The NFL Continuity Index: Part 1
Can measuring how similar an NFL team is to previous years lead us to better predict their 2017 games? We start with the NFC West.
“Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.” You see that disclaimer in just about every form of investment you will make in your life. However, isn’t it funny how gamblers not only seem to ignore that, they actually embrace the past? Everywhere you look inside a casino- the roulette wheel, the baccarat table, definitely at the race and sportsbook- you will see someone basing their decision to bet off of a previous outcome that has little-to-no correlation to the event they bet on. It is mind-blowing when you think about the thousands of people in casinos at any given time, wagering vast sums of money based on a fallacy that literally is a disclaimer if they were to invest that money instead.
Sports betting has its own unique version of this fallacy. No doubt if you ever listened to a “tout” before (a tout being someone who sells information on who to bet on), they will offer some inane stat like: “The Bears are 10–6 against the spread all time on Monday night when playing on the road vs. a division opponent who just lost while playing in the rain to a team with a losing record coming off a bye.” Now before you fact check me to tell me the Bears are actually 1–1–1 ATS vs. an opponent in those conditions, of course I just made this up to make my point- which is that touts quote obscure stats as a way to add credibility to their predictions- like they know the “secret formula” for picking winners that you don’t. Do these stats really have any value though? My instinct is to say no, but I’m never one to dismiss anything out-of hand without trying to prove it first. This got me thinking: What is the best way to evaluate the past? As a veteran of the sports statistics industry (like I did with my previous post when I created a more accurate strength of schedule- yes a shameless plug), I decided to the best way to figure this out was to create my own unique metric.
My hypothesis is this: The best way to measure the predictability of a team is to measure how similar the team is to previous versions of themselves. The more continuity an NFL team has, the more you can use their past performance to predict future results. So to measure continuity, I wanted to come up with a transparent methodology and run it uniformly across each NFL team to make it as objective as possible. In deciding the methodology, I put a lot of thought into determining how much time is needed for a team to come together- this is the big variable, as there seems to be no right answer. Some teams gel almost immediately, some teams never find the right chemistry. But since an important aspect for this metric is to put historical results in context to the future, I concluded that 3 years on a team is the right amount of time to both fully absorb the culture and system of the team, and provide enough of a historical body of work to trust previous results. In the end I came up with 7 data points, then weighted the points that I believe are the most important to continuity (as well as deducted points based upon how long players or coaches have been on the team) to come up with a 100 point scale, so that in essence the number can equal a continuity percentage. The methodology is as follows:
- Coaching staff: How long has the head coach, offensive, and defensive coordinators been with the team? (0–20 pt scale) Coaches with 3 or more years with the organization doing the same job get a perfect continuity rating. 2 years (means they are going into year 3) gets 2/3 for their rating (a 33% penalty), 1 year is a 1/3 (66%) penalty, an no experience at the job is a 0 (zero) rating. This metric is divided by coach.
- Quarterback & System: How long has the QB been playing in the same offense? (0–20 pts) QBs with 3 or more years as the starter receives a perfect continuity rating. 2 years (means they are going into year 3) gets 2/3 for their rating (33% penalty), 1 year is 1/3 (66% penalty), first year as a starter is a 0 (zero) rating. That is combined with any changes to the system- so a 5 year starter at QB gets a perfect continuity score, but if it is their first year with a new system then the rating is divided in half.
- Defensive Scheme: How long has the team been in the same defensive system? (0–20 pts) Defenses with 3 or more years playing the same system get a perfect continuity rating. 2 years gets 2/3 for their rating (33% penalty), 1 year is 1/3 (66% penalty), A new scheme will have a 0 (zero) rating. Note that a change in the defensive coordinator does not necessarily mean there is a change in scheme.
- Offensive Line: How long has the O-line been playing together? How much turnover have they had? (0–10 pts) Linemen with 3 years as a starter get a perfect continuity rating. 2 years gets 2/3 for their rating (33% penalty), 1 year is 1/3 (66% penalty), if the player is in their first year as the starter or if there is a position where the starter is undecided, it has a 0 rating. The metric is divided by player.
- Defensive Personnel: How long has the defense played together? How much turnover have they had? (0–11 pts) Defenders with 3 years as a starter get a perfect continuity rating. 2 years gets 2/3 for their rating (33% penalty), 1 year is 1/3 (66% penalty), if the player is in their first year as the starter or if there is a position where the starter is undecided, it has a 0 rating. The metric is divided by player, with each starter counting for 1 point.
