We've finally made it after a long two weeks with no football after a long NFL season in general. It is finally time to break down the final game of the year. Super Bowl 57 between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles is on the horizon. We are here to break it down. Made daily fantasy football perspective. Letting you know our ideal MVP considerations, which players are priorities on fan dual roster construction and much more to get you said to hopefully win some money on fan dual for this weekend. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Numberfire. That's right here on the fan dual podcast network and Numberfire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for Numberfire.com. Joined here as always by Brandon Gedula. He is the senior managing editor of Numberfire.com. Brandon, single game DFS. We're here to discuss for today your Eagles. I can retroactively apply that. Sure. Why not? Facing off with the Chiefs. How you doing today? I've gotten that a lot over the past like two weeks. From whom? Was it from me? It might have been me on like last week or something.  Well, it I didn't bring it up. But like my mom mentioned it and I'm like, well, look the the story here and it's not like a great story. But I grew up in central Pennsylvania in the heart of Steelers country. And I do not like any Pittsburgh teams. I have to find out to be a deck basically. Yeah. So from like fourth grade on because I love Dan Marino as a kid and I love the Dolphins. That's where the 13 comes from in the Twitter handle. I didn't know that actually. But it also looks like a capital B. So I think it still works and I think you do lab. But I, you know, just fell in love with Donovan McNabb and like the Terrell Owens era. So I love the Eagles. And then once you kind of start working in this industry, you got to get rid of your biases. And so that happened right before they finally won a Super Bowl. Yeah, we still, I mean, we still have some, but they stay on slack though. But you know, that carries over and people are like, Oh, well, you still like, like the, I'm like, I haven't rooted for the Eagles as a team in like 10 years. And I also think the Chiefs are going to win. So this is a weird predicament. But it's also strange because again, this is like Steelers country and I'm now hearing everyone like rooting for the Eagles.  I can't wrap my head around it. Yeah, I follow a lot of Eagles fans on Twitter. So I feel like I can like, if they win and like people are happy, I like people being happy, like seeing people being happy. If the Chiefs win, I win money. So like, that's great too. So I feel like there are no losers here. I talked about this with someone, but like, I feel like for the first time I've done way too many podcasts on this, this dumb game, I'm not going to be sad no matter the outcome because I like chilling hurts. I like the Eagles. I love my homes love Andy Reid. And I win money if they win like in the past, like when we've had certain teams in the Super Bowl, I've been sad if they won like 28 to three killed me. But like, I don't feel like there's a bad outcome here. I just, I got to like, I got to stand up for Patrick Mahomes here because I've also heard a few people wanting to root against the Chiefs because they don't like Mahomes. They don't, they don't like his brother or what? So like, I ask, I'm like, why don't you like Patrick Mahomes?  And I'm like, I don't think he is. I think he's like, what? And then I get like the, I don't like his brother or is it his girlfriend or what? I don't know. Now it's swipe. Yeah. You can't be judging people based on like their brother or something like that's not fair. So I just got to flag that and say, Patrick Mahomes seems cool. I know Patrick, you're listening. He's hanging on every word later. But yeah, you know, like I got your back, Patrick. We're all good. We are both wearing confusing hats. You're wearing a buccaneers hat. They are not here. I'm wearing a twins hat wrong sport. I could put the formula one hat on a college hat on. We're just, you know, we're deviating. But either way, we're going to break down this game from a single game DFS perspective. Let you know which players were considering the MVP slot over on FanDuel. What that means if you haven't played single game daily fantasy and also break down top values on FanDuel for Sunday's game. But first, a reminder to make sure you're subscribed to the number fired daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcast, because we do continue on after NFL season. Next week, the true Super Bowl, the Daytona 500, is coming up. I'll have an ask our podcast that on Friday. We also have a daily fantasy golf every Tuesday. Tom Vecchia with NBA DFS every weekday, USC for select events, the Austin Swam all right here in the same podcast feed. So search for the number fired daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts, hit subscribe. And if you like what you hear, leave us a rating and review as well. Get a piece of $10 million in bonus bets with FanDuel's kick of destiny. All you have to do is about $5 on Super Bowl 57. And if Rob Grunkowski kicks a field goal live during the game, you'll get a piece of $10 million in bonus bets. It doesn't matter if you're new to FanDuel or already have an account, Grunk kick you in. It's as simple as that. So don't miss out on the kick of destiny on FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook. Just place any $5 bet on the Super Bowl to get a piece of $10 million in bonus bets. Then tune in live during the game to see Grunk's kick of destiny. Make every moment worth FanDuel official sportsbook partner of the NFL must be 21 plus in select state's minimum $5 wage required. Award may vary. Minimum $5 projected max $20. Bonus award issued is not with throttle bonus bets that expire in seven days. All participants are eligible for bonus award restrictions apply. See full terms at FanDuel.com slash sportsbook gambling problem call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit fanduel.com slash rg in Arizona 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXT-EPTIFI 3-3-4-2 in Connecticut 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org slash chat in Indiana 1-809 with it in Kansas and Wyoming 1-800-522-4700 or in KS, Kansas. I keep calling it KS in Kansas, Kansas KS in health.com. Great say. Louisiana 1-877-770-STEP in Maryland mdgamblinghealth.org in West Virginia 1-800-gambler.net or in New York 1-877-8 Hope and Wire Text Hope and Why. Let's dig in here to this game. We got the cheats and the eagles right now. The eagles are one and a half point favorites at FanDuel sports book. The total in this game is 50 and a half. We'll talk about what that means here in just one second. Injury reports were released both last week and this week. And the key one came out on Wednesday and in that one. Canaries Tony limited for the cheats. Meekle Harbin now on IR. Jujus Smith Schuster was a full participant, which is a good thing, I think. And then also Clyde Edwards E-Lair was activated from IR and he was not on the injury report there. So he is fully healthy. Will that matter? Don't know. We'll talk about that as well throughout the show. Now, Brandon, I think a key thing for a single game is deciding how you think the game plays out. Now, it doesn't mean you're using that same assumption for every single lineup, but your baseline assumption about how this game plays out is what for cheats and eagles? I think it's high scoring. I like the over here. I think it plays in the chief's favor largely. And one thing that I want to dispel early is that, look, the chiefs have a poor rush defense and we know that the eagles are the best rushing offense in football. However, the eagles are about league average and pass rate over expectation overall. And whenever you actually look at their matchups against bottom 12 rush defenses, they're a little bit more pass heavy, which is probably just variance, but they have not really tailored their game plan to running the ball a ton against beatable rush defenses. So I don't think this is one of those games where the eagles come out and just try to run the ball time and time again. If they do, it's a deviation that's not the expectation. So I think there's going to be passing and I think there's going to be points. I think that there will be points too. And I have a lean towards the chiefs here. I bet the chief's money line when it was plus 108. It's now plus 104. I did upgrade the chiefs a bit in my model. I initially had a pretty big downgrade in there for the receiver injuries from the homes being banged up. And when I did that, I had the chiefs fared by 1.5 made a slight bump up this morning as a result of juju being full on Wednesday and Tony being limited because I think it means that they'll be good to go. Justin Watson's good to go for this one too. So I bumped them back up. I've now got it at a chiefs by 1.8, I believe, total of 50.33. So in line with you, where I think that there will be a lot of points, especially because typically a tighter spread correlates with a lower total because it implies there are fewer points applied in that situation. So the fact that it's a high total despite a tight spread, I think says even more about this game. So I'm on board with a high scoring game. I think it's a pretty neutral script throughout. And I think that both offense will be a move of all ball pretty effectively. Also, I'm also on board with you where I don't think there'll be super ground and poundy in this game. We'll talk about what that means as far as individual players here in a second. Before we talk about MVP considerations, I think it's important to talk about single game DFS as a whole and dig into past games that have had a similar setup based on similar setup. I'm talking about games with a tight spread and a high total Brandon, you run optimals, optimal, Fandall lineups for single game daily fantasy. Then you can, you put them in a spreadsheet, you were kind enough to send me said spreadsheet and we can dig into those. And I think it's important to note here for those of you playing single game DFS the first time on Fandall, you roster five players. One of those players gets a 1.5 X multiplier. The salary for that player does not change if they are in the MVP slot. So you are picking the player in your lineup who you believe will be the highest scoring guy in the game regardless of salary. It makes it very simple to analyze. So looking at past optimals in games with similar setups, what were the key takeaways for you in terms of how rosters were built, which positions benefited and stuff like that? So yeah, it's one of those where you got to figure out what your parameters are going to be. I talked to you and I figured we might as well keep it consistent, but we settled on games with a spread of three or tighter in a total of at least 47 and a half, which the reasons for that were because three and 47 are both key number. And getting a game over 47 is a lift. Like you have to work to get there and getting a spread above three, you have to work there. So a team that's there by three and a half, there's actually a pretty big difference between that and two and a half, which is why I wanted to keep it kind of tight. It does limit our sample, but there was a thought process there because 47 is a key number, three is a key number, and those are really important ones to get across. That was my thought process there. Yeah. And you know, these help, but you have to apply it to the particular game itself because if we find that, and this is not what we find, but like if we find that running backs are phenomenal plays in these scripts, it does not necessarily make the running backs on either side here, right? The best plays because they don't really have the workload. So, you know, they're looking at optimal lineups is not perfect, but I do think it's helpful to illustrate some, some things because you have to figure out like, okay, well, this is like a kicker or defense kind of setup or, you know, how does that kind of factor in? But so again, it's 26 games from the 2022 NFL season, including playoffs, but the MVP came from the favored side 69% of time, which does kind of factor into the most obvious MVP candidate of the week, which is Jalen Hertz. 38% of these lineups had a defense, 31% had a kicker, more than half had at least one. So 54%. So even though, you know, high total tight spread, we tend to see a kicker or defense in these lineups, which I think is noteworthy, but only 15% had both. So probably not going to get both, but so that's 15% of the time. So I think that the first takeaway here is naturally we should be leaning toward the Eagles for the MVP because that's where we typically see the favorite, but, you know, the favorite is the MVP, but like us, we might actually think that the chief should be favored or will win. So I think that that's very telling. What I think that ultimately this is, is kicking off is the MVP, the eventual MVP in the optimal lineup will come from a team that has won, which is not always obvious. It's not always the case, but I do think that's kind of a main takeaway to start from, from like a top down approach. Yeah, I think that that is very noteworthy and I think differential between what the the market says and what your thoughts are on the game is important as well. Because if you think the chiefs win, that that will skew things for sure. And you made that distinction as well. One of the takeaway I had from looking at this is that the quarterback is more likely to be MVP than they are on the full splits, a full sample, a quarterback is in the MVP slot 35% of the time versus in this split, it's 42% against small samples. So keep that in mind. Only other spot that gets a boost relative to baseline is wide receiver going from 24% to 27%. So quarterbacks and wide receivers more likely to be MVPs in a high scoring tight spread than they are in other situations. Other takeaway for me, go ahead. I would lump Travis Kelsey into that conversation and looking at past optimals, tight end is always a train wreck, but it's Kelsey and like Mark Andrews who are the outliers. So throw Kelsey into that mix is a good MVP candidate. Past catcher. Correct. That's very, that's very good. Very good note there as well. Other thing that stood out to me is that in these lineups, there were 26 games, there were 11 where a quarterback was MVP. Spoiler alert, I'm going to put a quarterback at MVP almost every time for this week. And when you have a quarterback at MVP, the opposing quarterback was also in the lineup 64% of the time. So it's only 11 games, but like, I think it's not worthy that jamming in both quarterbacks was a good thing there. So that's the big takeaway for me is quarterback and wide receiver slash past catcher get a boost in this setup with a high, high total and tight spread. And if you put a quarterback at MVP, the opposite opposing quarterback is also in there are very high. Are you okay with those being takeaways or am I overstepping? No, it sounds, it sounds pretty accurate to me. And one thing, I mean, I'm not going to like reiterate that, but one other thing that I'll point out, again, we're looking at a smaller sample. Yeah. But whenever a wide receiver was MVP, which was seven times, which is the same number actually as running back. But again, you got to tailor it to the game itself. And I don't know if there are a lot of obvious running back candidates for MVP. There's, I would say three total, maybe four if you throw in Kenneth Gainmo, who you could consider for like a chaos standpoint. But surprisingly, like 57%. So I guess that'd be what four out of the seven have to be. Yes. Of the running backs were favored. So it's actually a little bit tighter to like 50%. Then you might think but 86%. So I probably six out of seven. The receivers who were MVPs were on the favorite. So it's not like a point JC volume MVP for the past catchers. It's going to be efficiency. It's going to be scoring those touchdowns having yardage. So don't plug in a receiver who you think is going to get a lot of garbage time production. That's really not how it tends to play out, which is kind of always the case in a sense. But for MVP, you're going to want the guys who convert the touchdowns, which are generally tied to better performance overall offensively. Exactly. So let's take that baseline of knowledge and spin it forward to our MVP considerations. Again, this is just the player on your roster. You think will be the highest screen player on your team for that specific game. Looking back at these two teams throughout the year, it's almost, it's been the quarterback a lot. The cheese have played 19 games. Patrick Mahomes has been the team's highest screen player 16 times. Travis Kelsey twice and Jerick McKinnon once in that Denver game where he went bananas. So it's been Mahomes more often than not, almost always been Mahomes on the Eagles. They have more weird splits because there was no Dallas Goddard first stretch and Devonte Smith went bananas in that time. Jalen Hurts missed games. Boston Scott missed two. I tossed those out as well because Miles Sanders usage in those two games was not what it has been outside of that. So I have the most relevant sample in Philadelphia being a nine game sample. In those nine games, Jalen Hurts has been the highest screen player on their team seven times. AJ Brown once, Miles Sanders once in the conference championship game where he scored twice. So to me, that says if you give me 20 lineups, I'm either going quarterback at MVP in every single one or I'm tossing out like one Travis Kelsey or one AJ Brown. So to me, Mahomes and Hurts are the two definite considerations. If I'm differentiating, I'm doing so likely with just Kelsey or AJ Brown so that I'm not spreading myself super, super thin. Is that too reductive or where do you sit in terms of MVP considerations here? So here's the problem with like breaking down pretty much anything when it comes to DFS, but specifically single game is there's the best process play, the most likely situation, and then there's finding the leverage whenever the expected does not happen. So we know from this sample that we're looking at, it's much more common that a quarterback is MVP, but it's 42% of the time again, 26 games. When I simulate this thing out and look at actual projections. So that's where things get a lot stronger in the case because these are two dominant quarterbacks who can put up a ton of points. We don't have like a legitimate featured back another team. Yeah. Number of fires projecting Jalen Hurts for 24 fandal points just as a baseline. Mahomes at 21.1 and then we're down to Travis Kelsey at 16.1 and then nobody else is above 13. And whenever you have that kind of gap, that matters, which is again, like it's like, I'm not a surprise, but what that means whenever I simulate this thing out a thousand times and see how likely certain players are to lead the slate in fandal points. I have Jalen Hurts around 45%, which is super high. It's still more likely than not that he has not the highest score, but that's also different than saying he's like, he's still the most likely high score. And then for Mahomes, it's like 27%. So combined, just let's just call it like 70 to 75% of the time. So if you're building 100 lineups, you need to factor in how popular those players are going to be, which is stuff you can find elsewhere that still leaves about 30 to 20, 25 to 30% of the time where those guys are not the top scorers. If you want like the best building block, then yes, those two quarterbacks are the best MVP choices by far. But if you're playing a big tournament and you want to try to hit the top prize, you might want to consider not having those guys at MVP because whenever they don't score the touchdowns and like Miles Sanders rushes into touchdowns, Jalen Hurts doesn't rush in the touchdowns, that kind of stuff. So I just, I need to, I want to kind of make that distinction before we dig into things because it's both obvious, but it's easy to get caught up in like the difference. We're coming at this from the angle of Hurts is by far the best MVP play. Mahomes is by far the second best MVP play. Again, I have them around 26% to be the leading scorer. Then we're down to Travis Kelsey at 10%. So it's up to you from a risk aversion standpoint, but I'm with you where Hurts and Mahomes are the building blocks and I'm flying to be overweight there and try to differentiate in other places. That's my thought process too. You were talking about projected roster rates. I typically look at rotor grinders. You can pick whatever you want. I look at rotor grinders and I don't want to give away their stuff because it's not a paywall. It's very good. It deserves to be behind a paywall. Paywall. I would note though that they're projected roster rate for both guys at MVP is lower than the number you set as far as when you sim it out. So to me, that says even though they are the most popular MVP plays, they may not be as popular as they should be. So to me, that says what you said at the end, where I am going to start there and differentiate elsewhere. I think you can differentiate just by using Mahomes instead of Hurts. The gap there is deep MVP roster rates. So you could deviate there. I think the other way to deviate least salary on the table, I think that's kind of like a golden rule of single game DFS. I try to set a cap at 5850. 58,500. So leaving 1,500 on the table might need to do more if you're in a huge tournament for the Super Bowl. That's tough given that I want to jam in both quarterbacks. But that's kind of my baseline of where I want to be. If you're not going Mahomes or Hurts in that 25% or whatever it is, who are you turning to first? Is it Kelsey? AJ Brown? Who are you going to there? I would go Kelsey because he's also on that team that I don't think they're not favored, but I do think that they will win. I sincerely believe that the other best option is easily AJ Brown, even though it's not really bared out in the numbers that well. He's kind of similar to like Isaiah Pacheco in terms of being the top scorer. I love Isaiah Pacheco, but the odds of a massive game to me are about 2% based on his MVP odds at Fandall. I think that AJ Brown is the best pivot in that regard away from the quarterbacks in Kelsey, which won't surprise anyone, but he's not going to be in the MVP slot very often. We know that what his true ceiling is is 150 yards and two touchdowns. If he does that, and then you stack him with Jalen Hurts and you're pretty chalky elsewhere, so the one thing that I wanted to point out whenever you said there's no salary difference based on who you played MVP. So in theory, you could pick your five guys and play the same lineup five times and just change the MVP. I'm not saying that's always the best strategy, but that's exactly how it can work. And so you can build a lineup with Jalen Hurts with AJ Brown stacked with him and you can then flip that and put Brown in MVP. And if that lineup is the nuts, you could be very, very close, but still very far away if you don't have the MVP, right? This is a very sore subject. I lost several thousand dollars last year by not duping one and putting Cooper Cup at MVP. I had Stafford at MVP and Shocker that being low on Cooper Cup burden me. That's never happened before. Who could have predicted that? I got a question on YouTube from Geekippy asking, play both quarterbacks. I think that that tails well into our next conversation about roster construction because looking at the projections, looking at your Sims, I think that the default for me is I want both quarterbacks in there at the exact same time and it's tough because you look at the salaries over on Fandall. Mahomes has a salary of $17,500. Jalen Hurts, $17,000. If you put in both those guys at the same time, your remaining left is $8,500. Now I said I want to leave salary at the table. I want only $1,500 on the table. Means I'm using some duds. That's for sure. Using some scrubs to get there. I think it is worth it despite that. What about you? Are you jamming in both quarterbacks as a default? Like you got one lineup. Are you doing it? Or are you going more balanced here? So that comes like, that's a personal thing. Like how many lineups are you playing? Are you playing like one lineup and trying to jam in both or are you playing like 10 or 20? If I'm playing one, probably not because the odds are lower. That will get both quarterbacks together. It's very crucial. It's kind of obvious, but one thing I didn't talk about was like, should you play three players from one team and two from the other or go for one? Which is always a question. It's about 65% likely to be three and two. So a little bit more balance there for your single game lineup, whether we're looking at the overall split or the split of games with a tighter spread and a higher total. But if you filter to just lineups where both quarterbacks were in it, the three two is like 85%. So you're definitely like, you're going to want some stacking candidates, which is kind of obvious, but I don't think I'd play the angle even of like, well, Jaylen Hart is going to rush for two touchdowns. Those would be the only two touchdowns that the Eagles have something like that. So I will do it. In that capacity, I would just load up on pass catchers and hope for the best, hope that I get the right touchdowns allocated to my lineup. Yeah, I think for me, if I am going with one lineup, I am having both quarterbacks in there, filtering through who's at MVP stuff like that and building it that way because they are both kind of outliers in terms of how often they are the highest growing guys in their team. And the tough part with that is I don't really want to go below 7,000. We expect a lot of points in this game, which means that the odds we have five players who get you double digit fangirl points are pretty high, which means the opportunity cost is going with a, you know, not no shape, it's Skymore, sorry, going with the Quest Watkins, Justin Watson, guys like that. The downsides of that are higher. Noah Gray, I love Noah Gray, but like, is he going to give me 10? I don't know. You know, that's tough to say. It does force me into the situation where if I go with my homes and Hertz and don't want to go below 7,000, I'm using three guys between 7,000 and 9,000. I'm okay with that. That's fine. But there is a sacrifice there to be made. So I think that if we're talking about roster construction, I have two different routes. The first route is having both quarterbacks and then having three guys between 7,000 and 9,000. The second route is having only one of the quarterbacks and then going more balanced. Like for example, having Patrick Mahomes and MVP pairing him with Travis Kelsey and Isaiah Pacheco. If I do that, I have 9,000 left for the final two slots. I can figure that out very easily and be okay with that. If I go Jalen Hertz, then, you know, I can kind of do whatever I want in terms of stacking partners. I can go with both AG Brown, Devonta Smith, if I want to, 9,500 left there as well. That fits too. So those are my two preferred routes. If I've got two lineups, I'm doing one of each, one with both quarterbacks and then three value plays and then one with one of the quarterbacks and then a more balanced approach after that. If you had to pick between those two, what's your preferred path and are you more okay going with guys below 7,000 than I am? There's not a whole lot I like down there, which is the whole point of having them down there. That's why the quarterbacks are a high salary. One thing I will point out is that if you have a two quarterback lineup, we'll get like bogged down in the numbers, but it's a lot less likely that you're going to get a defense or kicker, which makes sense because you're going to need those like passing touchdowns, not settle for field goals. If we're playing the angle of an over, which like I typically am, I think a lot of people will, even if they're not playing the over, the total is high enough where they're more or less building around the over. Easiest way to differentiate is like, this game's like 17, 14, there's like no touchdowns and go from there. But yeah, if you're going to play both quarterbacks, it's going to be tempting to plug in like a kicker to help balance things out. Like it can still happen, but it's just a little bit less likely. So for me, I'm probably more willing to go a little bit more balanced though. If I'm building one lineup, like if I was playing a head to head against you, even knowing you're playing both quarterbacks, I think I would probably try to get to like Kelsey, A.J. Brown, the guys who have difference making like market shares, rather than take too many stabs at guys who could basically give me a zero. Yeah, if I were doing a head to head, which I'm not going to the record, I would jam in both quarterbacks just because they have the combination of meeting expectation with a massive ceiling. I'm going to take that route and figure it out elsewhere. I want those baked in points for me personally. You mentioned kickers. I think that's an important point because both kickers have low salaries for this game. Jake Elliott is 8,000. Harrison Butcher is at $8,500. Those are awesome salaries. I agree with you where it's counterthetical to have a kicker in there or the quarterback because a quarterback implies they're getting you touchdowns. Touchdowns imply there are no field goals. And if you look at the sample I pulled before, again, there were 11 situations where a quarterback was MVP. None of those had a kicker in there at all. Either kicker. So I would say it does lower my odds using a kicker. However, I'm still receptive to it because they're just very low salaried. And the one thing I would say is the kicker will not be on the same team as my MVP. If I have my homes at MVP, I will not use Butcher. Definitely not in that setup where I have both quarterbacks. I am receptive to my homes with Hertz and Elliott because it implies that Hertz is a rushing touchdown, but they had to settle for a couple more field goals, stuff like that. He's not the highest scoring guy, but he's still very high scoring. They had to settle for a couple field goals. That makes sense to me. So it does downgrade kicker for me. If I use both quarterbacks, I am receptive to it, but I will make sure they are not overlapping with my MVP because the opportunity costs there, it just doesn't line up super well. Yeah, it makes sense. The kickers and defense conversation is always fascinating. I have a hard time envisioning defenses, either defense making the true optimal unless we get a game script that is unlike the first three or four scripts I would assume, which is like, even if there's a romp, I don't think either quarterback is going to be turning up all over a ton. It might just be some sacks. But Geon Hertz is odds that they're a pick or plus money. That tells you a lot in terms of the upside for the defenses. I still will use defenses if I have a setup where I think the cheats roll, definitely then, but that's why we're not super high on them as a baseline. Yeah. So it can be tempting to plug in those kickers and defenses for salary relief and quote unquote, safe points. And they're especially going to feel good whenever you have both quarterbacks and you're going to feel like, well, this is a really high floor lineup, which are not really wrong in that. But for both quarterbacks to make the optimal at these elevated salaries, very possible that they do, we're going to need one thing that's easy to get wrapped up in is, well, they're going to score points, they're going to make the optimal. It's like, well, if Travis Kelsey scores twice, he's going to be in the optimal. Right. You can't get both quarterbacks and Kelsey in there. So like that's going to, you know, that could bump out one of the quarterbacks because if Kelsey has a good game or AJ Brown has a good game or Devante Smith, Dallas Goddard, like these guys all have good games, you need value plays coming through for both quarterbacks to pay off or you say, well, they're just going to disperse the ball and no one's going to have more than like four targets. And so they're just no high salary pass catchers are going to make it with them. So like going back to like the head to head lineup, I agree with you where the floor is really high, but there's also concentrated usage, especially for the Eagles pass catchers. Like they just throw the three guys. I think Devante Smith, Dallas Goddard, AJ Brown, those guys are going to make the optimal. Like one of them is going to make the optimal and it's really hard to get both quarterbacks and those guys. Okay. So let's talk about those pass catchers here and talk about the flex plays. We can talk about some value plays in your two, but just as an overall discussion Brandon for you, when you're looking at the, the non-quarterbacks in this game, who to you stands out as being a guy who is under salary for his role, who fits really well with your roster construction? Who are you turning to in that regard? Isaiah Pacheco is one who stands out a ton. He is basically is likely to be the top value, which is just your Fando points per thousand in salary as Jalen Hertz, which is where like the, I go back to the, yeah, Jalen Hertz is going to, should score more points than Isaiah Pacheco very often, but when you account for salary and what that does, they're about as likely to be like as good of plays in the simulations that I run. I would, this is different than saying Isaiah Pacheco is a better MVP play than Jalen Hertz, because he's very likely to be in the optimal lineup. Love is workload. I don't really see a situation where they go away from Pacheco. Even if they're trailing, like he can run routes, he can get catches. I think that he's a really, really strong play at 10-5. He's probably going to be the place that I'm most overweight on, which by, which I mean, if I think that he's on like 30% of everyone's rosters, I would try to be, I would try to have him in my lineups over 30% of the time. Yeah. Pacheco is also the guy I would highlight here. He's 10-5 on Fando. The reason that I like him is not just because the conference championship game. Like let's pretend, well, let's not pretend to nap, but let's put that in a larger sample. I'm looking at the 10 games with Clyde Edwards E'lair out or limited because I don't think he'll have a huge role even if he's active for this game. I think he'll be more in like the Ronald Jones role because even before he got hurt, he had like a 5% snap rate in this final game before then, I think he'll have a very limited role in that situation. So a 10 game sample with CEH out or limited in that time, Pacheco 87 yards and scrimmage per game at that time. 10 game sample, 87 yards and scrimmage. That's more than Miles Sanders in his 17 games with Boston Scott active. Sanders, 74 yards per game in that split. Jerichman, Kenan, 56 yards per game in his sample. Kenneth Gainwell, 33. Boston Scott, 17. That's a really good number for 10-5. And you also toss in the potential for him to get more work in the passing game as he did in that conference championship. My sample for Pacheco is 1.8 targets per game. He had six, double his previous career high in the conference championship. So that to me is why he is a standout at 10-5. The issue I run into is if I want him like, I think that if I have one lineup, I want Hertz and MVP and I want Mahomes in there and I want Pacheco. If I do that, I'm left at 7,500 left per player. That's like, that's the problem. I've got to use a scrub. So the question is, do I use a scrub or do I toss out one of the quarterbacks or Pacheco? Right. And the thing is, if you just, I don't call anyone who's playing the Super Bowl scrub, like a punt play, just in terms of the role is not really there, you can have Jalen Hertz and Pacheco Mahomes go off. And if you play, like... Quaswakens. Sure. And he has one catch for three yards. You might be like, oh, I was one play away from like the best, like one, like one, not one football play, but like one play in your lineup away. It's like, it's a lot easier to do if you're rushing someone at the bottom of the salary pool to get there. So that is the issue, which, you know, we all know, but it's super tempting to be like, if I'm building one lineup, I need to have Mahomes and Hertz in there. But the issue that you see all the time is you need, you need a value play to pop for that to happen. And someone probably will, but that's different than saying I'm going to pick the right one. So my question to you, and we do this with golf a lot, is you seem really intent on two quarterback lineups. Are you willing to play two QB lineups with, like, let's say, let's stick with this example, Mahomes, Hertz, Pacheco, what do you have left? 75. Give me another name and like the, let's say you have a full punt play, who's like a name in the middle range that you would consider? So, so I want to keep my like 1500 or more left on the table, which means as a result, I'm going like, I would go like, Kaderius, Tony at 7,000. So like, but you're, then you're saying like double punt play. Correct. So although I don't consider Tony a punt. Sure. Talk about that in a second. Well, yeah, I know you don't, but so all right, here's the thought experiment I'm going at. Are you willing to play Mahomes, Hertz, Pacheco, two values, duplicate that, keep Mahomes, Hertz, Pacheco, different two values? Absolutely. I'm going to play as many iterations of that as I feel comfortable playing because I think that Mahomes, Hertz and Pacheco are going to be good. I need to figure out the right value plays you hit and that's going to be a hard conversation because the workloads aren't there for predictable output from them. So does that kind of how you're leaning, you think? Yeah. With a lot of your lineups? Okay. Yep.  