May 26 Quick Kicks Podcast

We move into our fourth day of Fantasy Week as we enter the home stretch. The May 26 Quick Kicks Podcast features host Mark Schofield and guest Sigmund Bloom of Football Guys discussing nearly every player in football and their fantasy projections for the upcoming season. Whether quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, or even IDP selections, Sigmund has intriguing thoughts on nearly every aspect of the game. Topics this show include:

  • Ezekiel Elliott and why he is likely to be incredibly valuable as a rookie due to a combination of his skills and the system he landed in, including his ability to pass-protect on third down (2:15)
  • The 2016 wide receiver class, and who has the ability to have an early impact, versus the player who may have the highest upside for dynasty formats (7:16)
  • Rookie running backs aside from Elliott who may have value in single-season fantasy drafts, focusing on DeAndre Washington of the Oakland Raiders (10:28)
  • Myles Jack and Darron Lee and the IDP outlook for these two linebackers, focusing on scheme-fit and production within their respective systems (13:20)
  • The Raiders and why the NFL seems to be a more exciting league when Oakland is firing on all cylinders (17:13)
  • The potential for top QBs to be draft busts in fantasy football and alternative strategies for picking quarterbacks (20:44)
  • How looking at a player’s contract and subsequent negotiations with a team can give insight into their long-term plans for him for dynasty leagues (23:56)
  • The tight end position and how to deal with the black hole of information regarding week to week production for such an unpredictable position (28:45)

If you are having trouble with the embedded player, listen on our SoundCloud page.

Subscribe to ITP: The Podcast on our iTunes page.

Follow us on Twitter @ITPylon.

Music Credits
FilligarGuilty Good Intentions
Ronald Jenkees, “Disorganized Fun

One thought on “May 26 Quick Kicks Podcast

  1. Ⅰ simply couldn’t depart yiur website bеfore suggesting that
    I actually loed the usual information an individual provide in your visitors?
    Is going to be baϲk ⲟften in order to inspеct neeԝ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *