Hilow is a game theory expert (courses at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Northwestern) and tournament champion who focuses on mid/high-stakes single-entry/three-entry max
Week 1 slates are notorious for excessive value due to the amount of time that elapses between the pricing release and the actual slate itself. This week, however, feels a bit tighter than a standard Week 1. I believe that is due to the positions that have experienced the preseason injuries this year, with the bulk of them occurring at the wide receiver and tight end positions. As in, there has been exactly one backfield situation that has generated value relative to initial player pricing this year, compared to three to four in a standard season. That backfield is New Orleans, and we can expect the last remaining body to garner significant interest.
At the same time, player pricing is reduced across the board relative to where these players ended the season in 2022, making it feel like we’re building with a $52,000-$53,000 effective salary cap as opposed to the $50,000 limit or the effective $55,000+ salary cap we typically receive on most Week 1 slates. That’s an important finding as we begin our game theoretic journey this year for how it is likely to influence the chalk build – but more on that below.
The overall state of the slate includes about as much uncertainty as I can remember on any given slate. We also had more turnover in personnel and coaching this offseason than I can remember in recent history, leading to inherent variance in addition to the normal levels typically present in this beautiful game. There are but two games with a game total of more than 47.0 points, with the top expected game environment leagues above any other (Dolphins at Chargers). Behind that top expected game environment, there are multiple in the “uncertainty band” of 43.5-47.0 and a slew of games in the “meh” range below 43.0. But that all comes together to form quite the interesting slate for us critical thinkers, one that I am stoked to dive into. With that, I am damn glad to be back with y’all for another OWS season. Let’s dive in!
Quick explanation: restrictive chalk is an expected highly owned piece that restricts the maneuverability of the remainder of your roster while expansive chalk is an expected highly owned piece that allows for higher amounts of maneuverability on the remainder of your roster. Classifying various forms of chalk as either restrictive or expansive allows us to visualize what it means for roster construction on a given slate and how restrictive a certain player might be, meaning more of the field will look similar from a roster construction standpoint with that piece.
A defense as the single highest ownership piece on a slate of DFS? You know what to do from a theoretical standpoint. The obvious caveat here is they are in a solid on-paper spot, but I am almost always looking to leverage ownership at the most variant position.
No two ways to slice it – Justin Jefferson is one of the top overall plays on the slate from a raw points perspective. With pricing the way it is, I will have my exposure to this spot.
Look, I am one of the founding fathers of the Marvin Mims fan club as evident from my exorbitant amounts of ownership in Best Ball, to use an example close to home. That said, he remains a relative one-trick-pony in a downfield role, on an offense with some of the most uncertainty on this slate, with a quarterback coming off a career-worst year. That’s something I want exposure to at low ownership, not some of the highest on the slate.
I think the field is largely going to underplay the impact of the loss of left tackle Terron Armstead and the defensive coordinator coaching in this game. Tyreek carries a rock-solid range of outcomes, but he probably carries more uncertainty about his median than the other high-priced wide receivers on this slate. He’s Tyreek Hill, so we always need to keep him on the fringes of consideration, but the expected ownership paired with a game environment with more paths to failure than the field is likely to account for leads me to an underweight approach here.
Another piece from the same game environment as Tyreek Hill. Similar feelings.
I’ll cut straight to the chase here. Williams has a high volume expectation at a reasonable price, but that’s about where the positives end with his profile. The Titans have ranked first and sixth in yards allowed per carry over the previous two seasons and Williams is one of the lowest explosive run rate backs in the league. He could score twice and still not sniff a GPP-worthy score here.
I have very few hard and fast rules in DFS – playing Ja’Marr Chase against man coverage is one of them. New defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz is an aggressive playcaller that typically likes to utilize increased blitz rates and increased rates of Cover-1 and shadow coverage. That means we’re likely to see Denzel Ward lined up opposite Chase for most of the game, an individual matchup that is far less daunting than the field is likely to assume. Fire him up as a top play at the wide receiver position this week.
Sutton is in the realm of “must see plus volume and score multiple times to be GPP viable” for his moderate aDOT, possession-style role. Think Michael Thomas in a Sean Payton offense. The biggest problem I see beyond that is the fact that Russell Wilson is more gunslinger than finesse and timing, and Sutton was towards the bottom of the league in separation at target each of the previous three seasons. On the other hand, he has reportedly slimmed down and looks quicker than in years past. I side with him not likely to put up a score you couldn’t win without on this slate.
I think the field assumes Jeff Wilson being out automatically means Raheem Mostert is going to see 18+ opportunities in a solid spot. Mostert saw 18 touches twice all season last year in similar circumstances and the team should have a healthy Devon Achane and Salvon Ahmed after both were removed from the injury report Friday. Can he put 100 yards and two scores in this spot? Sure he can. Are those odds greater than his 15 percent ownership? Probably not.