That's the way that I view it. It's okay if you disagree. I don't care. Like you're, that's, that's a fully fair and valid opinion. And I can't push back on it because you're right. But like, I'm willing to take swipes at a Quezwalkans, at a Noah Gray, Jody Fortson, guys like that. I'm okay with that. It could totally flop. But so could Mark Paz-Valdes, Gantley at 8,000. So could Jujube Schuster at 9,000. So could Kenneth Gainwell at 85. So like, sure, their baseline is better, but their odds of flopping are not, they're still very high. Yeah. That's why I'm okay with it personally. So then I think the real question is where are you on the difference makers who are not the quarterbacks? So Travis Kelsey, AJ Brown, we're not super high on mild standards because of the workload, but let's throw them in there because we know he's multiple touch on the upside. Devontae Smith, we know where you're up with Pacheco. And let's go Dallas Goddard. Because if you're saying I want both quarterbacks, Pacheco and two values, you're betting against Kelsey, AJ Brown, Devontae Smith having big games. Yep, fine of that. In the two quarterback lineups, if I have one quarterback, I'm going to have Kelsey or those other guys in there. And again, that's probably by half my rosters is that. So I'm fine with having reduced exposure to them because I think it's a worthwhile sacrifice to make. The other guy who I would say is like a quote unquote difference maker relative to salary is Goddard at 10,000. If I want to save, give myself a little bit more flexibility, I could take out Pacheco and go Goddard at 10,000. The most relevant sample for them I have is 12 games with everybody means hurts. It means Goddard. It means, I guess, everybody in that sample. Goddard is at 5.8 targets per game and 55.9 yards in scrimmage per game. Devontae Smith is at 53.8 yards from scrimmage per game in that time. So it's actually lower. And you're getting that for a reduction in salary of $1,500 from Devontae Smith down to Goddard. I think Devontae Smith is a phenomenal talent. I love watching him play, have a lot of die-in-sea exposure and need him to do well. But I'm okay making that sacrifice for Goddard at 10,000. So that's another part of it is because I think that the two best guys relative to salary outside of quarterback are Pacheco and Goddard at 10,5 and 10,000. And I can get back there if I make consolations. So to me, that's why I am fixated on two quarterbacks the fact that I do like both Pacheco and Goddard a lot and think there is a fall-off after those two guys. Yeah. I mean, like I said, talking about a single game slate is talking about all talking through all the options, understanding that, as you know, as Kevin Karnaugh would say, anything is possible and figuring out which way you think that the things will go. Like there are realities where Harrison Butcher ends up being the MVP. Very, very low probability of it. Nope. It's 0%. Stop it. It's basically 0%. But if we're being a little like more realistic, like there's a chance Kenneth Gainwell is, wants to be an MVP, he has like, I know you're shaking your head, but I'm trying to make a serious point here. Like you have to separate the most likely and what is actually possible and how willing you are to bet against the probabilities to maximize your output whenever you are correct. So let's stick with the 2QB example. I think it's going to be very tempting for a lot of people. If you plug in both quarterbacks, whichever being the MVP, and you try to go as balanced as you can from there, play Kenneth Gainwell because he's coming off like a big game, and that is like one of the better iterations that you can make. You're probably sharing with a lot of other people who had the same thought process. If your goal is to win a huge tournament and you say, I think it's a one quarterback kind of game, or be very gutsy to say no quarterback game, because like Travis Kelsey scores twice, A.J. Brown scores twice, Devontae Smith has like 135 yards and a touchdown, something like that. And you need all three of those guys because there's no way to make up those points with the value plays and the quarterbacks. That kind of thought process is what it takes sometimes for a single game, which is why it's super fun, but it also is very hard to give like one take. Because again, we can sit here and say, the highest floor, the most probable outcome is to build around the quarterbacks, but the fun part for me is being willing to be different. That's what's sick about this. One pushback I would have is that I'm not sure how, I think that the mindset with the two quarterbacks may be different. Like let's say you are at the Super Bowl party, it's Sunday at 5.30, filling out a lineup, and you're not putting like a ton of thought into it, which is a good chunk of the lineups that we're playing against. You put your two quarterbacks in and you're like, okay, I got to get, I got a punt so I can get back up to these other guys. I think that's the mindset. It's not how do I have the most balanced roster after that to ensure I have five darts of the guy who could get me 10, 15 points. I think that's the mindset. So you're going to see a lot of Mahomes, Hertz lineups have total dust balls in there. And that's why my default is Mahomes. That's what he said. You're like, that's like, we're talking about the two value plays with those two guys. Right. But I'm not putting like, that's what I'm saying is like, my default is to have like three guys between 7,000 and 9,000. There's no, there's no punting.  No, not Marcus Kemp. Probably like Skymore or something like that.  He'll run some wins Prince. But like, if you go with three guys between 7,000 and 9,000, you're having three guys have a realistic shot to get you 10, 15 points. And to me, that's a decent build that I don't think is going to be the exact way every two quarterback lineup goes because I have three, I have five actual darts in there. And that's what I want. So that to me is why I don't think, I don't think everyone thinks the way we do where it's like, okay, I need to have five darts. I think that they're okay taking a punt if it gives them flexibility elsewhere. Whereas I'm preferring to avoid that unless I go up a check in which case I do have to, you have one guy in there who I would deem to be a punt. Okay. If that's how you, I don't, I don't quite view it that way, but I mean, it makes sense. I can see some people doing that. I just can't imagine that that'll be the default for a lot of people. The default for two quarterback liners, it may be, but also we're projected roster rates for herds in the homes, not 100%. So that's not every lineup. Like you're just whittling down the field you're competing against. You're leaving salary on the table at $1,500 or so. You're whittling down the number of duplicated lineups with each move that you make. And it's important to do that. So that's the way I'm viewing it here. Yeah. And I'm not trying to talk around in circles, but like we don't know which iteration is going to be the optimal. A lot of these makes sense. Almost any combination that's like reasonable will make sense. Whether that's, you know, we're hammering home. We want quarterback at MVP, but if you play Kelsey at MVP or AJ Brown, or I think you can justify Isaiah Pacheco. One thing I will flag is that it's easy to look at pure top end outcomes because it matters and you need those points. But if you look at like value and the odds that guys are top five values on the slate, Hertz stands out, Pacheco sort of stands out just because he's projected well at Number Fire. But beyond that, like Mahomes, Kelsey, AJ Brown, they're all kind of similar enough where I don't think it's like so much more substantial that Mahomes at 17-5 is wildly more likely to be in the top, like the five best player combo. Because if like Patrick Mahomes has a good game, like Travis Kelsey is going to do something because of what his market share is. And the Eagles are not particularly good. Or sorry, like there's just a path to Kelsey getting a lot of red zone work where he has two touchdowns. And if he does that, it's going to be really hard to envision. Like I don't want to simplify it, but if Kelsey scores twice, I don't think you can have a 2QB perfect lineup. Right, but his odds scoring twice are... I mean, if we account for Vig, it's not very high. So, like I'm not saying use 0% Travis Kelsey. It seems like you're painting me as if I'm saying use 0%... No, so you're saying you want 2QBs? You're saying if you have one lineup, I have to account for the possibilities Travis Kelsey has two touchdowns, which are like 15% or whatever it is. I didn't say one lineup. I know, I'm not saying I'm doing this every lineup. When did I say that? Play back the script. When did I say that? But I think you're saying... I'm saying this is my default. If I have one lineup, this is what I'm doing. I think you said though... So how many... What percent of your lineups are going to have 2QBs? I have. I'm confused. What? It sounded a lot higher than that based on how adamant you were about getting 2QBs. Because if I have one lineup, that's what I'm doing. And that's probably a lot of people listening to this are probably going to play one lineup. That's what a lot of people do. Okay. Well, I'm just asking questions, Jim. Okay. So let's have the Kidarius Tony discussion now so I can eat my crow later on. The reason I like Kidarius Tony... I will... I prefer if he gets a full practice in by Friday. The full by Friday band is back. I want him to get a full practice by Friday. If he does, I'll be very high on him. And as... The reason for that is...  Let's assume that he keeps that role. The most relevant sample on the Chiefs, with no Miko Hartman and with Tony being healthy, is weeks 16 and 17, 18 and week 20. Those... That's the games where they didn't have Hartman, but they had Tony playing snaps. In that sample, Pacheco leads the team in yards, since scrimmage per game at 76. Travis Kelsey is second at 73. Miko Hartman in this... Or sorry, Kidarius Tony in this awful role is at 43.3. That ranks third in the team. And he has a much lower salary than Jiu-Jitsu. Ms. Schuster, Marquez Valdez-Scantling, lower than Jerick McKinnon. And I think that's pretty intriguing. So that's why I want to go that route with Kidarius Tony at 7,000. And he also is tied for second in the team in red zone chances per game at that time. Pacheco is first at 2.3. Tony has 1.8. Jerick McKinnon is 1.8. Kelsey is 1.5. So he has relatively okay touchdown odds in terms of the way he's used. He's getting yardage. I don't care how he's getting it, he's getting it. So to me, that's why at $7,000, if he gets in a full practice by Friday, he is not a great play because his role still stinks, but he's a very good play to save me salary. What is your read on Kidarius Tony? And then talk to me about Marquez Valdez-Scantling, Jiu-Jitsu Ms. Schuster, and Justin Watson as well. I was actually going to frame this as Scantling, or sorry, Valdez Scantling being 1,000 more, which is look, every penny goes a long way on this slate. We've had our issues with MBS in the past on this show because we've been very tempted by it. Let's say popularity numbers aside, you can pick 1. Is it MBS? Of these chiefs receivers? Of just MBS and Tony. I mean, we can throw Jiu-Jitsu in there, but he's his size. I'm picking Tony over all of them. It's a large part because of the equals outside corners are very good, and I don't want to touch them. That's, I respect them a lot. And MBS projects pretty well in terms of his ceiling, which means he'll probably carry a higher roster rate than some other guys.  I think there are enough red flags that I'd rather, I'd rank him last behind Jiu-Jitsu and Tony. Yeah. Is Tony the lowest you're willing to go to roster anyone on the slate? No. He's the lowest I prefer to go. So again, my default build, if I'm going two quarterbacks, having three guys between Tony and Jiu-Jitsu Schuster at 9,000. Like that's my preferred build. It means I can't get to Pacheco, and that stinks. But I'll Pacheco in most of my lineups, so I don't have a quarterback.  I will have some Justin Watson, limited amounts of Quest Watkins, in order to get Pacheco in the two quarterback lineups. I will not use Skymore in a single lineup, I don't think. I will not use the H in a single lineup. So to me, it's really Watson, and Watson and Watkins are the primary guys I would go to. I got to keep it in check, because neither guy has a good role. But Tony is the lowest I want to go. Yeah, it's tough with the Chiefs on a full slate.  Statistically, that's not the right way to go. But which I mean four Eagles, obviously. I'm more likely to go the reverse of four Chiefs with one Hertz, assuming he gets two rushing touchdowns. I like it. My thing though is Kelsey's market share is just so good, and everyone else is just an afterthought, that you're just banking on an outlier from any other Chiefs passcatcher. I don't like the matchup, like you said, for MBS individually. I'm not going to rehash the Kelsey thing. I think he's a fantastic play, even though his salary is fairly close to the quarterbacks. I think other than that, I can't sell anybody on another Chiefs passcatcher. I think I'm probably a little bit higher on MBS than you are, lower on Tony. I'll play both, but that's out of necessity rather than preference, and I always hate that. I think if you want to use betting odds, the guide for this kind of stuff, Kelsey's odds to score twice are plus 480, which is 17.2%. Dylan Hurts's odds are plus 550, which is kind of what I talked about with two action touchdowns. That's 15.4%. Their actual odds are lower than that, because sportsbook's got to make money. So their actual odds are lower than that. Cut that down. So Hurts's odds of actually hitting two touchdowns, probably 12, 13%, not 15%, maybe a little bit lower than that even. But then there's a pretty big drop off after A.J. Brown, Miles Sanders, and Pacheco. So I'm okay using those odds as a guide. Again, you don't need a Kelsey or a Miles Sanders to score twice to be relevant. Right. Don't make it seem as if I dislike Travis Kelsey. If I'm going with a one quarterback lineup, the odds that he is in there with Pacheco are very high, because that's part of the perks of going with one quarterback. If I go Mahomes, Kelsey Pacheco, 9,000 left for player, I put in Canarias, Tony put in one random eagle, I'm good to go. Like I'm fine with that. That's probably lineup I'll use. But I think that's the way I would look at that there. Like you're always going to miss out on something. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's the thing. In this game, I don't want to miss out on the quarterbacks. That's why I'm doing it. And I think that's a very, like, you're correct. I'm trying to play like the, not even outlier, but the reality of there are guys in this game who have big potential and floors to me, which we don't talk about floor. Well, single game, it's more acceptable. Like at their salary, like I know Kelsey's 14, but like, I think the Eagles past catchers have a lot of potential at their salaries. I see it in the Sims and I don't want to write off so easily, like prioritizing those guys, which is by necessity, something you have to do with two QB lineups. So speaking of touchdowns, though, I want to ask you, do you have any like strong indications on touchdown scores, whether it is Kelsey or anyone the whole way down the list of like values who you think have better roles who can score a touchdown?  Do I? It's Kaderius Tony. Oh, Tony. Okay. He was four to one on Fandall Sportsbook. He's now plus 370. So someone else's interest too. I find that very encouraging. If he confirms my priors, it's great.  So I would say Tony is the one guy who stands out there. I do think that there, you can make a case for kind of gain well in that regard in terms of having better odds because gain well does get a decent amount of red zone usage. Again, the 12 game sample I have where everybody's active. So I think this might have included the two games Boston Scott missed, but in that sample, gain well 1.7 red zone chances per game. That's a pretty good number. 34.7 yards in skirmish per game, which is disappointing, but like not terrible relative to Jiu-Jitsu Smith-Schuster, Marquez Valdez scantling. It's actually a fine number. So I would say gain well be the other guy I would turn to in terms of like decent dish touchdown odds there. Yeah. Sounds like the two names were just glossing it over. And I want to, who were like relevant are Jiu-Jitsu Smith-Schuster and Jerick McKinnon. Sounds like we haven't really given them the due diligence. And I guess also Miles Sanders in that regard too. So talk to me about those three. I think they're fine. I don't really love them. And I think that that just stresses like the drop off. We'll talk about this with golf too. I think there's a drop off from the quarterbacks, the second tier, but I think that second tier has a huge drop off from like the Kelsey Brown, Devonte Smith, Goddard tier to everyone else, which is why I want to make sure I'm not missing out too much on the difference makers in that tier too. For me Sanders, I don't think the workload is there to be a priority play, but something I did flag in the playoffs like was weirdly, you might want to play, if you play in Miles Sanders, you probably don't want to play Jalen Hurts because their overlap can come from like rushing touchdowns. I think like there are, again, there are situations where Miles Sanders scores, where the Eagles do lean on the rush game more. Again, I don't think that's the expectation based on precedent. I think the precedent is that they're going to play their game. But if he scores twice, obviously he's great. If he scores once, still going to be great at that salary. But my question to you then is, if you're playing a lot of Jalen Hurts, let's say just 10 Jalen Hurts lineups, how many of those have Miles Sanders? Is it zero because you don't want to miss out on the touchdowns? Or then you got to account for the fact that you're playing on-slot lineups, where Hurts throws touchdowns and Sanders rushes touchdowns, like any thoughts there where they chance each other out or correlate together? So I think that the pitch you could make for playing them together is that, so Miles Sanders in the conference championship scored twice in the first half, had a 53% snap rate. And then second half he's been banged up with a knee injury and they went to more gain well. And that worked well to salt the game away. I think you could make the stand of saying, okay, neutral game script, I think we know Miles Sanders more. Nothing to play for further. So if you give me 10 Hurts lineups, I have my homes in half, which means I won't have Sanders in those, I can't get back up there. So that leaves me five more. I probably have Sanders in two or three of those, I would say. So then... Because the thought process there is using both gets me access to, in that assumption, every yard and every touchdown they score, which I'm okay with doing. I'm okay doing that on a full slate, much less a single game slate. Yeah, I just wanted to ask because those are the kinds of questions you have to have, even if you're building one lineup, and I'm not trying to make it stressful because it's really easy to build a single game lineup and have some fun with it. But if you're really trying to think, you got to comprehend those correlations and the odds of Miles Sanders catching a touchdown pretty low. But that does not mean that they can't correlate well where Hurts has a very efficient first half passing and then they just play keep away to use that term. But then it's Sanders and not gain well. So you just have to tell yourself a story with every lineup you make and just say, here's why this lineup can work. Exactly. Make sure they make sense together, which is why I stress the thing before about not having a kick or tie to your MVP. Like stuff like that. The other guys you mentioned were Juju Smith-Suster and Jared McKinnon. I think McKinnon's role is pretty bad. And looking at projected roster rates, people still like him. I'm curious why. He was listed on the injured port Wednesday with ankles. Not one, but two ankles. He's old. Not to be just like us. Not to be agist. But yeah, I've been there. I've been there, Jared. And now you introduced Clyde Riddler, who I think is a bigger threat to McKinnon than he is to Pacheco. I don't need a threat to either personally. But like, you know.  And is this like a, well, the eagles are going to play from ahead. Therefore, they're going to go to McKinnon. With Juju, like he's just been rough. The four game sample I mentioned before, with Tony having a role, 28 yards per game from Juju in that span. Like ever since the concussion, like it's been bad. Yards for outrun numbers are garbage. So I'm going to use him. I am more likely to use him than I am to use Jared McKinnon, but I'm not seeking him out. He is not a priority to me. I'd raise him that way. I think I'd have to have Mahomes at MVP probably. Probably, yeah. Do you consider Juju? Yeah. Although I had one where I had hurts at MVP and I had Juju because I left 10, 5 on the table or 1500 on the table. So again, there's no one answer. There's infinite number of answers and you just have to figure out what questions you want answered and how to answer them. One question I want to answer, Brandon, is your top priorities. After considering salary, considering roster construction, considering roster rates, when you look at this slate and I give you one lineup, who are the guys you think you are most likely to include in that one lineup? Well, I'll say, I mean, we know we love the quarterbacks. Yeah, let's exclude them. Yeah, so I'm going to say Isaiah Pacheco. I think the salary is too nice there. And I don't think that he's going to be scripted out automatically, regardless of what happens. I honestly want to say, though, you're going to yell at me, but if I'm basing a lot based on our conversations, I want to prioritize Travis Kelsi and AJ Brown. Okay, together? Like, I want to make sure that I have, which is like a bet against the 2QB lineup. If you think 2QB lineups are super popular, I want to make sure that I have the guy with a 30-some percent target share in relevant games and Travis Kelsi, who also has all of the red zone work as well. And you have AJ Brown as being definitively head of Duvante Smith, correct? Yeah, just because I think that people will be down on AJ Brown. And I love Duvante Smith. One game upside, I'm going AJ Brown. I agree. So I think it's probably that second tier, I guess, that I'm higher on, but specifically Pacheco, Kelsi and Brown. My priorities are Pacheco and Tony. If I have one lineup, the odds Kaderious Tony is in there are astronomical. If he doesn't get in a full practice by Friday, then he will be a non-priority for me. It's unfortunate, but if he's active, it's practice reports matter. And I need him to be full at some point before I can get excited about him, even at $7,000. So if he's a full practice on Friday, he'll be a priority. If not, it's going to force me to probably lower how high I am on the two quarterback lineups. But one guy like definitively a priority for me. I think that's the way I'd say it. Any final thoughts for you, Brandon, before we close up shop for this podcast and this NFL season?  