Week number four in NFL DFS was the week of the rookie quarterbacks. They finally showed some life this past week across the NFL for those first round picks. It was not the week of the running backs I used in my core for daily fantasy, firmly not there. We're gonna break things down, recap the rookie quarterbacks, let you know about some usages, role changes and key injuries, and let you all know what it means going forward. Welcome on into the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire. That's right here on the FanDual Podcast Network and NumberFire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for NumberFire.com. Join here as always by Brandon Gadoula. He is the managing editor of NumberFire.com. Brandon, I am shocked you're letting me be on this podcast today, given how poorly our Baker Mayfield versus Taylor Heineke Betwet were you absolutely wiped the floor with me and I'm just, I'm surprised you let me come here. Well, I mean, look, you had the David Montgomery game that I was not quite so in on. Unfortunately, we'll talk more about David Montgomery, but you had some good calls. I think you and I both had some calls that didn't work out and the reason I'm not really gloating this bad is because I'm too busy kicking myself for not playing more Ezekiel Elliott and Saquon Barkley in hindsight.  Yeah, I think that I'm more regretful about Saquon and I think that the running backs, like I had some things that went very well for me on Sunday. Like I had a lot of Tyreek, had a lot of Cordero Patterson. Those went well. I had some Derek Henry and Antonio Gibson stuff like that, but like it was all wiped out by Chuba Hubbard and Dalvin Cook, who I was a bit too aggressive with and honestly like that was a bad process. The way the aggressiveness with which I used them was bad process and I'm okay admitting that right now. So I think it's went too hard at uncertain situations whereas I knew Saquon Barkley was gonna play 85% of the snaps, tough matchup for sure. And like I thought there was risk that the offense might just not operate with no Sterling Shepherd and no Darius Slate, but then Daniel Jones kind of falls out. So I know why I didn't use them. I don't think the reasons I used were enough to justify not using them. Yeah, and running back to me at this point without Christian McCaffrey fully healthy if Dalvin Cook's gonna be banged up. Aaron Jones was limited a bit. Lots of AJ Dillon this week with 40% of the snaps. I think I might need to like change what I anticipate from running backs and not get, maybe not get out over my skis.  If there are gonna be concerns specifically like Chuba Hubbard comes to mind right now, like I mean, it's worth it occasionally to go really hard. I'm thinking back also to Najee Harris in I guess week two whenever his role was great and I actually clicked the lock button on him. And he was just- And Alexander Madison last week, same thing. Yeah, so I mean, it can work out but Chuba Hubbard was probably more of a red flag than some of those other situations. Yeah, it turns out that definitely was the case. We'll talk about that during the role changes for sure. So definitely some things went wrong. We'll talk about things that went right too. And recap week number four in just one second. But first, hey football fans, Fandals giving you the chance to bet on week five of the NFL season. All you got to do is go to sportsbook.Fandal.com or download the Fandals Sportsbook app. Place a three plus leg, same game parlay on any week five NFL game.  Max refund is $10, bet on week five of the NFL season with Fandal by heading over to the Fandals Sportsbook today and placing a risk-free NFL same game parlay. Must be 21 plus and present Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Refund issued as a non-withthrobber site, the credit that expires in seven days. Max refund $10, restricts to the play. See terms at sportsbook.Fandal.com, same game parlay available from multiple sports and all say it's on mobile and web. Gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit Fandal.com slash RG in Indiana, 1-800-9 with it. For confidential help in Michigan, 1-800-270-7117 in Tennessee, call the red line at 1-800-899-779. In West Virginia, 1-800-GAMBLER.NET or in Arizona, 1-800-NEXT-STEP or TEXNEXT-STEP to 533-42. Let's start things off here with our week four headlines which does revolve around those rookie quarterbacks who showed life in week four for the first time this year. And honestly, all of them, I think gave us reasons to be like at least interested, which is good because that's a deviation, that's fun. We like these quarterbacks, they're all pretty fun. So excited about that. Let's start things off on Thursday with Trevor Lawrence. He made the Jaguars relevant on Thursday, gets a decent Bengals defense. Unfortunately though, comes the ninja here, DJ Shark fractured his ankle. He is out likely for the season. In this game, we saw a lot of Leviska-Shanalt. Shanalt had seven targets on 18 routes. He had two deep targets in that game, which is a pretty big deviation from what he had been doing before. Marvin Jones has had decent games earlier this year and Shanalt might be more relevant now with DJ Shark out. So Brandon Trevor Lawrence shows life. We have some more opportunity available potentially with DJ Shark missing time. How are you viewing this Jaguar's offense right now? So I got to take it from I think the top with Trevor Lawrence and you and I have been kind of, I don't want to say stubborn, but we've been very adamant about making sure that we're rostering quarterbacks who we think have clear paths to 30 fandal points or at least 25 to 27 kind of on the low end. And that did not put me on someone like a Sam Darnold this week, but he had this two rushing touchdowns. And other than him, it was just Patrick Mahomes. So I don't want to get ahead of myself and say, yeah, Trevor Lawrence is someone that I'll see myself using plenty just because I need to make sure that the sheer end upside is there. For Leviska-Shanalt, I am always, I think, lower on him than a lot of people. A lot of people seem to love him. And I get it, he's fun. But the ADOT is historically really low. And you mentioned the two downfield targets. The one was on a completely busted play. And I need to see, I think, a little bit more of a concentrated effort to get him the ball down the field.  So he's gonna be, speaking of low ADOT busted play, guys. He's like a Debo Samuel situation. I'm always gonna have trouble with someone like that because there's a bit of a floor from a target perspective. And we want, you know, you can never really turn down guaranteed volume, but I'm not fully buying in on the fact that he gets multiple downfield targets per game. I think you mean last year Debo, correct? Because this year's Debo has a different role from a target depth perspective. What's his ADOT? I don't know, but he had, he had three downfield targets. Like it wasn't just the busted play yesterday. He had three. That's the most he's had since week 11 of his rookie year, tied a career high. He had three downfield looks all last year. So I think it's a different, like he talked about trying to get more downfield work this year. I'm pretty sure it's a fairly concerted effort. So I think 2020 Debo Samuel is a different player than 2021. But if you're putting Lomiscus-Chinalt in the 2020 Debo Samuel bucket out of green. So, okay. So he had three downfield targets this week, which we classify as 16 yards or more downfield. His ADOT was 9.6. Wide receiver average is 10.7. So it's still a full yard. Mike Williams is around there too though. Like it's not like, there's a big difference between a nine yard ADOT and a five yard ADOT, which is probably where Debo was last year. Who has ADOT on this? It was 2.2 last year and it's seven this year. On the full season, it's 7.7. It's still, I'm saying just from a sheer ADOT standpoint, which yes, there's those downfield targets. But if it's two to three, that means like six or seven are very close to the line of scrimmage. That makes it hard for me to kind of value. And that's what I'm getting at. Now I'm mad about Debo. This is not the point of this. No, I know, I know, but you know, I work a lot on like simulations and ranges of outcomes and one key part of figuring out an actual range of outcomes for wide receivers just comes down to area yards, which you are always gonna have come out as lower for a low ADOT guy. Yes, Debo can get like, I'm not gonna say he's gonna average three per game. He's averaging one and a half per game, which is good for him. But I think it's gonna be a similar case to Chanel where let's say he gets one or two downfield targets a game, doesn't convert on them. Then we're looking at the six to seven or eight, maybe like targets at the line of scrimmage or five yards downfield. So I agree with you on the Visca with Debo. His yardage shows are 189, 93, 52, 156. We'll come back to this later. We'll come back to this later. You're wrong, Debo. 2021 Debo is great. Also he's good at football. You're not factoring that in. Anyway, I agree with you on the Visca. Pretty similar to 2020 Debo where he can get some work, but the upsides probably not gonna be there. So I think I'd still be on more Marv over LaVisca on this team, agreed? Yeah, it did not work out for me on the single game slate, but Marv's eight dots basically twice what Chanel's is. And if anyone's gonna benefit more from the lack, because DJ Chark was getting pepper downfield, he was averaging or even with week four factor and he's averaging three downfield targets for a game and he basically didn't play in week four. So I think we still go Marv over LaVisca, but LaVisca does get a bump up. Is it enough to make him relevant? Probably not. Dan Arnold did run 10 routes after being traded like three days before this game. Do you have any interest there? Cause like I feel like I would need to see more before I go there. Cause it's not like it's a great team I truly want to invest in. Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting on with the Trevor Lawrence situation. This probably just makes me feel better about Marvin Jones. I think I agree. Like that's kind of the takeaway is I liked Marv before, but I was always worried about Chark. And I like Chark as well. I'm not gonna play a whole lot of LaVisca. If it burns me, it's gonna have to burn me from another busted play or a lot of run after the catch, which I know like from his, I don't know, I don't wanna say film, but like I know that's kind of what he is known for, but it hasn't really panned out a lot in the NFL. Yeah, I think we're on the same page there. So let's talk about Justin Fields, didn't throw a ton, but he made the most of it when he did. The Bears very run heavy, they ran 17 of 24 times, I know the downs in the first half, but on those seven throws, Fields average 0.95, passing that expected points per dropback. For reference, Patrick Mahomes is around 0.35 usually. So Fields is pretty good, average 0.32 for the full game. And he fed Darnell Mooney. He gave Mooney seven of 17 targets. Two of those five were deep. The one downside here is that David Montgomery got hurt. He hurt his knee and didn't return. Sounds like it might not be season ending, but the MRI is supposed to be today. Damien Williams played 33% of the snaps compared to 11% for Khalil Herbert. Williams had eight carries and two targets. He ran seven routes. Herbert had three carries. The carries were six for Williams and two for Herbert after Montgomery got hurt, which was pretty late in the game. So Fields played really well. He funneled volume to Darnell Mooney, but they might not have Montgomery and they are very, very run heavy. So how are you viewing the Bears right now, Brandon? Yeah, they actually led in non-garbage time pace, according to the 20 to 80% pre-snap win probability numbers that come from NFL FASTER, FASTER I don't know, but the issue is, well, along with that, it's kind of a trend we've seen since Fields has been more involved since week two. They've ranked top 10 in pace the past three weeks, again, adjusting for context and they're fourth combined since week two. So you like that, but they're 31st in pass rate without just getting rid of the garbage time place. So that's a big problem. That's not enough passing for me to wanna play any quarterback. I don't care really how much you run. If you're actively trying not to pass basically, that's an issue. I'm not saying that they're not trying to pass, but relative to other teams, you can make that claim. So I have interest in Darnell Mooney. Obviously I will have interest in Allen Robinson, but it's been Mooney for Fields primarily. It's just, it's not enough for me to wanna play Justin Fields and it's hard for me to talk myself into pass catchers on teams with such low pass rates. Yeah, they face the Raiders next week too and the Raiders have a much better pass rush than the Lions do. So that could be a concern for Detroit or Chicago. Yeah, that does help. But they're on the road, decent pass rush, especially compared to the Lions, that's a concern. And realistically, given how they've shown us they wanna play things, how many pass stands are you projecting for Justin Fields? Even in the negative script, 25 to 30 max maybe. Yeah. Let's say that Darnell Mooney hypothetically gets a 25% target share. So let's go with 27 times 0.25, that's 6.75 targets. Like that's not a lot. So I like Mooney a lot as a player. I like Justin Fields a lot as a player, but this offense is not super conducive to me getting Jazza pass catchers. Does Fields not have a passing touch on yet? I think he did in week one when he was on, he came on like a package. Yeah. Oh no, it's all right, rushing touchdown. Yeah. So he doesn't have a passing touchdown. Is there a salary that would be low enough for you to wanna play Justin Fields? Well, he's 64, but I just think that he didn't run a lot yesterday either probably because they didn't drop back enough. Like you need those scrambles. So I just don't think, like there is a path to 30, but I think that the odds I get that path are low enough where I'm okay holding off for now. And it's not because of him, it's because of the way they run the offense. And again, that's, I think the offense worked well. So it's not a shot of them. So I think they were, they did belated a good job on Sunday, but it's not one that's like conducive to him being super fantasy relevant right now. Yeah. I mean, again, almost every quarterback does have some path to 30, however small. Fields obviously has that, but I'm with you. It's the philosophy here is not ideal for DFS. What's up with Damian Williams with no David Montgomery. We'll probably learn more today on the severity of Montgomery's injury. Hopefully it's good because I like David Montgomery a lot, but Damian Williams was getting work with David Montgomery earlier on this year. He got a lot of work after Montgomery got hurt. So let's assume that David Montgomery can't go this week, name that salary on Damian Williams. It's going to be a Chuba Hubbard situation where we get overconfident in his role or do you feel better? I feel about the same. Okay. Because I do too. I would probably say about 6,500. I think 6,500 is appropriate and he is 58. So I also think that Damian Williams is pretty talented and that helps.  It's like, oh, okay. I think the odds that Rodney Smith comes in and takes away passing down work from him are maybe potentially a bit lower. Like that might help. I don't know. Yeah, again, we've had this with Nudge Harris and Rodney Smith's coming in and taking Damian Williams work. Then we got some... Yeah. I think that they like him and I like him, which helps. But it's still not a, like if I were naming that salary, I would not go higher than what you did. I think that 65 is appropriate. I think that's right. Yeah. I mean, it's just one of those spots where it can feel really easy to get overconfident. For sure. Let's move down to Zach Wilson, first good game for him in the NFL, played some really tough defenses, played a not tough defense in the Titans. So he went from negative 0.35, passing that expected points per dropback in his first three games to 0.30 against the Titans. Got James and Crowder back in that one. He did go to Crowder a lot. Nine targets there, seven for Corey Davis. Keelan Cole and Ryan Griffin both had four. So they play on the non-main slate next week. They play Atlanta on that London game at 930, but just broadly, how are you changing your view of the Jets after what they did, showing life here against Tennessee? Yeah. I mean, I think the Crowder thing helps. No Elijah Moore, but for, look, Wilson, I think you and I were both high on him, you know, coming out of college. And it's, you know, it's easy to say, kind of write them off as just being the Jets and it's like, here's another quarterback that's not going to work out, but really difficult start to his NFL career, like with the matchups. It's, we could see veteran quarterbacks play those same defenses and struggle, but we wouldn't be just completely over it. So this was really promising. I'm kind of thankful that we will get them outside the main slate. Not that I'm really worried about Zach Wilson destroying me, but then I'll get another week outside the main slate where I can kind of analyze things because Atlanta will be a beatable defense. And, you know, if he doesn't, then I guess maybe he could chalk it up to the travel and the weird game environment, but if he takes advantage of Atlanta, then that's going to turn me around on this offense. And at least make Corey Davis and James and Crowder viable. That's kind of the only outcome really here. The only downside of that London game is I think it decreases the odds that Elijah Moore plays given that it's like an overseas travel situation and following a concussion. And we're not going to get a read on him with Crowder and with Davis until after their buy, because they have a buy in week six. So like the next time we'll see the Jets on the main slate is in week seven where they play the Patriots and like. So I think it's kind of a bummer, it is going to be nice. If we get confirmation against the Falcons we can use them in good situations. That's something we will keep in the back of our head for later on this year and say, okay, when they struggle against the Patriots, not if, when they struggle against the Patriots, that's okay. And like, if you can be predictable in the spots where you're relevant, I think that's good. So I think I thought it was encouraging. Why don't they play the Patriots twice and by week seven? Why do they play the Patriots at all? Patriots have never played an exciting game in their entire lives. Just contract the Patriots. Tray Lance, average 0.47, passing that expected points per dropback came on in relief of Jimmy Garoppolo. He ran seven times for 41 yards and he had 20 fan dual points and a half. He did have some broken coverages, but, you know, still I'll take 20 points. As far as where he threw, he went to Debo Samuel seven times. Two of those were deep and one was in the red zone. Four times, George Kittle and Mohamed Sunoo. Those guys each had one deep target. Kyle Yushak had two. Trent Schurfield had one. Brandon Ayuk had none. Sick, love to see it. So sounds like Jimmy Garoppolo probably on the wrong side of questionable for week number four. The 49ers facing Arizona next week on the road. So I think we've seen enough, and I think we like this offense enough to actually play name that salary on Tray Lance because I think that he's very relevant for week number four to five. Yeah, this is one where I would probably pay higher. So again, this is always like, if you're asking me what I would pay to roster him versus what I think he should be, I would probably go up to 8,000 for him. Okay, what do you think he should be? Probably like in the 76 range. I think 76 is appropriate. And that may seem high because that's where like Dak and Russell Wilson were this past week. Yeah, I'm trying to contextualize that, yeah. But like he is $6,900. Like he's cash game viable at $6,900, right? Yeah, with the rushing, like that's, so we just talked about like the passing not being there for Justin Fields. We saw some life for sure with Lance. And again, we want to talk about Debo Samuel. This is probably the time to do it. I know Debo has run after the catch potential. I know George Kittle, if he's healthy, has that. Brandon Ayuk in theory at least has that if they ever, if he can get a catch, which first he would need to target in order to get some run after the catch. But that's one of the reasons that I was so optimistic on Lance from a fantasy standpoint, just as a rookie because he can probably just get the ball to these guys in some space and rack up passing yards. But the rushing is really, really enticing for me. So I'm gonna, yeah, definitely cash game viable. Obviously we have to look more at the quarterback slate, but I'm gonna be playing a lot of Trailands. His ADOT is 8.1, Jimmy Garoppolo is a 6.7. He runs. His completion percentage over expectation is pretty bad. So like the actual like accuracy component, probably not as good as what we have Jimmy Garoppolo, but like that's common too with higher ADOTs. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Yeah. Well, no, he's completion percentage over expectation. Oh, sorry. Yeah. So I think, I think, like, I don't think it's an upgrade necessary for like Debo and Kittle, but like it's not like a massive downgrade either, I wouldn't think. Like probably a slight downgrade from a passing perspective, but the overall offense I would say is gonna be pretty fun. Yeah. And if you want Debo to get more downhill targets, you want it coming from a higher ADOT quarterback. So I still, I think like Debo is like, if you look at his target shares, like overall targets this year, Debo Samuel is at 33%. You can get upside there even without getting a ton of downfield targets at 33%. Like that's like, I don't know, it's a good role. He has two, or 1.5 downfield targets per game. He has gotten some red zone work. He also gets some rush attempts, which can bolster his scoring output as well. I feel like we're being, I wanna say we, I mean you, are being a bit too dismissive of Debo in his current role. 2020 Debo is a different player. His ADOT was five yards lower. I'm dismissive of, wait, his ADOT was five yards lower than it is now? Last year it was. What was his ADOT last year? Well, so I'm dismissive of a low ADOT receiver at a salary, he was $6,900 this week. He converted on a short red zone catch, which was awesome to see. He also had a majority of his, I don't wanna say a majority because I don't know if it's actually the majority, but he had a ton of fantasy points come from a busted play, like a 70 yard touchdown. I'm not making on that. 32% target share, like 33, sorry, 33% target share. That is the count. He said 12, 8, 10 and 12 targets. That's a lot. Yeah, I know, but his single game ADOT has been 8, 6, 6.2. Right, but like if you're giving, like it's a multiplier. You multiply eight or whatever times 10, that's like 80 ariards. I'm like, that's not great, but like you're giving him, you're talking about how good he is out of the catch. You're giving him eight chances to run out of the catch. Like that has to account for something. It does, but I know he was, his salary was $6,900 this week. He had a huge game. If he is $7,500 or in that range, I don't think he quite matches up with- No, I agree, but he wasn't. So, I mean, like it's different. Now he said he's seven, it's a different story. So- Wait, did you say he's 77 or? He's 77 this week, that's a lot. So like last week I had DJ Moore at 73 