round rookie RBs that landed in favorable situations where they have a real shot at No. 2 roles from Week 1. Doesn’t always line up so favorably.
QB seems balanced throughout drafts, and I play it a variety of ways, but Jayden Daniels is the best value at the position and the Round 9-12ish QB Window is alive and well as a pocket to be targeting the position. Also some solid late-round options including Bo Nix as the other top value in my estimation, as he goes behind QBs I believe have thinner paths to starting 17 games than he does. Bryce Young, Derek Carr are other very late QBs with solid arguments for starting all season that can help complete three-QB builds if you only get one earlier.
From Austin via YouTube:
Not too into (Ricky) Pearsall? I’m around 50% through 40ish drafts. The murkiness of Deebo (Samuel) and (Brandon) Aiyuk both being there seem doubtful to me, especially given the draft capital so I’ve been grabbing him before he shoots up multiple rounds if a trade were to happen. They have been praising him in camp as well. Just my thought process.
Think this is fair and you'll be pleased if a trade does happen, but I'd seek out some of the quotes they had right after the draft where they seemed to be pretty adamant the window for a trade was closed. I think they are in "win now" mode and were open to a trade if it brought back 2024 draft capital and allowed them to improve for this season, but that they are unlikely to trade at this stage for what would just be future capital, while weakening their 2024 roster at a time where they want to be pushing in. I don't think [trading away Deebo or Aiyuk now] aligns with their overall goals, and so I think Pearsall is unfortunately a potential redshirt type of freshman if there are no injuries. I'd also add that if one of those WRs gets traded or hurt, I kind of suspect (George) Kittle and (Christian McCaffrey) would absorb more work — as it stands, we can't project enough volume for their four stars, so if one were gone, it could just be concentrated on the other three. But I do like Pearsall's athleticism in a Shanahan scheme. Just my word of caution on being too exposed to him.
From Brad via YouTube:
For your (DJ Moore) take across shows, just so you know he was going early 2nd before the Keenan (Allen) trade usually decision between him or Nico (also pre-Diggs trade). Then fell to late 2nd after Keenan trade and now early 3rd after Rome (Odunze). Agree didn’t fall enough but few spots means more in the 2nd / 3rds than later rounds especially looking at Leone’s draft capital buckets.
For some context here, my take has essentially been that Moore didn’t fall enough, but I’ve referenced him being late second round in early drafts before the other WR acquisitions, and now only being third round, which was inaccurate as he was indeed going up near the top of the second round initially.
Interesting note. Wasn't drafting as much when he was going that high so must not have internalized that. Re: Leone's draft capital buckets, those are going to be across multiple years, but essentially everyone seems in agreement the early 2nd through early 3rd is very flat in 2024, which is relevant to my take. The way you frame it, that ~round of fall is pretty significant due to being early in the draft; the way I would frame it, it's actually pretty insignificant [in 2024] due to the specific profiles across that ~18-pick range (and we've seen others jump that same gap — London, Olave — or fall like Moore — Kyren, Achane — within that tier, which I think supports this claim [that it is flat]).
That reads a little confusing to me as I read it back, but essentially I believe that even falling from early Round 2 to mid Round 3 isn’t enough, especially this year when multiple players have risen or fallen across a range of 18 or so picks that many analysts believe to be a very flat group (outside the top 12 or so first-round picks, and before another tier break in the mid-third).
I’ve actually been getting great values on both Allen (in some unique formats where he shouldn’t be pushed down but is, like the Superflex Puppy) and Odunze, whose ADPs were lower to start with. Moore will fall in some drafts, too, but the market does seem to be pretty comfortable viewing him as the team’s No. 1, and I think that’s a bold assumption given Moore has exactly one career season with a TPRR better than any of Keenan’s past decade of years dating to his rookie year in 2013.
Moore is great, but he’s more or less never competed with a big volume earner for targets. Keenan Allen is an elite volume-earner that I expect to be a rookie QB’s best friend, even at this late stage in his career. Odunze is a top-10 WR with a pretty similar skill set to Moore (by contrast, Allen is the more unique skill set in the group). And oh by the way Moore was good but not great last year, finishing WR12 in half-PPR points per game (the market seemed to respond early this offseason as if he had finished WR5 or something).
One thing Moore did show is massive spike week potential, and I would probably be fine with him in the middle of the fourth round, in terms of where I think he actually belongs price-wise. Maybe he’ll eventually reach a later third-round ADP and fall into the fourth in some drafts.