They can be a little frustrating if you don't quite get it exactly right. But just be open to the honest enjoyment of sweating a lineup during the Super Bowl. Last time we get to do it, so I'm not playing USFL or XFL. Last time for me for a long time. But also like again, make sure your lineup makes sense. Can this five player parlay hit simultaneously? Ask yourself that. And if yes, cool, lock it in. If not, consider if you can make it better. Consider if you can make it more logical, make the puzzle pieces fit. Consider how much salary you're leaving the table to make sure you're not duped. Go through those thought processes. So it's a complex thing for sure, but it's worthwhile to go through those thought process. And fill things out. That's all that we have here for today on the HeatCheck Fantasy podcast. If you want some betting thoughts on the Super Bowl, we did go through literally everything on Covering the Spread. We had four separate podcasts on it because why not? Those are up on the Covering the Spread podcast feed. And over on the Fiends of the YouTube page, we talked about halftime show. We talked about anthem. We talked about player props, traditional stuff, matchups, all that. Over on the Covering the Spread podcast feed. Get that on the Covering the Spread podcast feed. But also make sure you're subscribed here to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed for PGA, NBA, MLB, coming back in the spring. USC and NASCAR for big events as well, all in the same place. Make sure you're subscribed there by searching for the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts. Brandon, people have questions for you on Twitter. Where can they find you there? I'm on Twitter at Kudula13, G-D-U-L-A-1-3. And I'm on Twitter at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the Fandwill Podcast Network at Fandwill Podcast. Want to thank you all for tuning in. Good luck to you with your Super Bowl lineups. Have fun at the game. Enjoy. We'll talk to you once again next year for PGA, but also next year for NFL. This has been the Heat Check Fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.


Hello everyone, this is financial author Ahmed Dan of Iran Journal. Today, I'll talk about credit score. Your credit score is a three digit number that reflects the well-being of your credit ordnance or how efficiently you're managing your money or debts. Various credit reporting agencies such as Equifax or France Union provide this information and Fair Iser Corporation produces the most commonly used credit scoring algorithm known as FICO although various other credit scoring models exist. The credit score ranges are very similar for most of the credit scoring models and they can run from the upper 200 to upper 900 range. I will use the FICO score to illustrate what a good credit score is in this article as FICO is the most widely used credit scoring model. What is considered a good or a bad credit score varies according to the lender and what type of loan is being sought because lenders have their own set standards to approve or deny your credit. There is a very general guideline for FICO score range which runs from 300 to 850. 350 to 629, bad, 630 to 689, fair, 690 to 719, good and above 720 excellent. The highest FICO score possible is 850 and not many are able to achieve that. However, anything above 720 in general is considered an excellent credit score and those who achieve it most likely will get approved for whatever they apply. Although having a score above 800 is kind of like having an elite status in score, lenders usually treat those within the range from 750 to 850 the same way. In other words, if your score is 750, you will most likely get the same rate as someone at 820. That's all for today. Thank you.


नमच्कार गोःप्र देश, कुँरेस कमीटी, आम चे अदले आद्देखश, कुँरेच चे वरिष्ट लिटर, बाप्राँल गान्डिक, या प्रस्खंच्रन्च्चा कामी स्वागत कर दाए, आम चे सिन्यर अबजर्वर पीच दंबरम जी, वेनुगोपाल जी, आम सु ईंचाज दिनिश प्राव जी, सेल्प लिटर दिगंबर कामबच जी, आम सो खास्दार बाप्रन्सिस चार्दिनाजी, आम से मिटिया कोटनेटर अलकाल आमभाजी, आम सो मिटिया कोटनेटर बाप्रन्सिस चार्दिनाजी, आम सो मिटिया कोटनेटर अमनात पंजिकर, आनी का जन्र सिक्रिडि बाप सुनिल काओटन कर, आंगा जराष ले, गोई चामचे सगरे, पतरकार मिट्र, आंचे यबएर सावगत कर दा, तर शेंच, बीटिया से अभी कोटनेट करेंगे, भी वो लोकल जरनलिस्ट, जरनलिस्ट from Mumbai and Delhi gets opportunity to interact with him. So, this is the first time that our local journalist are getting an opportunity to interact with him. So, over to Rahul Ji. Thank you Girish. I would like to welcome all of you to this press conference, senior leaders of the congress party, journalists from Goa and journalists from the rest of the country. They have placed you quite far today. You are sitting quite far. I am generally used to you sitting closer. I would like to welcome all the people of Goa because this is about your future. It is about the future. It is about your future. It is about the future of Goa. You are facing an election. There are a couple of critical issues that this election is about. And central to the future of Goa is the issue of jobs. How is Goa going to give its youngsters jobs? Or where are these jobs going to come from? And what is the vision that the congress party has for the future of Goa? I would like to invite and ask you questions. If you raise your hands then Girish can... They are going to be scrapped. As far as we are concerned as I mentioned the issue of jobs is critical but also central to a place like Goa is the issue of the environment. We are not going to allow Goa to become a coal hub. This is not in the interest of the people of Goa. This does not serve the purpose of the people of Goa. So we are against these three projects. You might ask the question about the projects being decided by the central government. We will resist the idea of the projects. Just like the farm laws were resisted we will resist the idea of the projects we will not let them happen. The current government is not doing that. Yes, next. Yes, Mahesh. I am Tarun Bharat from Maheshkonekar. I would like to know from you that BJP is claiming that after 2012 the development of Goa is not done by BJP. What are you thinking about? In Goa unemployment is being shown to everyone. The government is showing to everyone. Every youth of Goa knows that there is unemployment here. The condition of the tourism sector knows the whole of Goa. The mining problem knows the whole of Goa. But the most important thing is that the mandate of the last 5 years which BJP has ruled this mandate was stolen from Goa. It was not the original mandate of Goa. Goa said 5 years ago that we are the government of the congress party and after spending money BJP stole the Goa's mandate. And then in 5 years the development of Goa was not done. And everyone of Goa knows about it. Now they say that nothing happened before 2012. The truth is Goa knows about it. We plan to restore sustainable mining. We have studied it. There is no problem in restarting it. We will restart it in a sustainable manageable way legal way and we will do it as soon as we come to power. Sushant Hello. I am Sushant from Gomantakh. My question is why you feel that congress will come in power in Goa and second question if you fall short of some seeds or will you be in alliance with TNC and we have a vision for Goa. Some of the points are written on the board over there I will go into a little bit of detail. We have proposed a Niai scheme Rs 6000 a month to needy families 30% reservation for women and government jobs A central idea that we have proposed is Rs 500 crores for employment generation which I mentioned is very very important for the people of Goa and then what you already mentioned scrapping of the idea of the coal hub I would like to go into a little bit of detail about the central issue that is facing Goa that is unemployment and why the people of Goa feel that congress party is best position to solve this problem and I would like to give you a sense of what some of our ideas are We propose to focus this money and our energies on creating making Goa into an IT hub and a knowledge hub so that many many young Goans can get a job in the IT industry and be connected not just to the rest of the country but to the rest of the world we also as I have mentioned are going to allow legal and sustainable mining this will give large numbers of jobs for the people of Goa and then the most valuable thing that Goa has your spirit and the tourism as a as a huge asset for the people of Goa we will protect that asset I have spoken to different stakeholders in the tourism industry we have had deep discussions with them and we have a plan to completely rejuvenate the tourism industry so we have concrete proposals for the people of Goa and I am confident we are going to win the election I think we will get a full majority so the question of alliances and stuff doesn't really come into play Yes sir, I am Rupesh from PTI Let him ask the supplementary question So what will happen? We won't fall short I think we will I think we will be well above the majority mark with ease I am Anil Bhaji from Nau Prabha that in this election whatever the congress defectors were they had more chances for winning why didn't you give your ticket to the party why did you make such a mistake we want to make Goa's government we want to hear the voice of the people of Goa and we want to respect that Goa's people told us that we don't want defectors and we accepted that from the heart and we didn't give a single defector we gave the youth an opportunity if you see our tickets fresh faces new faces we gave the opportunity because we know Goa's politics has to change with a new way with a new thought we want to go ahead and we want to have a conversation with Goa we want to talk our manifesto which we have decided the people of Goa told us about these things and we did and the defectors which we have decided this is not a decision this is a 100% right decision sir I am Rupesh from PTI sir I am Rupesh from PTI BJP has been raising one pole plank right now is that Jawaharlal Nehru delayed liberation of Goa and that's why Congress is enemy of Goa well everybody has a particular role right so for example I see myself today I see my role as ensuring that Goa gets a government that represents its voice the prime minister also has a role he cannot come to you today and say to you I gave you jobs I gave you employment I fixed your problems I stole your last government he can't say that to you so he has to distract you his role is to distract his role is to take you away from your issues and to distract you now the fact of the matter is that freedom fighters have commented on this issue this is an issue that has come up before freedom fighters have commented on this issue academics have commented on this issue the sad fact is that the prime minister doesn't quite understand the history of Goa he doesn't understand in detail what was going on post World War II hello sir one minute one minute Raman Ji was waiting to ask a question for a long time yes Raman Ji Raman Ji you are confident that Goa will be the next government of Congress but yesterday in 2002 when he was talking about getting rid of him then he was fired Congress free India suddenly came out of his mouth which is now in the minds of many people in the country along with that he said that Congress does destructive politics in the minds of young people he will never be able to understand the Congress Party you feel that you have just answered the question that history is presenting according to itself the people of Goa are protesting to vote I have said that Narendra Modi Ji has a lot of distraction Goa needs employment Goa needs to rejuvenate tourism industry Goa needs to