and Debo at 69. I would rather play DJ Moore. Like, let's say they were both 71 just with the Debo. But like DJ Moore is like, you know. But there's all this context in order to play Debo Samuel that we have to consider. Yeah. I'm not like down on Debo Samuel. Debo Samuel or Adam Thielen? They're almost the same salary. I'm not like- Debo. Debo or Deandre Hopkins right now? You can say it, it's fine. Oh, wow, okay, okay. That's not, that one's not fair. Debo's salary is very high. Tralance is not. We're gonna talk a lot about Tralance on Thursday. Very excited about that. What about George Kittle? Where are you at on him right now? He did get a deep target, which he doesn't typically do this past week. He actually had three, only one from Lance. I've been pretty low on Kittle the past couple of weeks. I'm still not like super eager to buy back in, but where are you at with him right now? And Kelsey is not in the mainstream next week. I'll note that, top boy. That might save me some either way. This week was not great, man. I either get it wrong or I'm like, I'm playing Kelsey because he's the guy with that upside and he just, they give it to Jody Fortson. Good for Jody. Or Jody, I think it's Jody. No, it's Jody Fortson. I've seen Forston, Jody. I've seen a lot of different spellings with the wrong name. Yeah, I mean, for Kittle, he's obviously not George Kittle of the past right now, but his salary has kind of been, he was 6,700 for the week four main slate. That's got to come down for me really to want to prioritize him. So I'm kind of more in like the, we're starting to see some tight ends creep up over 6,000, like the Hawkinsons and those kinds of guys. I think he should be in that tier. He is, he's 65. I think that that's a little bit too high. It's the high current role. Yeah, I think that's, for his current role, that's too high. Like I'd rather have him than Dallas Goddard who's in that range. But like, you know, that's, that's kind of like asking Adam the only question to you. So Dalton Schultz is 62. Oh boy. Good for him. You mean Dalton Schultz, the target share leader for the Cowboys since week two? I do, I do. I do indeed 23% target share. These look good. You made a terrible mistake on Sunday, but they went right back to him after that. So it was, it was pretty good. I think it was too high. I think that Debo's salary is a bit too high right now. Like I think it's going to make it tough for stacking for Trey Lance, but like, we do know where the ball is going. I think that's reassuring even if the salaries are a bit too high. Like Lance's salary helps cancel out the fact that they're a bit too high salary. Maybe I was just going to say, I mean, I'm not going to do the math because I wouldn't embarrass myself. But you know, if like Debo, if Debo and Lance were both like 72 or 73, that would be an easier sack to kind of wrap your head around. Yeah. Okay. Final working quarterback outside of Davis Mills because no, Mack Jones was decent on Sunday nights. He averaged 0.05 passing that expected points per dropback, pretty rainy. And the Buccaneers past defense was super banged up. That was better than it was because he was in the full season at negative 0.09s. I guess that's good. He had 14 downfield passes in week three, but just one in week four. So they kind of went back to the old Mac return of the Mac. It's just, it's enough to keep Jacoby Myers relevant and like the new tight ends scored. But like, I think Jacoby Myers is like, if Debo were on a worse offense and he weren't as talented. Yeah. So like historically you and I on this recap show would go game by game. And we would get to this game and talk about the Patriots and say, I'm not changing my opinion here. Like there's not enough. The running backs are complete dust. Would you rather put your hand in a vice grip for six hours or use a Patriots running back in full, full slay daily fantasy? Use a Patriots running back. That's a terrible answer. I mean, your tolerance for pain must be low. So like when you're, when your lead receiver has as many downfield pass attempts as you're. Not ideal. He completed it too. Yeah. And Jones then completed. Is Jacoby Myers the best quarterback for daily fantasy on this team? Who can say? Who can say? Let's get Jacoby QB eligibility. Yeah. I'm in for that. I just like, it's so hard for me to use anyone in this offense given how boring it is. Like, and I mean boring in the sense, I don't like to watch it, but also boring in the sense that like, it's a lot of hollow volume, the volume they do get. And the running backs don't get enough volume for it to matter to begin with. But like the receivers think it's a lot of hollow volume. Like, Johnny hasn't had more than six targets this year. Hunter Henry hasn't had more than six targets. They're spread out. They're not getting downfield look. Johnny had two last week, but like I'm not going to use the tight ends. I don't want to use Jacoby Myers. I feel like this offense is a cross off for me still. Yeah. I mean, so like a full season, Mac Jones has an A dot of seven point six, which is like kind of average. But his single game A dots have been six point three, four point six, 12 point one. Because they were down and they were desperate. And then five point three. So, you know. Unless they get way behind, he's not chucking it deep. So I just, anything way behind they're way behind probably because the offense isn't working. Yeah. That's the concern there. Either way, I think rookie quarterbacks encouraging stuff from Wilson, Fields, Lance and Lawrence. Does make their offenses more relevant, but important to keep in mind the context behind that as well. Talk about some more injuries here outside of the, the Chark ones, the Montgomery ones, Logan Thomas left in the first half of the hamstring injury and he was ruled out. D'Yammy Brown had a knee injury as well. Pretty big bummer to have a relevant tight end go down. Like the increase of the role for Terry McClourn a bit more because he's just got disgusting work right now. He had a monster game. He has 32% of the overall targets, 45% of the deep targets and 33% of the red zone targets. Curtis Daniel played 36% of the snaps in his debut, ran 12 routes. He'll probably get some more work as his role expands. Ricky Fields-Jones did run 26 routes and get four targets. So might be an option to tight end, but McClourn's role is firm and it is insane. So Brandon, how are you viewing this Washington offense under the assumption that we see them without Logan Thomas for a bit here? So can I ask you like a serious question before I say anything? Sure. I liked Taylor Heineke fine for this week in a very promising matchup, a good spot. Not gonna want to play Taylor Heineke very frequently. Have you seen enough from him that we can like trust like a McClourn or are you, because last year maybe it wasn't, but I've been a little bit on McClourn than you. I know you're past that hesitation, but like, do you still have reservations on Terry because of the quarterback? So my reservations with him have been different by year. The first year it was because of Pace, because they were running like this super run heavy, super slow offense. With Turner being the OC last year, they actually ran a pretty fast pace. So I was in there, but then the quarterback play catered and Dwayne Haskins was hideous, Alex Smith went and threw a down field. This year they have that pace still. It's pretty good and Heineke's relevant. The two reservations I've had are both gone. So I like McClourn a lot. Yeah, I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I was basically saying- That's a good question, because I have been, I poo pooed in plenty of times. This year is a very different situation. Yeah, I mean, their pace has been really good overall. And that's sustainable. That's a concerted thing that the coaching staff has done forever. Yeah, so I have no issues with Terry.  He could be upper sevens easily and it's justifiable, probably should be with that workload. Outside of that though, I don't know maybe out of like some value sprinkles of Ricky Seales-Jones. I can't really play Antonio Gibson anymore. He was hurt. Yeah, well, but I mean, JD McKissick's been relevant regardless. He's played well too. So it's not easy to go away. And so that's, I have a story. I mean, this week, McKissick had three red zone rushes. Gibson had one. I don't know exactly how that lined up with- Gibson had one out of seven in the red zone. Total chances this week. Last week, he had three of eight. He had none of five in week two and one of four in week one. He's had 17, 16 and 18 adjust opportunities to pass three weeks. He had 30 in week one. He has not got above 20 cents. And he's had 73 yards in each game at least, but he kind of needs to bust off a big one. Like he did two weeks or last week to really contribute. It was a good matchup. And he just like, the usage is not where you want it to be. Maybe it'll change as he gets healthier, but kind of want to see it first. Yeah, and in terms of season long analysis, I was very aware of the fact that Antonio Gibson had to have some touchdown regression. So I'm like, he's not going to score as frequently and he hasn't. But he's also not really getting a huge workload increase. The kind of murmurs that he would be much more involved with the passing game hasn't quite been there. So like this offense, probably just Maclaurin. I'm going to look up Ricky Seales Jones salary just to see what we're looking at there. 43. Okay. I was just guessing. He's 49. Yeah, that's high. It's fair, but like it's been hard to get like value tight ends with like, I feel like anyone who shows a pulse gets that bump right away. Right. Which is fair, you know, but that's a lot. For an uncertain role, they get New Orleans this week. New Orleans defense has played well before they ran into the freight train that is Daniel Jones. I think that like, because the volume is so good for Maclaurin, I wouldn't worry about the match up there, but like maybe that decreases your interest in chasing guys with shaky roles, specifically Ricky Seales Jones. Name a salary for Maclaurin. I already saw it. It's upper sevens. So I think that's fair. 74. It's not upper. Oh, okay. Sorry. I misread it. We were talking about Debo before. Maclaurin over Debo for me pretty easily. That's a very good example of where I am with Debo. Well, but like he wasn't 77 last week. I was talking about like before a salary is $7,700. What was what was Maclaurin last week? Like 71. So Maclaurin or Debo it, Maclaurin at 71 and Debo at 69. I was more inclined to stack the one game and that influences most of my. I'm trying to like put it in a vacuum. If they're similar salaries, I'm going to go with Terry Maclaurin. Like, yeah. To me, Debo's workload is not comparable to someone like Maclaurin. I mean, it literally is. Cause he's the same target share. I'm going to find it. I'm going to find a Debo bet for this week. I'll find one. Oh my gosh. I'm sorry. I just, I saw the, I saw the top five salaries at receiver. I didn't look above those guys. I'm going to keep, keep my mind clear. So we're going to do a new segment called salary scroll later on. We're going to scroll through salaries and see what stands out. So I'll hold off before I. I just saw the top five at receiver, but yeah. Okay. I think I'm doing a receiver anyway, right? I'll do a receiver. I'll do a receiver. Teddy Bridgewater left due to a concussion. So Drew Locke came in. Locke was terrible. He was at negative .33 passing that expected points per dropback and fairness. Teddy was at negative .27 before he left. They were already getting downgraded. They had some offensive line injuries at both guard spots. Cage, a handler gone, Jerry Judy out for now. And now they lose Bridgewater. So if Teddy misses time, how much are you downgrading the Denver offense under Drew Locke? A lot. They were already a team where I really needed a reason to believe in, in their game. I liked Cortland Sutton this week, but I didn't really get there because I think a salary was 6,300. They're really good salary for a receiver with that workload. I didn't like the game a lot. So I didn't quite get there. So it's going to take a little bit more even for me to want to play these guys. Now, I will say Noah Phan had six of Locke's targets. Sutton had five. Doesn't matter. They're playing Pittsburgh next week.  