- Offensive Skill Players: How long have the top skill position players been on the team? How long have they been the top performer on their team? (0–10 pts) “Top skill player” is defined as who led the team in rushing and receiving, and how long they have done it. Players with 3 years as a team leader in their respective categories get a perfect continuity rating. 2 years gets 2/3 for their rating (33% penalty), 1 year is 1/3 (66% penalty), If a team leader from another team is new to this team, but his previous stats would have led the team, he is considered a “first year” team leader, and the rating is zero. A zero rating is also given to a rookie who heads the depth chart on the team. (e.g. Zeke Elliot last season) The metric is divided by player.
- Front Office: How long has the GM/Front Office been in place? (0–9 pts) GMs working for 3 or more years with the organization doing the same job get a perfect continuity rating. 2 years (means they are going into year 3) gets 2/3 for their rating (33% penalty), 1 year is 1/3 (66% penalty), and no experience at the job is a 0 (zero) rating.
There were further variables I considered. I thought about adding the impact a star player has on a team’s gameplanning, but it felt a bit redundant to the “top skill players” metric. I also thought about adding the age of a player as a depreciating metric, but then I think about Tom Brady or James Harrison and what they are doing, as well as the way players understand how to take care of themselves now, and it makes me hesitate to use age depreciation into any current evaluation. In the end, while I’d like for this index to be as comprehensive as possible, sticking to “time on the team, time in the system” as the core measurement will create a uniformity in the metric that I can always go back and analyze later.
I also want to show my work as a way to separate myself from the ProFootballFocus and Football Outsiders of the world. While I admire and respect the job they do, it’s also frustrating not knowing exactly how they come to their conclusions. Watching tape can be interpretive and subjective- plus we aren’t in the headsets of the coaches at the time, so we really don’t know if what happened was by design or who made a mistake. Perhaps what looked to be an errant throw was actually the correct read, and it was the receiver who ran the wrong route. (I haven’t forgotten about you, Neil O’Donnell!) Neither Football Outsiders or ProFootballFocus show the complete methodology behind the stats they create, which means their conclusions, while seemingly accurate, are nearly impossible to peer review.
On the other hand, I welcome the peer review- if someone reads this, checks my math, and finds something wrong or a mitigating factor that would make this index more accurate, I’m all for it, as the more accurate this is, the more helpful the tool it becomes- and I believe this could be very helpful in predicting outcomes of certain teams, while subsequently giving you an understanding that certain teams are going to look nothing like their predecessors.
The premise is that the higher the number on this index, the more predictable the team will be to their past results, and even more specifically, teams with high continuity numbers will have games that will end up being close to the betting line, especially if playing an opponent with an equally high number. This metric has more than just pure betting implications though- I see it equally as valuable when picking your fantasy team, as continuity is an excellent way to determine if a player’s previous performance is translatable to the upcoming season.
Isn’t continuity the ultimate goal of an NFL team? Its certainly seems that the best teams are also the most stable. However, there is a certain amount of contradiction that NFL coaches have to deal with: How to be unpredictable enough that your opponent is never sure what you will do, but not so unpredictable that players don’t know their roles and end up playing with uneasiness. The best coaching staffs like the Patriots seem to thread this needle with ease. Other coaches that I will not name here (let’s just say that their name rhymes with “Blip Belly”) try to outmaneuver their opponents so much that they end up hurting their own team more than their opposition. But at least anecdotally, it certainly seems that the best teams are the highly stable ones, while teams that struggle feed into a vicious cycle of change.
So this is Part 1 of a continuity analysis of every team for 2017, broken down by division. We will start with the NFC West. Here is a tl;dr version if you just want to see the final totals:
Cardinals 88.6 out of 100
Seahawks 85.1 out of 100
Rams 34.9 out of 100
49ers 18 out of 100
And here is the full breakdown and analysis for the continuity of each team for 2017:
Arizona Cardinals: 88.6% Continuity
Coaches: (Years completed in position) Bruce Arians HC (3+ Years), Tom Moore Assist. HC/OC (3+ Years), Harold Goodwin OC (3+ Years), James Bettcher DC (2 Years) Continuity Score: 18.3 out of 20
QB & System: (Years on team and in system) Carson Palmer (3+ Years, Both) Continuity Score: 20 out of 20
Defensive Scheme: (Years in system going into 2017) Base 34 Hybrid Mix Z/M (3+ Years) James Bettcher DC (3+ Years in System) Continuity Score: 20 out of 20
Offensive Line: 3+ year starters: (3) two-year starters: (1) one-year starters: (0) first year starter or position battle: (1) Continuity Score: 7.6 out of 10
Defensive Personnel: 3+ year starters: (3) two-year starters: (2) one-year starters: (3) first year starter or position battle: (3) Continuity Score: 5.3 out of 11
Top Skill Positions: Leading Rusher: David Johnson (2 Years) Leading Receiver: Larry Fitzgerald (3+ Years) Continuity Score: 8.3 out of 10
Front Office: Steve Keim GM (3+ years) Continuity Score: 9 out of 9
Analysis:
The Cardinals are a bit of a surprise here, in that they aren’t the first team that comes to mind when you think about teams that have been together for a while- but especially on offense, they have nearly perfect continuity. Things likely will change after this season though, as this could be the last year on the Cards for both Carson Palmer and Larry Fitzgerald due to the respective ages and cap considerations. One could even say that the Cardinals themselves are in a “contract year” because of this, which if you’re optimistic, might be an indication that they are poised to have a bounce-back season.