rejuvenate the people of Goa the people of Goa the people of Goa the people of Goa the people of Goa need to talk about their future Narendra Modi Ji for the last 5 years her government has not done anything so they are distracting and they do tell me one thing during the elections in 2014 Narendra Modi Ji said I will give employment to 2 crore youths I said I will put 15 lakh rupees in bank account do you remember why they don't say today why they don't say today that I will give employment to the farmers why they don't say today that I will remove the bribe why they don't talk about the job because they are totally failed and the people of Goa know what BJP has done in Goa I am just taking the liberty of asking you this question because in the neighbouring state of Karnataka as you are aware you know about the hijab issue where girls were not allowed inside the classrooms wearing the same what are your thoughts on the same these two questions what was your first question the 500 crore we have done the calculations there is no issue with getting hold of this money as far as employment is concerned my focus today here is about the Goa election I am not going to fall into your trap of getting distracted by issue A and issue B I am very clear I have come here to have a conversation with the people of Goa this is about the future of the people of Goa this is about employment this is about tourism this is about not turning Goa into a coal hub this is about the environment and that is what I am going to discuss here I am Prajakta Joshi about the second question I said I am not going to get into a conversation that is going to one second I am not going to get into a conversation that is going to distract the people of Goa I am not interested in doing that I have come here with a clear mission my mission is to focus on what is important for the people of Goa the question is Rahul ji has been addressing national issues everywhere now he is in Goa to speak about Goa yes yes this will be the last question no I have one question please one question please this is about Goa so I am Prajakta Joshi from Indi Janalpune actually Congress the whole discussion this time has been how Congress MLAs those who get elected after elections they tend to defect it happened last time in Goa also and how they even if they are elected as Congress MLAs they tend to go to some other party is the discussion this time so how does the party plan to address this issue this time they don't tend to go they didn't tend to go the last time they were paid money to go this time we are going to get a solid majority and we are going to act immediately to make sure that we have a government in Goa thank you I have a question I just have one question because we have to address a meeting in Kurchare which is nearly 45 minutes so this question is about the the Congress candidates have taken a pledge of loyalty this time before the election and this is something that your political opponents have ridiculed and they have said that this shows that a lack of faith by the party in their candidates and they have said that if the party does not trust its candidates so why should the people so how do you respond to that no I think that function was a demonstration of intent it does not mean that we do not trust our candidates it is a demonstration of intent and it is a demonstration that we feel that we have a group of candidates who have integrity and who are going to work to form a government in Goa last question please last question please last question please last question last question last question and after that she said a new definition of secularism she said that 100% protest means secularism and your question is your question is she should be Narendra Modi Ji should be able to explain what she did last 5 years for Goa she should be able to tell that for the youth of Goa तो प्रदान मंत्री को इंचीजो के बारे में बोलना जाहिए. मैंने, मैंने, शुडवात में बोला, नरेंद्र मोदी गोवा इसले आए हैं, क्यों गोवा को साई मुद्दों से डिस्ट्ट्रक करना जातें. जो में मुद्दा गोवा के समने है, रूसगार, रूसगार कैसे प्यदा होगा, इंवायरमेंट, उनके मैंने फेस्टो में इंवायरमेंट शब दिनी है, जो गोवा के ले सबसे ज़रूई चीज़ है, प्रदान मंत्री ने अपने बाशन में इंवायरमेंट के बारे में बोला, कुछ बोला? उनो ने रूसगार के बारे में कुछ बोला? नहीं, मैं आप से पूछ रहूँ. हाई आना? नहीं नहीं तो सवाल तो वो है, तैंक्य। गे मुछ तैंक्य। तैंक्य।


Right. I appreciate y'all coming in. My name is Van Lieberg. I'm going to be talking probably pretty quickly because I've got a lot of things to cover. This is justifying an Ospo and dollars and cents. I wanted to start by just making, by briefly touching on a number of the things that have been said earlier in the presentations today.  The last session that was here was fantastic. They were talking about here are all these tools that you can find out in order, that you can use in order to find out what's happening in a project, in a community, and so you can make more data-driven decisions. But the thing that I want to focus on is that so often, I've been around this community for a couple of decades now, and one of the things that I see over and over again is that when you have a set of bad quarterly numbers or you've got some sort of competitive pressure, Ospo's are almost always on the list of things that get cut. And the reason why is because people start to think about Ospo's as a cost center. And I think that this is mostly a failure of marketing, but it's also about chasing that, as the gentleman just said, that elusive ROI. How do you connect what the Ospo does to your larger business? So I want to note that Ospo's are amazing for driving business value. In fact, as we've talked about, open source software is driving the world. Everyone is using open source. 99% of all code bases have it in it. It is essential and key to everything that just about every company is doing in software. And so if it is such a key part of what software development is, then you would think that being able to manage this and understand it is really about driving business value. And the fact is that it is, but we don't necessarily communicate it or track the metrics necessary in order to see it. So I'm going to be talking about a couple of things. I want to make a couple of caveats. The first is I'm going to be talking about some specific situations. In many cases, names have been changed to protect the guilty or innocent or not. But I want to understand that one size does not fit all. This is very much about the need to focus on what is happening in your organization and what is driving the success of your organization. And so not all of these may be perfectly applicable, but there should be something in here that you're able to take back and think about. Yes, this makes sense in the context of my organization. The other thing that I want to note is that this is illustrative. There are lots of different ways, and we'll touch on this at the end, that your OSPO interacts with different parts of your organization. Any one of those interactions can truly be one of the places in which you drive value. So let's start by talking about why in the world do people get involved in open source. Now there are thousands of reasons, as many reasons as there are companies, but I tend to generally lump them into these three big buckets. You want to reduce costs, you want to develop new business, or you want to reduce business risk. And you see that I've got sort of subheads under each of those. I want to note that the reason why most companies start getting into open source is that number one, that idea of we're going to reduce costs. This stuff is free. We're going to have free licensing, and hey, people are going to write it for us. This is, well, no one who thinks that people are going to write it for them, they still are not out of the glory days of the late 90s. It just doesn't really happen. And the free licensing, yes, it's a thing, but that isn't really what's driving value. So often we talk about compliance, and so much of this is around compliance tools. Real value drivers end up being in business development, mind share, market share, recruiting, retaining and developing your employees, as well as reducing the business risk. And so these are the things that I am going to focus on. So here's a question you're going to say, then how in the world do you know that Ospo's actually create value, and how can you prove it? Because in some ways this is just talking. No, we actually know this because we have been able to observe situations in which people have destroyed business value and done so in a way that allowed us to measure it. I would like to put special thanks to those providing the content for this section of the program. One of those logos actually got cut off, I believe Elastic also shows up here. So let's talk for a moment about OpenOffice. How many people remember OpenOffice? That's right, it's still honestly a better name than LibreOffice, just personally thinking. If you cast your mind back to 2010, OpenOffice was actually in an extraordinary place. You look at it and you think, hey, it's kind of an also rant, but if you think back to then, people actually generally had OpenOffice. It had between nine and 14% business share, depending on who you believed, in the United States and the UK, and it had up to 20 or 30% market share in various other countries. This is an astounding number of installs. And even the people where they had it on, they primarily used Microsoft, they usually had it for compatibility or you had a lot of people coming up because it was cheap, it was available. They also had at that time an online office product, where the only competitor was Google Docs, which was not nearly as full-featured as it is today. Think about that circumstance and would you like to have something like that with nine to 14% business market share? Absolutely you would. There was a study that said OpenOffice is now so entrenched in the space that its growth has become irreversible. Oracle said, hold my beer. This, what you're seeing right here is the migration of users from OpenOffice to LibreOffice over eight weeks in late 2010. And those different colors are different organizations starting to contribute code to LibreOffice. The second thing that you'll see is authors and submitters for OpenOffice is the green and LibreOffice is the blue over the past decade. You'll see that there was actually a lot of, there was millions of lines of code, there was a lot of value created. In some ways it was a huge value destruction that I'm not sure they ever got past because there was a lot of rebranding, a lot of different things, but absolutely they actually took a write-down associated with OpenOffice. And years later they paid on the order of several hundred thousands of dollars to get rid of it and donate it to the Apache Foundation. In 2019 it was declared dead, if I remember correctly. No, that was Hudson, that was Jenkins. They paid to the ASF, the Apache Software Foundation. Oracle also, 2010 was really a banner year for them. If you're familiar with Hudson, Hudson was one best of show in 2008, it was up and coming. It was largely, it had surpassed cruise control. It was the largest continuous integration project ever and definitely across the entire ecosystem. There were some issues with the Java.NET servers and they just said, we would like to move to GitHub, that's where more of our community is. Oracle said, no you may not. And if you try to do that we will assert our trademarks against you. Well, 2013 they all, everyone moved over to Jenkins. They actually paid Eclipse to move Hudson over to Jenkins. In 2019 that's the one that was declared dead. This is the market share for Jenkins still as of today. How many people would have liked to have had that? Do you think that Oracle, if they would have been thinking correctly, would have liked to have had 51% share in CICD tools? Except they didn't. They didn't deal with their community effectively and so they lost the opportunity. Again, they took a write down and paid to get rid of it. One last one, this one is happening. I've got a question to mark here because it's not 100% sure that this is happening. Over in January of this