Oh, gosh. That's the worst game of the year. That game screams 13-10. I'll take the under on 23. Will Fuller hurt his hand for the Dolphins. He did not return. It led to some pretty concentrated targets for Devante Parker and Mike Gasicki. Parker, nine total targets. Three of those were deep. Gasicki had six total targets and two deep. They had the only five deep targets of the game. Jacoby Percet is not great, but the volume is volume. So how are you viewing Parker and Gasicki if Fuller misses time again? Yeah, I mean Parker at a 97% route rate. Gasicki, 73%. Like that's Parker at 127 air yards. Three deep targets, two red zone targets, two end zone targets. I'm a Devante Parker guy. Yeah. I can buy into that and if there's any sign that I wanna trust the other side of the game, I can bring it back with Parker. Mike Gasicki was one of my loves this week on the preview pod. Just because he was a tight end with some volume. We saw enough of that again this week where he would still be on the radar. I know he scored just the six targets, but that was 20% of the team's targets. He had a downfield target, a red zone target as well. So yeah, these two guys are on the list. Not sure about Jalen Waddell. I still, I don't have confirmation. They have a pronunciation guide on the website. It doesn't have Jalen Waddell Waddell on there. Like his family apparently says it's Waddell. Everyone calls him Waddell. So I get very insecure about the term I say his name, but I looked up, I Googled Miami Dolphin's pronunciation guide. You can listen to Mike Gasicki say his name that exact way, but there's no Jalen Waddell or Waddell and it bothers me so much. He probably knows, but I mean, he ran 85% of the routes, just four targets. So I think it'd be Parker and Gasicki and I'd just kind of feel okay with it. Yeah, I think that the problem is they're facing Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay's defensive line is going to bleep, bleep up. You can fill in the blanks there. So I know you're not a Red Sim guy. We've had this discussion. You got to make sure you go back and try to find some film of Jacobi Berset and some of the plays he made. In a good way or a bad way? No, just like kind of just like fallen over and like dropping the ball. Oh, so you pulled the Matt Ryan. Okay, good, good, good. And if you can compare someone to Matt Ryan when they're probably like seven or eight years younger than him? Good, just great. Revenge game didn't quite come through for all Jacobi there. The secondary for Tampa beat up, but like that defensive line is going to destroy worlds next week. Let's talk about some role changes here and interesting running back stuff right now. James Robinson was a feature back. Carlos Hyde was an active and I think that played a pretty big role here but Robinson played 94 or 95% of the snaps, eight to 20 running back carries for 70 yards and two touchdowns. He ran 20 to 25 routes, I think it was 18 to 20. Running back carries, ran 20 to 25 routes. Looked pretty good. Do we trust that when Carlos Hyde is back likely next week though? I don't know how you can in that situation. So maybe that's all right. They're facing Tennessee use defense as a wretched. It's going to end up being higher than I want. I would say probably like 65. I thought 63 and he is 74. My goodness. I knew it was going to be. So he had a lot of work even with Hyde active in week three 15 carries six targets there. Maybe I underestimated maybe 63 is too low but like I'm not going 74. I guarantee that like that's really high. Yeah, that's like, and we like this offense more. I knew we were going to talk about Robinson more in depth. So I wanted to just save it. Now he is one of seven backs. But like, will he next week? Will he? I didn't want to finish, I'm sorry. He is one of seven backs on the full season in healthy games to have played at least 70% of his team snaps. So it wasn't just week four. The snap rate's been fine. The workload hasn't been as good as it was this week. Yeah, 62% of the snaps, 74, 59, 95. He's topped 76 yards once. I'm okay not being there at 74. I think that's a little high. If we assume Hyde is back. If Hyde's not back, then sure, I can go in then. But if he is back, I think we can be a little pessimistic. Daryl Henderson came back and played his old role which was reassuring. I thought that was great. He played 89% of the snaps with 26 adjust opportunities which is carries plus two X targets. He had 116 yards from scrimmage. We had talked before about not trusting him. I'm over that. I trust him now. The problem is they play Thursday. So they're not in the main slate. I would have been very high on Daryl Henderson against the Seahawks. And I'm really bummed they're not in the main slate. But thoughts for you and Daryl Henderson? It'll be a fun game for me for a change to go over on the Q&A show. It's been a rough, rough two weeks since I took that show on. But yeah, he was second behind only the aforementioned James Robinson and running back snap rate this week. Not a whole lot of, you know, 80% running backs in the NFL right now. So the Henderson, I should have probably been more aggressive with him. I just didn't know if the workload would be scaled back because Sony Michelle was at least viable in week three. But now, yeah, it's gonna be pretty easy to like Daryl Henderson again. Yeah, I hope that he keeps that roll through this week so we can use him on the main slate again. Hopefully he just kind of does well, but not like blows things up on Thursday. Dalvin Cook is still banged up. He missed a good chunk of the second half, but returned, did play the final two drives, finished with 51% of the snaps, 21, adjust opportunities, 43% of the red zone chances. So it could have been worse, but obviously not fully healthy. So I think what I want to do, Brandon, they're playing Detroit this week. So I want to be there but I want to see him get into full practice by Friday. What about you? That would help because I need, I have to come a long way after this past week to want to play Dalvin, not because I don't trust him. It's just, I got burned. So, you know, personally, I got to overcome that. But that total is 49 and a half or seven and a half point favorites. There's a chance that that turns into like, Dalvin Cook doesn't play the fourth quarter game. I don't think it'll quite get there, but with that spread and with Detroit being, you know, beatable. Amazing. Sorry, I misinterpreted.  I know the team has said that like they need to win games and the Dalvin is basically how they win games. But if he's not a hundred percent and they're beating the Lions pretty handedly, like, are they just going to play Alexander Madison? Cause I would. Yeah.  So I think that, so before I input like the week forward, I had that expected spread at 10.1, which means that 7.5 is potentially an overreaction even to what we saw this past week from the Vikings offense. So I think it could be even worse than it looks. So that'd be a concern, but we'll see. If he gets into full practice, I'll still be there, but that's something to keep in the back of our minds. Cordell Patterson's role hasn't really changed, but he keeps confirming that his role is not like going away. He played 21 snaps Sunday, but turned that into 116 yards and three touchdowns. That is his second multi-touchdown game of the year. His second with a hundred plus yards and scrimmage. Calvin Ridley's role is a bit understated here, but he might be the best route for investing in this office going forward if you were to want to, but let's pretend Cordell Patterson were on the main slate this week. He's not, because he's in London. Let's pretend that he is though. What would you be willing to allocate towards him based on his current role? Assuming he has wider super eligibility? Yeah. I'd probably say like 66. Yeah, but I'd say 65. He performed well, but it wasn't a big role change. So I think that we were gonna admit 6,000, but like we can bump it a bit, but I wouldn't bump it up too much. I feel like because he succeeded and they threw him a pretty slick touchdown pass like on a fade basically, unless I'm imagining things, but I'm pretty sure I saw that one. There are so many Cordell touchdowns. It was hard to keep track, but I think that stuff probably earns him more work, but in terms of the actual what's on the paper and the snaps and like it's, I can't get out over my skis here. Correct, I agree. 66, 65 is probably the right range for him based on the current role. It could change, but for right now, we never want to assume change until, you know, because we usually don't get it. Rondell Moore and Cordell Patterson. Latavius Murray was the leadback for the Ravens this past week. Tyson Williams inactive. Levy on Bell was the number two guy. Latavius wound up having 18 carriers for 59 yards and a touchdown played 63% of the snaps. Levy on Bell ran four times for 11 yards and played 27% of the snaps. So Latavius is the leadback here, played well enough to probably keep that. Are you willing to play Latavius Murray in DFS based on what you saw there? Probably not. I mean, we're in 11 routes, they can get a target. We didn't use JK Dobbins last year very much. JK Dobbins, tiny bit more talented than Latavius. Murray, Murray got no targets. They're on Monday, which is fine. I wouldn't mind if you were on the main slate though, because I wouldn't fear getting burned by not using him, honestly. Yeah, I just, yeah. It's not enough there for me to wanna, yeah. I agree. It's not a role change, but Dalton Schultz, relevant at tight end for sure. He had eight targets this week on 22 attempts. Two of those were in the red zone. He has an 18% target share for the season, 23% in games without Michael Gallup. But I think it's relevant because they do have, they've been running more two tight end personnel with no Gallup. I believe Gallup is eligible to come off IR this week, but probably will not. So we already know this, Dalton Schultz 62. Where would you have put it based on this current role? Based on the current role, probably 6,062. I think that's very reasonable. Honestly, based on the workload itself as like a team leader and target share could even be higher, but I think he's like in that, I think he's right in that low 6,000 tier, and that's a pretty big tier this year. So. Like if I can get access to this Dallas offense, sweet. They're playing the Giants this week, that might be a pretty run heavy script again, but I mean, 23% target share is nice. Like I wouldn't project in there, obviously. That was 50 and a half. And the thing is like the Dallas games are almost always going to have high over unders. Yeah. And that, the chance for touchdowns should be greater because the offense is good. It's got a really good quarterback. So compared to like, if you compare him like straight up to T.J. Hawkinson, like I feel better about T.J. Hawkinson getting like maintaining like a team high target share. Right. I probably feel better about, or as like equal like as Dalton Schultz to score. From a ceiling perspective, you go Schultz because of the touchdown potential in that offense. From a median perspective, you go Hawkinson. I think that's the distinction there. Chuba Hubbard and relief for Christian McCaffrey lost a lot of passing game work to Rodney Smith. Hubbard played 47% of the snaps. Smith played 37%. Smith ran 16 rounds to Hubbard's 10. Chuba got early down work, but he lost that. The passing game work. And then got Vulture at the goal line by Sam Josh Allen-Darnold. So that was bad. Robbie Anderson came to life though. The first game with no Dan Arnold. I'm not sure if that matters, but like whatever. Robbie had 11 targets at two deep. DJ Moore had 12 targets. So let's assume CMC sits again next week. Are we okay to gloss over Chuba? And would you buy back into Robbie Anderson? Yeah, Anderson, I'll start with Chuba. I'm gonna gloss over him pretty easily. They do get Philly. He just had one red zone carry. He's 67, that's kind of high in regard. Sorry, did you say the salary you cut out for him? 67, that's too high for me. It is, I agree. What about Robbie? Yeah, so with Robbie, he had what? 7.4 Fandall points, based on his underlying data should have had 15.8. Good roll with that volume. Led the team in Ariards at 140. DJ Moore had 114. Four downfield targets, like that's juicy stuff. What's the spread? Is it still three and a half? So before inputting data from yesterday, I had that spread as being 6.5, like it should be six and a half. Yeah, I think you're... I don't know how much Carolina will get downgraded based on yesterday, but... Aren't you kind of down on Philly, like long-term? I bet against them in one way or another every week. I bet the under for Atlanta Philly, I bet against them with the 49ers, bet against them with the Chiefs. What was the other game? They played another game. Oh, with Dallas. I bet against them, like in terms of the spread, three straight weeks, and it's worked every time so far. And I feel like I'm probably going to be doing that again this week. Well, not against the spread, because in week one, you said the over-under. Well, I said the past three, though. Past three, I bet against them in terms of the spread. It's already been, yeah, okay. Yeah, so we're doing it again. This week, I think. Boy, that one, Robbie, DJ Moore, Devontae Smith. I'm basically always just going to be willing to play Jalen Hurts at this point. Yeah, for sure. And again, we talked, or I chose to talk about the Carolina defense entering this past week. Maybe not the 85. Well, they're not facing Dak this time. I know, I know. I mean, Hurts is fine, but he's not Dak. Like, Dak's great. Dak isn't on the left. Yeah, I know. I know. I got that. I wouldn't beat yourself up too much, champ. Although, if that Eagles offensive line doesn't get healthy, that could be really bad. Brian Burns might have six sacks. But anyway, Chuba's role is bad. Robbie is fine, but still kind of shaky to me as a way that I do this thing. DJ Moore's role is sick. I'll go back there for sure this week. But Anderson might be a little bit hesitant to buy that again still. With no Darius Layton or Stirling Shepard, the Giants offense got more concentrated. Cadarius, Tony, and Kenny Galladay had nine and seven targets, respectively. Evan Ingram and Saquon Barkley had six. Galladay, Tony, and John Ross all had two D targets. Love, John Ross. That's great. Saquon's role was awesome. 25 adjusted opportunities, 126 yards. You had five chances inside the red zone. So Daniel Jones played well in a tough situation. I am warming up to this Giants offense as a whole. What about you? I would assume higher on this offense than you. I like Daniel Jones for my season long standpoint just because on paper, he's got some good talent and we know that he can run the ball fast. He might not always stay on his feet. Sometimes he does though. But we can talk about the target shares here Tony led at 25% and then it was Galladay at 19%. Yeah. Like that's low. Like the volume wise, that sounds good. Market share wise, I need something above 20% to want to feel like good about. So probably higher on Saquon if they're going to let John Ross at least get out there and run some sprints. He had 21 routes, that lifts the lid. He also scored a touchdown. He did, yeah. He wasn't just doing cardio. No, he wasn't. But having that ability, having Ingram back, at least to take away something. I think if anything, this probably puts me higher on Saquon. I agree. I think that's the big takeaway here because what will Tony's role be once, still in Shepard's back, because he's good and they like him. So I don't know if the role is sustainable for Galladay and Tony. I'd be in a Galladay if they were to miss another week because they're facing Dallas. Like I'm not sure what Trevon Diggs will do in that game in terms of like where he would go, but I think Saquon's big takeaway there. Like Saquon, we've seen now three consecutive weeks of an 80% tar rate, I think an 80% snap share. Really good workloads. And he's looked amazing. So facing Dallas next week. Yeah, I was going to ask you. So I'll go first. For Saquon Barkley against Dallas, I would say $8,500. So yeah, he's played basically 83% of the snap. So at least in the past three, I would say, would you say 83? 85. Oh, 85. I think 82. 78. Okay. I think that we're looking for like work horse, or sorry, feature backs right now. We're getting one there at 78. He is a cash game staple to me, despite the fact there are seven and a half point dogs in that game. Yeah, let me note to future self, just just keep using Saquon.  So we were in on Saquon for sure. Austin Neckler is back in the main site. Mason Cleveland. Okay, we'll be back on Neckler too, but that helps a lot, honestly, in terms of the slate. But Daniel Jones playing well, respect to him. Thank you, Danny, for letting us use Saquon. A letter for Nets, Lombardi Lenny, featured back with no Giovanni Bernard. Fournet played 81% of the snaps. He had 30 adjust opportunities, 138 total yards, did lose a goal on Roush to Ronald Jones, but let's assume that Bernard misses again next week. Name that salary for Lombardi Lenny against the Dolphins. Boy, really, really good workload overall. His underlying data has him even better than his actual fandal output, so that's good to see. It's just gonna be tough because Acfield, but I'd probably go like 71. I thought 7,000, and he is $6,400. So keep an eye on Gio, see what Gio's looking like there, but I think that Lombardi Lenny might be in our collective consciousness for this next week. Let's move now to situations to monitor Brandon. Go ahead and run through some things that you are seeing right now in terms of workload that are relevant going forward. So I have one thing that jumped out to me was just Nick Trubb's role. I took him in the snake draft that you, me, and Jay-Jay Zacharison do, just because it feels a floor, but hasn't really, I mean, this past week was kind of unfortunate. Karim Hunt out snapped him 54% to 46%. Trubb had six of the 12 team opportunities in the red zone, compared to three of 12 for Hunt. Nine routes to Hunt 16. Karim Hunt was just in on the goal line at the end of the game, which was like not what you want to see. Cladded Rootsy Lair, kind of dusty, very dusty. 52% of the snaps, two of 11 chances inside the red zone. Daryl Williams had more red zone chances this week. And CEH hasn't topped 33% of the teams red zone chances in a game yet this year. Malcolm Brown basically just overtook the Miami backfield. Miles Gaskin, 25% of the snaps, which came after I traded for him with GM in the Dynasty League. Corey Davis, come home, come home, my son. Devontae Smith ran 46 routes, which was 10 more than any other Eagle. He had a team I-10 targets. His role is so secure that I think he's worth any risk involved with a high-high. C.G. Uzoma obviously blew up in an island game, but had a pretty good role. 82% of the snaps without T. Higgins would keep an eye out for Higgins. And I kind of think Sam Darnold is like, not maybe on the radar himself, because he's not going to run for multiple touchdowns, but I love this offense right now. So I feel really good with D.G. Moore, I'm gonna feel good with Robbie Anderson. I agree, Darnold's playing well. And it makes sense too, given that he's got Joe Brady and good pass catchers. So I think that makes sense. Things I'm keeping an eye on, Dawson Knox keeps on coming through. His role is not huge. He has 13% of the overall targets, but it does go up to 16% from week two on. His snap rate, lower in week one, went up in week number two. He has 21% of the red zone targets. So Stefan Diggs is I think the better route for investing in this offense, he's on the verge of like just torching a slate very soon, but Knox is viable for sure. Moily Cox saw some more work on Sunday, played a season high, 69% of the snaps, which is nice. He ran a route on just 16 and 34 drop backs, but five targets, 42 yards, not using him yet, but he's on the radar, at least as being a guy to monitor. D.K. Metcalf is similar to Stefan Diggs, where he's gonna just torch a slate very soon. 32% of the team's total targets and 50% of both the red zone and deep targets. If they ever like hit the right script where they have a good situation for passing and good play volume, D.K. Metcalf has like 40 burger in his range of outcomes. Same team, Chris Carson, fully dust, which is nice. No longer to consider him. He played 46% of the snaps, Alex Collins played 41% and got three of eight red zone chances. Carson got just one. So, Carson finally officially off the list. Let's move now into some philosophical changes that we took note of for this past week. For the Titans in their first game with no A.J. Brown and Julio Jones, Ryan Tannehill, struggled a lot. He averaged negative .02, passing that expected points per drop back against a really bad secondary. They threw 54% of the time and only down to the first half, which is actually higher than I thought it was gonna be. But Jeremy Mcnickles and Josh Reynolds led the way in targets, which is terrible. So how is this impacting your view of Derek Henry knowing the Titans offense is gonna struggle without Julio and A.J. Brown? Yeah, something we talk about all the time. We talked about that specifically with Henry. They were eighth in pass rate outside of like without garbage time included, which was nice. But I think that you have to downgrade running backs in bad situations. And don't like quote me on this, but I'm just kind of making a comparison. We have issues with like Saquon Barkley's offense. And he's like around 8,000 with his salary. I'm not saying it's the exact same thing, but I can't really justify 10,000 plus for Derek Henry with tons of offensive issues too. So like at a certain point, you gotta downgrade Henry's from a salary standpoint. And he was fine this week and they get Jacksonville this week. So it'll still be very relevant, but like I'd feel a lot better about it if he had Julio. Like if it's a one to one, I'd go say one, but I think that's, I feel a lot better if we get Julio back this week. The Bears led the league in non-garbage time pace and they ranked top 10 in pace the past three weeks of Justin Fields under center. So they rank fourth total, but they just didn't throw a whole lot. We talked about the Bears before. I think it is worth noting that their pace is not as bad as you might think. Arizona was off to a middling start in pace. They ranked 16th in pace and fourth in pass rate through the first two games, but they are now fourth in pace and 19th in pass rate.  