From Puttdaddy78, via YouTube:
How much, if any, are you worried about the week 17 matchup of Mia/Cle? Seems like Tyreek (Hill) and Tua (Tagovailoa) could struggle in that game and I find myself fading Tyreek because of that. I'll get a few shares of course but I can't see myself drafting too many shares.
I don't think that's something I want to put too much weight on this far out. It's certainly possible that weather impacts that game, but the Dolphins concentrate volume, and stuff like cold weather or snow isn't as impactful as wind, which is the variable we just won't know about. Assuming it's going to be super windy is risky, as well. I don't mind someone using the matchup to shift their preferred exposures down a few percentage points, but I think if you're going from liking a player's profile to suddenly being a near full fade on him because of a factor like this, you're probably overconfident in the issues the weather/matchup could cause.
From Matthew, via YouTube:
Curious to hear more on your process early in this video. You say Malik Washington and Jonnu (Smith) are “undraftable” then take Javon Baker. Not that Baker is a bad player but the Pats may be the favorites for the worst offense in the NFL and the Dolphins on the other hand the best. Jonnu and Malik have a chance to be the #3 option there and if there’s an injury the #2. Javon Baker could be the #4 in a bad offense. You’re playing for ceiling and taking a guy that could have a dead zero floor. Please elaborate.
Fair points. A major reason I think those Dolphins are undraftable (or close to it, I probably exaggerated) is how Mike McDaniel operates. Over the past couple years, the No. 3 in his offense has not been a super important role, and even when Tyreek Hill missed a game last year, it was basically just Jaylen Waddle and then the RBs. He's a master at getting the ball to the players he wants to get it to, and it's possible Jonnu and Malik could become those guys, but they would really have to earn that. As it stands, it appears likely they would be peripheral depth players, and specifically peripheral players in a hyper-concentrated offense (Tyreek Hill easily led the NFL in my wTPRR stat, and Jaylen Waddle was 11th, ahead of many teams' No. 1s, despite Hill being so volume-dominant, which made them a massively concentrated top pair, and that's something we also saw in 2022).
For New England, things are much more open, both in terms of who the top target-earners even will be, and also in terms of what the offense might look like. It's a more traditional situation in that I feel like I can bet into Baker's uncertainty, and if he's good, he'll have a chance to earn the stats to pay off that bet. By comparison, I'm not sure Washington being good would matter on the same level, or at least he'd need other things to happen as well (like significant injuries to other players that gave him several weeks of opportunity to earn volume, because even then I think [Odell Beckham] probably has a leg up on him).
From Clint via YouTube:
I'm wondering at what point double stacking early picks hurts your upside in terms of field size. Example Miami, Philly, Houston.....over 10 thousand entries.. am I looking at this wrong? Feels intuitive but it's anecdotal. What does the data say?
I'm not entirely sure what the data says, but I have the same intuition. From how I look at it, you want to be threading a needle of great picks in basically all the high-leverage rounds to really build a monster team, and that's easier to do if they aren't all competing for the same production in the same offense. In Round 1, I want the star in that offense, and then in Round 2 I want the star in another offense, etc. In the later rounds, where the outlooks for every pick are a lot weaker — and the opportunity cost on the picks I have to pass up is lower — I can essentially boost the projections of correlated players because I'm making a bet on an offense being good. But it's harder to justify that with a bunch of early picks all in the same offense.
From facook via YouTube:
Gretch, sorry if you have addressed this and I missed it, but might be a good talking point for one of the streams. You are planting flags on several players: Kincaid, Rome, Javonte, probably others. I know you aren't maxing these contests, but is your philosophy on limited entries to take big stands on certain players, rather than diversifying like Pete and Pat? Or is that an un-/subconscious thing you are doing?
This is a great question and I'll definitely try to talk about it more on a future stream. My short answer would probably be that yes my philosophy is to be taking bigger stands than Pete and Pat, and also that I don't really think there's a right answer there. It's more about where you find your edges — those guys are so good at construction and so advanced as drafters and team-builders that they can find quick answers even when diversifying build types and those things. I don't have those same skills developed yet, but I have a pretty good track record on player takes, and especially in this early part of the offseason when I think ADP is pretty broken on some players, I want to press the things that I think are an advantage for me.
Does that mean I'm prone to huge misses some years? Yes. I had a really tough 2022 when several players I was highly exposed to in my high stakes stuff got hurt (Trey Lance, Pitts, Breece, Javonte are the four that come to mind). But then in 2023 my "targets" smashed, and I had three separate teams finish top 30 overall in either the FFPC Main Event or NFFC Primetime, plus I had two best ball teams within five points of advancing to the BBM finals (on my limited entries; it was a bummer to miss out on those, but they were close!).
I won't have that kind of success every year, but I'm OK taking on the kind of risk from what I experienced in 2022 because I just don't think I can spread out exposures in a way I'd be happy with — I think my bets would get too thin. I guess as I think through this, I'd add that I think one of my stronger points as an analyst is knowing what types of profiles to avoid, and while I definitely don't bat 1.000 on those calls, and sometimes I'm out on a player like Amari Cooper last year and then he becomes a "guy you need" in Week 16, it's again another "edge" of mine — or I believe it is — and I want to be getting my bets in where I think the payoff is strongest.
So the TL;DR is I think my EV is highest playing it the way I do, mostly because I don't think I could manage a portfolio the way those guys do.
From Gerardo via YouTube:
What do you think about drafting (Khalil) Herbert and Rochon (Johnson) on the same team?
In the very late rounds like that, I don't mind it. Taking both Herbert and Roschon is more like a bet against Swift, but where you don't necessarily know who the beneficiary would be, or you think both guys would benefit if Swift were to miss significant time.
Important context here is I believe both Herbert and Johnson are independently strong values in the range where they go, because they don’t come off the board until most every reasonable upside RB pick is pretty thinned out. I think that’s probably a mistake, because I like this situation for RB production, and is due to the market’s uncertainty about who would benefit most from a D’Andre Swift injury.
From 7faeh via YouTube:
These slow draft streams have been super cool. How big does a tournament have to be for you to worry about drafting a unique team. Is it the overall size of the tournament that matters for this, or does the final round size matter more?
This is an interesting question, and a big part of my answer is that I think most teams are already pretty unique, given there are 18 roster spots. It's orders of magnitude different than like DFS lineups which are usually about 9 players deep. It's not twice as deep when you go from 9 to 18, but exponentially deeper, because each additional roster spot you add creates so many more combos. So to be honest, I don't really put much value into uniqueness other than as a reason not to force myself into some correlated piece I don't necessarily want to draft anyway. In that case, I'm mostly just making a point that while there's value to correlating the piece, you aren't forced to take the correlated play, because that's the more common move the field will make anyway, and by going another direction (like when I got (Dalton) Kincaid on that Houston double stack instead of (Mark) Andrews), it does provide some benefit as well (if Kincaid has a monster breakout season, and the Houston stack is a huge smash as well, then you're obviously glad you have Kincaid rather than the Week 17 correlation with Andrews). That's obviously a tighter needle to thread, and the correlation stuff does matter, but the uniqueness conversation for me is just a reminder that there are other hard-to-quantify considerations, as well. But anyway, the short answer to your question is for best ball and it's 18-man roster requirements, I do think uniqueness is a minor concern and I wouldn't worry about it too much regardless of contest size.
From YouTalkSports via YouTube:
On one of today's slow draft teams, you had Jalen Hurts stack...when I get an elite QB I tend to not draft another QB until the end figuring I will use his score most weeks...but then I wind up with only one QB+ WR stack...I notice you took (Brock) Purdy with Hurts so do you find its valuable to get that second stack even though so much draft capital is being allocated to QB then?
That's a great question, and I definitely considered this exact point when I made the decision to pull the trigger on another QB with decent capital. I do think it's valuable to have two separate stacks, so you're not dependent on the one offense to carry you each week through the Week 15, 16, and 17 gauntlet. But when I take a really high-end QB, I'm not actively prioritizing a QB2, and I believe I only went that direction because of ADP value — if I'm not mistaken, I got Purdy a round+ after ADP in that one. So my focus would be similar to what you describe, but the Purdy move was an example of where I'm always willing to break rules in unique circumstances to try stuff out.
That’s it for today. Back soon with more, and if you’re interested in these types of conversations, be sure to check out my recent YouTube streams, including a long one yesterday where I spent some time breaking down my expectations for the Los Angeles Rams starting at about the 1:40:00 mark!
I really appreciate you adding the timestamp for the team breakdown for the Rams, as much as I would love to listen to the full recording of your streams, I just don't have time most weeks. Would it be feasible to have timestamps for your other wheel spin team discussions somewhere? Those are priority listens for me. Thanks for all your work!