year, Elastic said we're going to re-license from Apache to various proprietary licenses, the Elastic Search product. Amazon announced that they were going to fork. And in August, August 6th or 8th, if I remember correctly, open search became generally available. This is wild. I've got an orange line on the next slide that shows the date when the open search product became generally available. What you're seeing is the rate of retention of people who create issues. Maybe this won't happen or maybe this won't continue. Maybe this is a blip. But that strikes me as one of those eight weeks types of situations that someone is going to be referring to years and years later down the road. So we have been able to see if you don't treat your community well, they can go away and they can take all the value with them because the value is not in the code. The value is in the community. This is actually something that is well known. There are lots of things that Ospo's do that address this value. Most often times we think of and we justify our Ospo's in terms of compliance, legal, non-legal pressure, issue reporting, bug fixes, et cetera. But I'm going to be talking about those last three items and giving you some real live situations that happened that I helped some companies with. So I'll note that the typical argument is about Ospo's is, hey, we can be compliant. Now, I am a lawyer, compliance is really important. Please be compliant. It is far easier to stay compliant than it is to go through and not be compliant and have all those things fall over. The problem is that this is important but not urgent, as sometimes people say. And so it's easy to push off until later and to under-invest. The second thing I mentioned, people will help us develop it. Yes, it's true in certain circumstances but this is really not going to be an effective driver for your code because you're going to be wanting to drive it anyway. This is not actually the thing that is going to be a successful driver of value. Yes. Driver number one, which I think is you can tie is employee retention. This is a true story and this is one that came about when I was at Rackspace. We had a long history of working with open source. We had a large number of open source developers. This was during the 2015-14-15-ish time frame. Some of our policies had not caught up and so it was actually kind of difficult for people to contribute back to various communities with which they interacted. We went through and pushed through and it was much harder than it should have been. We pushed through a new employee contribution agreement, a policy really, that basically said people are free to contribute under their own names and it had a very generous way of figuring out what things are business-related, which were going to be relatively few and what things were not. Anything that was defined as not business-related, they got permission to actually go through and contribute to. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the idea of NPS scores. It's a net promoter score. It is a measure of how many people are really excited about you versus neutral versus sort of a detractor. It's a widely used tool. Rackspace use it a lot. They had both an external one and they had an internal one, the employee NPS. A good score is officially anything above zero but a really good score ends up being somewhere between 20 and 30 and anywhere in the negatives you've got more detractors than promoters. You've got real serious issues. It leads to high loss of people. When we implemented this new policy, we had an NPS in the range of negative 20 in our San Francisco office. We were losing people. We were in danger of losing people. The new open-source policy was credited with driving, at least temporarily, a 40-point increase in our NPS from negative 20 to positive 20. We estimated later that this caused maybe six to eight people to stay and at least an additional year because they felt like they could develop their careers better at Rackspace. Let's look at that analysis. Six to eight developers, if you think about and you look at studies as to the cost of losing somebody, finding someone new, retraining them, it ends up for technical workers being on the order of 100 to 150% of their salary. If you looked at this estimate, the aggregate salary was 1.6 million, we avoided an estimated cost of retraining and retraining about $2 million over that year due to that one change. This is also, by the way, related to your employee acquisition and your cost of training. Those are also major drivers that your HR people are 100% following and that you can have a major effect on as an OSPO. They're already one of your partners in putting out and managing the open-source policies as they reflect the employees and contractors in your business. You can get with them and partner with them to make it easier for them to attract, recruit, and retain in such a way that you can make a measurable millions of dollars difference in their bottom line. Story number two. OSS is part of your funnel. Now I want to be very careful here.  That's so terrible and it drives a lot of negative results. For all intents and purposes, for many companies out there, open-source engagement is marketing. It's just you can do it right or you can do it wrong. And if you do it right, it vastly increases people's awareness of health and positive feelings for your company. And in fact, it can be if you have a situation where your products are primarily centered around one or more open-source projects, it can be a major driver of sales without you being, hey, do you want to buy? Do you want to buy? You're always trying to get in people's minds in a positive way and OSS, both in terms of distribution and community engagement, can be a part of that. That's what your OSPO does. So for this particular client, we identified that this was one of those service and support slash SaaS type products. It was one of those ones that had relatively high lifetime value because when people came into it, they had the order of several thousand dollars a month and average life was between three and five years. So you had a lifetime value in the hundreds of thousands. This was a good product, but it tended to have long times through traditional marketing it had a slower sales cycle except when you went through the developers. Through reaching out to them and talking to them, we identified that more than 90 percent of the paid commercial contracts started with open source evaluation. And what's more, I want to jump to that last point. People sometimes say, oh, if you've got the commercial version and the open source version, you better make the open source version crappy because no one will want to pay. No, it actually turned out that the positive developer experience was the thing that drove them to engage. And the better they liked the product, the more they were evangelists for it inside their own company and that more that drove sales. And so what happened was that the implied value of a download from GitHub was somewhere in the $50 range. That doesn't mean that every download was $50, but because you had a smaller number of downloads that were very lucrative, it averaged down to about that. What I think is what's most interesting there is that when you... there was a selection effect that was highly advantageous to the company, that people who were going to be well served by the vanilla offering and they didn't have highly complex needs tended to mostly stay with the open source offering. The people who were the most likely to graduate to a paid commercial offering were the ones who were also the most profitable to support. This means that it was not only a great sales funnel, it positively selected for the client who were going to be the most profitable and best to serve. That is an astounding thing that your Osmo can be the middle of. And then like I said, the better developer experience led to higher conversions. We tracked downloads. Other things like Forks, GitHub Stars, et cetera were also positively correlated with essentially end revenue in the door. I'd like to... Story number three is about an acquisition of a very small company. This was not pre-product, but it was nearly... It was not pre-revenue, but it was nearly pre-revenue. They had very low revenue, but they had a really interesting product that they put out and they started... They started to get a community around. I wanted to touch for a moment the things that I'm saying are not unique to my thinking. I did not necessarily think this up. Goodwill, you see the definition up here, it is the total value of stuff associated with your company that is not like your concrete accounts receivable, et cetera. It's all the things that you can't measure. So many times people think about Goodwill as mostly being around the IP, especially the trademark of the brand, things like that.  In fact, it is, in some cases, the largest source of your Goodwill. So this was an early stage startup. If you think about it, the fact... If you think about it in terms of...  In the early 2000s, late 1990s, it was astounding that they would get purchased at all because they had an Apache license code base. They had one trademark that was not interesting, but they had community interest. So they had seven, eight employees. It was... There was just not a lot that was being purchased except for the community interest. For these people, it ended up being an $8.2 million exit, which is pretty good when the primary thing that was being bought was community Goodwill, that community relationship and the chance that they had to build that into a later product. We evaluated the metrics. We needed to justify this up to the board. This included downloads, stars, forks, blog posts. This was all about the Goodwill. So, as I've said, you can become aligned with either your revenue generating capability or some of your cost centers, and you can be a major part of that. In fact, if you look at what is in an open source program, you touch almost every part of the company. I've highlighted these different functional areas in the company that really go into a full-fledged Ospo, the leadership and the legal, engineering, marketing, cross-team, and human resources. Each one of these has a P&L, or at least they have costs and drivers that are associated with what they do. If you can talk to them in their language and figure out the things that you're doing that affect their bottom lines, you can show the real value of your Ospo in dollars and cents. So, I want to essentially identify these things are compliance. Absolutely, it is a huge value. If you've ever had the opportunity, but the misfortune of being in a lawsuit associated with some of these things, you'll notice that compliance suddenly becomes a very large driver. Again, it is a huge deal, but don't just stop there. Don't stop at community development. Think about all the different ways in which you interact, and that is how you can and make sure you're talking the same language. So, your final takeaways, cost and profit drivers, look for how your Ospo interacts with them. Use the same categories that the rest of your business is using. You want to be able to say that GitHub star ties to this incremental ability to retain or this reduced training cost. That's another thing that I didn't mention, is that if people are already coming in knowing your tools, you have much reduced training costs. That's a huge thing for large organizations. Share wins with other parts of your organization. That's part of using the same language. And if you are in the case of, if you're doing any sort of mergers and acquisitions, mergers and acquisitions are the only time when goodwill is measured, except for usually like a year later. And if they've been able to say, yeah, we've kind of kept this, they get to keep it. If they've had a measurable decrease, they need to write down the goodwill. They don't like doing that. So, watch for those sorts of things any time you have an acquisition and you can avoid a write down that can affect share price about a year later. That's it. I'm happy to answer any questions or comments or even just like have a discussion about this.