However, the target shares are still super spread out. I feel better about embracing AJ Green given that he came through again this past week. But how are you looking at this team when everything is good except for the target shares? There's probably a perfect comp out there for a situation like this. The 2017 Tennessee Titans under Marcus Mariota. Kyler and Marcus are the same. Like there's volume, because it's not like it's the Ravens where they used to have guys at like the 22 to 17% target share, but that would lead to five targets for the team leader. Like Hopkins had seven targets, AJ Green six, and that works out to a 24% target share for Hopkins, which is higher than it had been entering, but it's still seven targets. And I kind of think like gone are the days where Hopkins gets consistently 30% of the team's targets, but he had two deep targets, two red zone targets. Like I feel good with him. I just need the salary to come way down. And for everyone else, you're just kind of like guessing. And at that point, yeah, AJ Green might score twice. Rondale Moore might have, or Christian Kirk too, they might have like an 80 yard touchdown. Their pass to like 20 are very small and all of them kind of have them. So it makes it really difficult from a daily fantasies standpoint. It does help that the Sours are still pretty muted. Kirk is 61, AJ Green 57. And like not everyone 57 is a path to a decent day. And I think AJ Green does have that at least. So, you know. It does help, but it's easy to say that until you're voting a lineup and you're like- We're not using it in cash games. I think that's the easiest thing to cross off. Yeah, right. But I'm saying like you're building tournament lineups and you're like, okay, well, I'm going to plug in Christian Kirk in this lineup and he might get- What I'm saying is I can use them in game stacks and at least there's a path there. I think I'd agree with you. We're like as a one-off play, it's okay to be lower. That's not what I'm saying though. Oh. I'm saying you're building a lineup and you play, didn't you say Kirk was 61? Mm-hmm.  You play Christian Kirk in that lineup. Now, if you don't like duplicate that lineup and play AJ Green there, you could have a really good lineup, but just guess wrong. Yeah. With Kirk versus AJ Green. So then you're basically saying like, okay, now I got to kind of have the same lineup. If you play this way, like what should I do? You got to like have the same lineup with both of those guys or neither of those guys or you pick one and you can pick wrong. And again, like their market shares are muted. The volume's decent, but you know, you get five targets from someone that around like 6,000, that can't really just derail an entire lineup. Yeah, I mean, it could, but like we care about sealing that floor and they have a ceiling like they can get there, they can pay off. So, you know, it happens. It's not ideal. I'm not happy about it, but I'm still going to stack Kyler. So I know, but I'm saying like there's no, there's no point in me like dwelling on something to stack Kyler anyway. It's like, who cares? I can't dwell on it. Yes, but it's easy to say that. And then you're like, okay, I played Christian Kirk this week, he had one target. You're going to roll out Kyler naked. No, I'm saying it's difficult. It's not as easy as saying like, I'll just, I'll just stack Kyler with Christian Kirk. And then it's like, if you played Kyler- Jalen Ramsey plays a lot in the slot and he was going to see a lot of Christian Kirk. So, you know, I was on AJ Green a lot and it worked out. You can predict it sometimes. Okay. It's all gravy baby. Then week two, Christian Kirk, four targets, three catches, 65 yards for eight points. I mean, like again, we don't focus on floor. Who cares? Like floor is not the point. Ceiling is the point. There are guys with ceilings hiding Kyler Murray. We might get it wrong. Who cares? It's CFS. Seattle ran a decent pace this week. They were fifth in pace. They've been pretty bad the past two weeks. The problem is that like they kind of scored too fast a couple of times. Their play volume has been like low even when they've played really well. This offense, like I love DK Metcalf and I want to be in on Russ, but like they haven't had stuff aligned yet. Do you think that's like a just a mismatch thing or is it legitimately like we may never get them to have everything the stars all line up for a blow up game? Well, like, don't they kind of always have one bad half? They have so far. Like their first half, because I was a little bit delayed this week.  Like Russ ran for a touchdown. I'm watching like the first half and like, oh, Seahawks have like negative two yards of offense. I'm like, what's going on here? Like is the app messed up? Is my Red Zone feed just like manipulated where they're showing me the wrong game? Right. It's a fear I have with this team. I'm always going to be interested in DK Metcalf because the underlying data is so good. I'm a little bit worn out on Russ though, because he's the kind of guy who can like, if he's not thrown for four touchdowns, I know he ran for a touchdown, but hasn't been running as much or kind of a lot this year. It just feels like if he's not throwing for four touchdowns, it doesn't matter. And like, that's a bad feeling. Right. I think the issue is when he does throw for four, it's still not like the yardage is not super high. That's on like 18 attempts for 170 yards. Right. Like the Jets game last year, I think you have like four touchdowns that scored like 23 Fando points. So like, I think it's fair to be like kind of annoyed. I'm still thinking like the right scripts. I will use him, but like, I'm never going to feel great about it right now. So it's kind of our mad as well. The Giants operated a faster clip recently. They've been top half in pace, three straight weeks after starting dead last in pace. And like it makes sense. You know, we've seen them kind of changed things up. We saw some more Daniel Jones leg stuff in there. It does seem like the offense may have changed a bit after the first few weeks. We talked about that in general though, where we're inching up on this Giants offense. Let's move now to salary scroll. First time we've done this before, we are going to go through the salaries over at Fando for the week five main slate. I had to look at wide receiver. So I'm going to do quarterback and wide receivers. So I'm going to let's, okay, with you. Any objections? Yeah. Okay. So quarterback right now, and I'm just going to shout out anything that stands out to me. Should I wait while you do quarterback and then I'll do running back? Yeah. So Justin Herbert $7,700. I think that is very interesting. Facing Cleveland, Cleveland's defense has played well recently, but you know, I think that's at least worth noting. If Tana thrill were to get Julio and AJ Brownback, he's 72, but I just don't think that's probably going to happen. So might not matter there. I think that's the key standards outside of Trey Lance who already discussed at $6,900. I think that Lance is a guide flag. And then most likely, $6,500, that's still low. Yeah. It is low, but like I, you were talking before about like ceiling. I'm not sure if he has like, like his path to 30 is pretty clouded. Yeah. Also, if we're going to do it like one by one, we could probably just do these together and see what jumps out. All right, let's go to running back then. Running back. Henry at 10, four is jumping out to me. I'm not saying it's wrong, but there are concerns. What do you think with Zeke at 8,000? I think that's about where he should be. I don't think he's under salary and I don't think he's over salary. I think that's about right. That feels right. He should have probably been there. He was 7,000 this week. He probably should have been like 75-ish and I should have played him. I didn't, but I would definitely play Zeke at that salary. Austin Eckler's 77. Take that. No objections there. Nick Chubb at 75 is kind of high for me at this point. Robinson is still high as well. It's $7,400. Scrolling down. What about Najee Harris? Because we're not going to go out of our way to talk about the Pittsburgh offense often. It's not good. Do you feel any pressure to play Najee? Because he's had 16.6, 21.2, 18.1. Can you make me regret not using him in that offense? If maybe he followed, that's such good production and he's had a touchdown in two of the three games, but that also means that with a touchdown, actually, so he's scored in two games and hasn't gotten to 20 fandal points in either of those games. So he has a lot of red zone work. So like the two touchdown game is fully in play. So maybe it could happen, but it's really hard for me to feel FOMO with an offense that hideous. If they start basing Rudolph, we can talk. But like, and they host Denver next week, so that's not really going to be a game where he projects to score twice. So that's going to be the game where he does score twice. Right. Alexander Madison to 65. Dalvin rest up, buddy. Like let's get that ankle right. Just chill out for a bit. Do you want to switch down to 6,900? That's 77 this week. So that's not noteworthy. I think that's the main ones. Probably going to do it. I mean, Tracer had a lot of carries. Yeah, I didn't get any targets. I don't think, you know, no targets 89 yards. Elijah Mitchell is probably going to be back. Seren played better. So I don't think he's like as automatically on the bench as he would have been before with Mitchell. But I am the Damian Williams. And if we get no Montgomery, Williams at 68 would be a pretty key focal point for this week. All right, ready for receiver? Yeah. Mike Williams at 77. That's the one that jumped out to me. Yeah, I think that's appropriate, right? Yeah, I mean, we don't know what it'll do on Monday night. Although Keenan's 72, that's low. That's, so I saw the top five, which is Devonte Adams, Justin Jefferson, DJ Moore. And then I saw Debo up there. And then I saw Mike Williams up there. I was like, this isn't like the usual top five. That's because there's no Tyreek. Sure, yeah. But like, there's no Michael Pittman. There's no digs on the main slate. There's no cup. There's no DK. There's actually a lot of top enders he was missing this week. But the salaries are still... Correct. They got bumped up to account for that. So let's look for some dudes who are, like I think Keenan's under salary at 72. I think that's a low number for him. CDLam is 69. I know he didn't do a lot this week, but like, I'm still kind of tempted by that. Yeah. Marvin's 66. I'm going to have so many lineups with Marvin Derek Henry, and that could either go really well or really poorly. Odell is 64. Kill me. Oh my gosh. I don't want to do it again. It was so painful. I was away into Odell this week too. Did you watch, do you see all those Baker throws? Dude, I'm telling you, I cannot watch Baker Mayfield. Yeah, I can't. I know you like him. I like him too. He was terrible. I love him, but he was terrible. I think every week on Red Zone, it's just like they're in the Red Zone and then they run the ball five times and then like kick a field goal or one of the two running back scores. I never feel like Baker is going to score a touchdown in the Red Zone. No. Kenny Galladay is 62. Devontae Smith is 6,000. I prefer Devontae over Kenny Galladay between those two salaries, but... Yeah. Allen Robinson's down. That's crazy. Darno Mooney is 56. Like I'm not going to feel great about it, but like I can at least have some as like a salary saver there. So I bet LaVisca Shinota 58 is in like all of the optimizers favorite like outputs because he's going to be projected for a high floor. I don't know if I would use him. Maybe just to help bring back Derek Henry Stax, but it's going to be more out of. Yeah. I prefer more of even at a higher salary there. So Robbie Anderson, Darno Mooney, A.G. Green, Devontae Parker. I would all rather play over Shinota, I think, straight up. Brandon Ayuk is 53. I'm not doing it, but I'm just like, oh, Curtis Samuel is 52 facing the Saints, but like his role should expand this week and potentially no Logan Thomas. That's not bad. I'm KJ Osborne at seven targets. He's had 26 yards in the past two games, but they're going to throw like three times in that game, though. That's true. He could have a 33 percent target share, get one target. That's the projection for that offense. All right, you ready for tight end? Yeah. OK, so there's no Kelsey. There is no Mark Andrews. It is bad. Waller seventy four kills sixty five. Hawkinson sixty four. Schultz sixty two. Goddard sixty. C.J. Zoma fifty five hundred dollars. What on earth is happening? That's the thing. Like it's I mean, he had a 82 percent route rate, but it's not making it easy to find. Big shot. Bob Tanya got the deep shot this past week. He has not. He's top ten ten yards in one game this year, but he's 53. Evan Ingram is 53 as well. He had six targets for twenty seven yards. He's in Max Williams 52. Yeah, Max Williams is actually the pride of Minnesota Golden Goffers. Yeah, I'm sure you bet you that there. Seven three five targets. Conference fifty one. Actually Blake Jarwin's five thousand dollars. Maybe that if you want to get exposure to that offense, it might not be a bad way to pin it off of Schultz. Save some salary there. So is Jones forty nine. I'd rather you see those Jones like Austin Hooper. I guess like that's the same salary. I'm just waiting. Well, never mind because even if they unleash Pat Fremont entirely, I don't want to play it off. Yeah, as the yardage upsides me pretty bad. Tommy Trembl didn't run a lot of routes in week four, but he ran more than he did previously. I'm not getting in there yet, but I'm at least keeping my eye on him. Like I'm not going to use in week five, but I'll keep my eye on him. I think Jared Cook might be the guy who stands out most of me from a sour perspective here. He jumped out to me a bit. So that's that's telling. I should have written all these down, but maybe I'll just to play it back. Because honestly, these guys should probably be the guys I put in my player pool that I think are relevant. This is why I thought this would be a good idea to do. Because honestly, had we done this last week, I probably would have been like, I think that's too low for Zeke. Yeah, probably too low for Saquon. Yeah, but you just get caught up in like just build a line up now and put it in. Yeah. So yeah, I thought line is defense is thirty hundred dollars. I know we're not doing defense. Also, the Vikings are thirty nine. You can do defense. Vikings are thirty nine against Jared Goff. Like that's just OK. Let's go to a note to future me after going through all this. What are you trying to make sure you don't forget about heading into week number five? Just play Saquon because I'm a dummy. If I don't, I still think that's a really good salary for him. Possibly be more open to some of the other quarterbacks. I've really basically been playing like Kyler, Lamar, Mahomes and Jalen Hurts. And like Josh, outside of that, it was the same save list. I had that. So, you know, Kyler is only eighty five. That's really reasonable for him. Yeah, it is. But I just should probably be a little bit more open to like a Herbert type guy. Yeah. And Lance or Taylor Heinecke. No, but trailer, I would say my note to future me is take advantage of the under salary running backs and to me, that means he's a lot of Saquon, probably a lot of Echler. Hopefully his role is still good and weak among the football and then probably Dean Williams, depending on what his role looks like. So just just use the under salary running backs, take the savings there and then figure out the rest from there. I think that's what I would be saying to me. Yeah. All right. So any final thoughts for you before we close up week number four? I think we covered a lot of what should matter from this week, which is obviously kind of the point of the show. We didn't look ahead as much as we have done in the past. There was a lot to recap. There was a lot to recap. So yeah, so had to go through a lot of that stuff. But we'll talk about that on Thursday. Make sure you are subscribed to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed. Wherever you get your podcasts, our week five recap hot or preview podcast will go up Thursday, probably around noon or so. It'll be live on YouTube at 10 a.m. On the Fandall YouTube page. Find it there. Hit subscribe and also hit subscribe on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed. I'm back on the PGA podcast tomorrow because no baseball. So that'll be exciting. No, no idea what's happened the past couple of weeks. No idea what term it is. But hey, Sam Burns, one Sam Burns one. Oh, boy, it was a distance. There was a distance course and a Bermuda course and Sam Burns. Oh, man, I don't have money on this.  OK, whatever. Well, now I'm mad. Anyway, back there tomorrow to talk PGA. We could find that there. Also, NASCAR coming back later on this week. Believe UFC as well. So a lot of good stuff here on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast. Seat. If you want a Monday Night Football preview, Ryan, Williams and I will be here at 4 p.m. On the Fandall YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Twitter pages, talking single game DFS and props 4 to 4 30 p.m. Eastern, YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Twitter. Brandon, if people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? I'm at Goodwill 13 GDULA13. And I'm at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the Fandall Podcast Network at Fandall Podcast. Big thank you to Evan for tuning in for today. Good luck to you with your Monday Night single game slates. We'll talk to you once again on Thursday to preview week number five. This has been a heat check fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaskiescasebrakes.com, coming at you with a quick little R&B, a random number block randomizer for these four teams right here for the Cup Hockey. We just need to do one more random number block if you're watching live and then we're in Brakesville. The Cup Hockey will be in a separate video. That's how the number blocks work. Big thanks to these folks for getting into it. There are the numbers right there. I think I grabbed the correct list, right, yes, for the Boston Bruins, blah, blah, blah. Alright, so let's roll it. Let's randomize it. Names and numbers, five and a two, seven times for names and numbers. One, two, three, four, and seventh and final time. Got Mike down to George, five and a two, seven times for the numbers. One, two, three, four, five, and seventh and final time. Good luck. We got four down to two. Alright, Mike, you have four. Jeff with three, David with five, Peter with nine, Ryan with eight, Eric with zero. So Eric, you'll get any and all redemptions for those four teams in that bottom tab right there, including one of one redemptions. Pretty rare, but sometimes we just have to say that. Kyle, you'll still get any live one of ones that we pull. Joseph with six, David with seven, and George with two. Let's order these numerically, and in a separate video will be the cup break itself. jaspyscasebreaks.com


キークロックで、ロジックオーサイレゼーションを 作ることを説明します。アーキテクトを作ることを 確保しています。このセッションは、 オーサイレゼーションを作ることを 作りましょう。まず、私の自分のアイテムを 説明します。私の名前は 吉比田畑です。私は、 オーサイレゼーションの コンサルタンです。私は、 セ英シからする多めの 働いた。私は、アーキテクト私のコンサルタンで のでこれは私、これは私がアーカイ系の ボスバース ouするオーサイレゼーションでの特徴 beautiful focusedオーセンティケーションオーサイレーションand the API management.For example, I contribute to Key Clock,IHT and Access Management OSSand Sleet Scale and API Management OSS.For these OSSI mainly develop features based on feedbackfrom actual projects like the above fields.And other activities I spoke at eventsエピアデース、エピアスペースケーション コンフォレンス、オースセキュリティーワークショップ、そしてその他のものです。そして、私は彼らのアイデンティー アクセスマジュメントについて説明しました。それでは始めましょう。まず、今日のコンテンツです。まず、オーサリゼーションの重要性を 描くことを説明します。そして、オーサリゼーションの スケーブルオーサリゼーションを描くことを説明します。今までは、オーサリゼーションとの大事なオーサリゼーションを 埋めるのは、之後にコンテンツ付いてオーファー 埋めることを説明しました。まず、オーサリゼーションの重要性を描くことを説明します。まず オーサリゼーションは何を言うのか?オーサリゼーションは 世代のコンビネーションを作る事に remains unproven activitiesオンセナリティサリとは不同ですオンセナリティサリは安定さ俺の個人情報性決刻のやりたいオンセナリティサリという資訊性は不要です例えば、ない種類のサーナーにはオンセナリティサリで適当な技能があるが、オーセンティケーションはリクエスに適切な技能をつけたりはある。例えば、オーセンティケーションを使っている社会の価値を抗うことができる。このようにオーセンティケーションとオーセンタの系統を分解するための重要な技能が要素。今日はオーセンティケーションに移行してみます。オーサイズレシピは 重要なセキュリティーを考えます例えば オーサイズレシピの10のエピアセキュリティーのリスク3のトップ5のセキュリティーリスクは オーサイズレシピの世界に入っています1. オブジェクトレベルオーサイズレシピ3. オブジェクトプロプティーレベルオーサイズレシピそして5. ファンクションレベルオーサイズレシピI briefly explain each security risksregarding number 1 ブロークオブジェクトレベルオーサイズレシピthis risk allows access to objects not permittedfor example user 101 can get user 102's resourcesthe resource server must not allow user 101 to obtain user 102's resourcesregarding number 3 ブロークオブジェクトプロプティーレベルオーサイズレシピthis risk allows access to objects properties not permittedfor example a general user 101 can change its rank to gold rankthe resource server must not allow a general user to change sensitive object property like rankregarding number 5 ブロークオブジェクトプロプティーレベルオーサイズレシピthis risk allows access to prohibited functionsfor example a general user 101 can call administrator functionsthe resource server must not allow a general user to call administrator functionslike this there are various level of authorizationall of which are considered high security risksso you can see how important authorization isnext I describe what scalable authorization isthe simplest authorization implementation is implementing it in application logicfor example when you'd like a user to access the protected resourceif they are an administrator you can implement it like thisif user.isAdmin then user can access the protected resourcesthis is a common implementation that we often seeand there is nothing wrong with implementing authorization this wayhowever as the service growsthe authorization logic quickly gets difficultfor example you may need to allow to access the protected resourcenot only for administratorsbut also for full-time workersor the resource management group membersin this case the number of conditions in the if statement increases dramaticallyalso in many cases duplicate implementations may be requiredin multiple places in the application logicor for multiple servicesthis is not a scalable authorization implementationtherefore some kind of ingenuity is requiredto make authorization implementation scalablethere is a common approach to ensure scalabilityby managing roles in a hierarchical structurethere are two layersthe user layers and the resource layerthe user layers roles are assigned to usersand the resource layers roles are assigned to resourcesfor example user101 is a directorand a full-time workerand belongs to the administration departmentin this case user101 will have the administrator roleof the resource servicein this case you only need to implement authorization like thisif user dot has a role resource service dot adminthen user can access the protected resourceeven if the authorization condition changes laterthe change will be absorbed by the role hierarchyas a result this reduces the impact on application logicin other words even if you may need to change the conditionsof who can access a protected resourceyou only need to change the relationshipbetween the user layers rolesand the resource layers rolenot to change the conditions of this if statementthis means authorization logicwere able to be separated from application logicit seems like high scalabilityhowever as the service growsthe number of roles increasesand there is a risk of a role explosionwhen role explosions occursystem performance is severely degradedothermore from another point of viewto authorize users by these rolesmultiple services may need to store duplicate role datain the end this is still low scalabilityand not a scalable authorization implementationso far to summarize what the idea-scalable authorization isto use the same application logicfor multiple servicesand to eliminate duplicate data as much as possiblein this example all servicesuses the same authorization logicwhich uses URIsspecifying resources and HTTP methodsspecifying what you do for the resourcesif what you need to implement for authorizationis only thisthis must be a scalable authorizationto realize this you need two thingsto separate authorization from application logicand to centralize authorization datanext I introduce how to implementthe idea-scalable authorization with kickrockfirst how to separate authorization from application logicto separate authorization from application logicthere are two waysimplementing authorization logic from scratchor using an external authorization servicethere are pros and consregarding from scratch wayif simple purpose from scratch is betterit is difficult to achieve fine-grained authorizationregarding the external service waymany services allow to definition of general purpose policiesto achieve fine-grained authorizationhowever the more general purpose policy definitionsare made possiblethe higher the learning costsfor defining policy tend to behere I will introducekickrock's authorization serviceas a just right purpose authorization servicethe meaning of just right purpose isthat kickrock's authorization serviceis based on avocattribute-based access control architectureand acts as PDPpolicy definition pointthis can achieve fine-grained authorizationlike the external service waybut by using kickrockwe can configure authorization using GUInot needing learning costshere I briefly introduce kickrockkickrock is identity and access management OSSand kickrock provides OS 2.0authorization server featuresand single-signal featureskickrock became a sedentive incubating project this Aprilhere I introduce four mainmeasure featuresfirst kickrock supports standardssuch as OS 2.0openly connect and sum upand so onand second kickrock can connect toexisting user stores held up and active directory serversthird kickrock can log inwith social networksgithub twitter facebook etcfinally kickrock provides a policy-basedauthorization serviceI describe kickrock's authorization servicein a little bit of detailby using kickrock's authorization servicewe can centralize authorization datato kickrock and eliminate to storageof duplicate authorization data in multiple serviceskickrock enables fine-grade authorizationby resource, scope, policyand permission managementthis management can be done by using kickrock GUIresource is a protected resourcethat needs to be authorizedscope is an actionthat can be performed on resourcespolicy is a conditionthat can be satisfied to access or perform operationspermission is coupling the policywith the protected resources and scopeskickrock can act as a PDPand make an authorization decisionusing these four types of definitionsthis example showshow to achieve scalable authorizationwith kickrock's authorization serviceby using authorization to kickrockand getting an authorization decisionpreviously required multiple API requestsbut now you can get an authorization decisionwith just one API requestthis is enhanced in kickrock 22and I committed to thiswhen delegating authorizationyou request the kickrock's token and pointwith an access tokenthat represents the userand specifyUMA ticket to grant typedecision to response modeURI and scope to permissionthen kickrock returns an authorization decisionjust results to or forin this example using thehtt method as scopeand the URI as resourcethis means authorization logic wasable to be separated from application logicand when the number of services increaseswe only need to write this same logicthen achieve the same kind of authorizationso it must be a scalable authorizationnext I focus on this access tokenthis is the overall flowof authorization and authentication by using kickrockaccording to OAuth 2.0the standard protocol for API authorizationwhen a client requests APIthe client commonly adds an access tokento the API request for authenticationso a service delegates authorizationwith the access token and kickrockevaluates policies using the access tokenplace an important rolefortunately kickrock can also actas an OAuth 2.0 authorization serverkickrock can issue the access tokenfollowing the OAuth 2.0 authorizationcalled grantI briefly describe this overall flowwhen a user uses a clientthe client makes an authorization requestafterward kickrock authenticatesand authorize the userthen makes an authorization responseafterward clients request tokenand kickrock issue tokensthen the client request an APIof the service with the access tokenthe service delegates authorizationwith the access tokenand authorization decision from kickrockif the authorization succeedsthe service returns a responseI mapped the standard specificationsto this overall flowthis token issurance is followingthe RFC 6749 OAuth 2.0authorization called grantand API request is followingthe RFC 6750 OAuth 2.0and authorization delegationis following ABACby using kickrock in this wayyou can achieve both API authorization and authenticationin a standards compliant and secure wayfor your reference I introduce another standard specificationcalled UMAuser managed access 2.0 grantby following the UMA 2.0 grantcan define permissions for their resourcesto third partiesso more flexible authorization is possiblewith various use casesfor example, a use case in which a resource ownerwants to publish their resources tosome third parties, third party clientsanother example is a use case in which resource ownerwants to change authorization policydynamically depends on their circumstanceskickrock is a UMA 2.0 compliant authorization serverthat provides most UMA capabilitiesfinally, I introduce advanced challengeswith opera and cockroach TVas I said before, to realize scalable authorizationyou need to centralize authorization datahowever, there is room for considerationof which is better centralized authorizationor distributed authorizationdistributed authorization meansauthorization at the edge of each servicehere I focus on the disadvantagesof centralized authorizationand tackle reducing the disadvantageshere for perspectives are listedscarability, performance, availabilityand consistencyregarding scalabilitycentralized authorization is better as I introducedin previous slidesthis is because multiple services do notneeds to store duplicate authorization dataand authorization logicregarding performance, distributedauthorization is betterbecause services only need to accesslocal authorization logicon the other hand, in centralized authorizationwhen centralized authorization servicesaredue to access the centralized authorization servicefor every API requestso this communication might have a negative impact on performanceregarding availabilitydistributed authorization is betterbecause even if some services go downthe rest services go well using their local authorization logicand centralized authorization services go downall services deny every API requestregarding consistencycentralized authorization is betterthis is because only the authorization servicemakes authorization decisionsso consistency in authorization decisionsbetween services is guaranteedthis is a common comparison betweencentralized authorization and distributed authorizationhowever, when performing decentralized authorizationwith KeyClock, this comparison is somewhat differentthis is because KeyClock is a member of CNSF familyand can be deployed in the samecompanies cluster as a servicethe performance delays due to communication are reducedalso regarding availabilityby scaling KeyClock instancesand making it a high availability configurationwe can reduce the risk of SPOFsingle point of failurealthough only with KeyClockwe have already reduced these disadvantagesin the next slides, I introduce other solutionsfirst, tack the performance challengeas I said, KeyClock is in the CNSF familyin local Kubernetescommunication to the centralized authorization serviceless has negative impacthowever, when performance requirements are too severenot to ignore the communication cost to KeyClockthere is another solution combined with OPPAas you may know, OPPA open policy agentis a general purpose policy engineusing the policy language called regalthere are mainly two options combined with OPPAoption one uses OPPA as just a cachethe sidecar OPPAjust by caching authorization decision from KeyClockand we can expect performance improvementof course, there is a trade-off with consistency in authorization decisionin this option, a service delegatesand OPPA cachesuntil the cache expiresthe service only needs to access local OPPAoption two uses OPPA as PDPpolicy definition point as shown below figurewe move the PDP functions to OPPAand dedicate KeyClock to PAPpolicy administration point KeyClock just by notifying events such as policy changesof course, OPPA requires storing duplicate authorization informationin this option, a service delegates authorizationto OPPAand then OPPA makes an authorization decisionby checking to stored authorization databy combining KeyClock with OPPA in these wayswe can solve the performance changenext, tack the availability changecombined with OPPA as mentioned before KeyClock resolve the availability change to some extentthis is because even if some services go downthe rest services go well using their local OPPAhere I would like to consider not only local failuresbut also wide area failuresCritical services that cannot stopcombined with Cockroach DBKeyClock can withstand regional failuresand operate in multi-cloud environmentsas you know, Cockroach DB is a new SQL DBand has multi-region capabilitiesas a note, KeyClock plans to support Cockroach DBbut doesn't officially support it yetby combining with Cockroach DBeven in the event of regional failuresor large-scale cloud failuresservices can go well by changing the connection destinationin the case of Cockroach DBby adoption and active strategythere is no need for kind of failover processingin the event of a failureso down time can be minimizedin this way by combining KeyClock with Cockroach DBwe can solve the availability changefinally, this is a summary of this sessionfirst, authorization is becoming more and more importantsecurity considerationthis is clear from worst top 10 APA security risksthat three of the top five security risks include authorizationsecond, to achieve scalable authorizationseparating authorization from application logicand centralized authorization data are the keywordsand I introduced how to achieve scalable authorization with KeyClockfinally, regarding the comparison between centralized authorizationand distributed authorizationI described these advantages of centralized authorizationcompared to distributed authorizationthen I described that KeyClock can reduce these disadvantages furthermore, I described that combined with Operawe can solve the performance challengeand combined with Cockroach DBwe can solve the availability challengethese are trademarksand that's all, thank you for listeningdoes anyone have any question?is there a mic?can you hear me?do you have a proof of concept or some kind of demoof the scalable authsy system that you presented?which thread do you mention?is it with Cockroach DB or Opera?further back, this slideis there some kind of demo example that you could provide us?your question is there any demo for authorization service?not right now, just perhaps we could talk afterwardsif you have some kind of example to showin this session I didn't prepare the demobut we can show some demomaybe Hitachi booth or KeyClock booth in this eventso if you visit the boothwe may be able to show demothank youI have a question too about high availability with KeyClockbut right now KeyClock supports HAwith distributed caching using Infinispanso I'm wondering why would you recommendwaiting to use Cockroach DB instead ofusing distributed caching at the momentsince it's already supportedokaythank you for questioning the KeyClockas you mentioned that uses Infinispanclass configurationbutcache layers configurationyou may need to considermorelevel layers configurationthen we need to configurewe need to consider this kind of approachand this is not only focused on thelocal failures but also wide area failuresso maybe the one option for disaster recovery scenarioso I introduce this kind of configurationthank you