However, the Cardinals are also the team with the most snaps lost (meaning they have the biggest turnover in their roster heading into the season), but it is almost entirely on defense, which plays out in their mediocre 5.3 “Defensive Personnel” rating. I don’t think it is going to be that dramatic of a change though because their perfect continuity score for their defensive system should mitigate their personnel losses. The defense was surprisingly good in yards allowed per game in 2016 (2nd), so even a mild slip in the rankings means this will still be a solid, above-average defensive side.
The Cardinals have a very stable front office and have had excellent drafts in recent years, and this is another mitigating factor in overcoming the most snaps lost of any team. If any team has put themselves in position to handle “next man up,” it’s this team. They very much deserve their perfect score in the front office, but keep in mind that this is based only on continuity, not actual performance. (Though the two tend to go hand-in-hand.)
The Cardinals look like a highly stable team on offense for 2017, which should bode well if you are expecting a repeat fantasy performance from David Johnson. The only thing that concerns me is if he’s coming back fully healed, and of course if Carson Palmer can play all 16. If so, I’d expect them to hold steady as a top 10 offense. If I had to worry, it would be age depreciation of Palmer/Fitzgerald. If those two drop off, then this entire team could bottom out. But hey, its not like Carson Palmer gets hurt very often, right? Nevermind. Don’t answer that.
Seattle Seahawks: 85.1% Continuity
Coaches: (Years completed in position) Pete Carroll HC (3+ Years) Darrell Bevell OC (3+ Years) Kris Richard DC (2 Years) Continuity Score: 17.8 out of 20
QB & System: (Years on team and in system) Russell Wilson (3+Years & in System) Continuity Score: 20 out of 20
Defensive Scheme: (Years in system) Base 43- “Cover 3” (3+ Years) Continuity Score: 20 out of 20
Offensive Line: 3+ year starters: (1) two-year starters: (1) one-year starters: (2) first year starter or position battle: (1) Continuity Score: 4.6 out of 10
Defensive Personnel : 3+ year starters: (7) two-year starters: (2) one-year starters: (1) first year starter or position battle: (1) Continuity Score: 8.6 out of 11
Top Skill Positions: Leading Rusher : Thomas Rawls (Position Battle) Leading Receiver: Doug Baldwin (3+ Years) Continuity Score: 5 out of 10
Front Office: John Schneider GM (3+ Years) Continuity Score: 9 out of 9
Analysis:
Spoiler Alert: The Seahawks have a lot of continuity. Ok, so maybe that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, since at face value all the most prominent pieces of this team have been together for a while, but the minor surprise here is that the Cardinals edged them out. I certainly didn’t think that would be the case going into this, but I also think the difference between the teams’ scores doesn’t matter that much either. One of the biggest takeaways I got from doing this is that continuity is an “either you have it or you don’t” proposition. So it doesn’t really matter that much if the Cardinals are a few points higher- both teams have a lot of continuity. What is relevant to me is that the aspect that gave them the biggest deduction in continuity is also considered their biggest liability: their offensive line. So that gives a little bit of validation to what we are trying to accomplish here, which is trying to give a quantitative measurement to the somewhat abstract concept of continuity.
The Seahawks will look the same on defense, though as we saw at the end of last year, they need a healthy Earl Thomas to run their scheme effectively. With him, their defense is a work of art, like a Picasso: Seemingly simple to execute, but difficult to figure out. Without him? It ended up more like a Jackson Pollock, it that it looked like a big mess. (No offense to the one Jackson Pollock fan reading this.)
Speaking of “no offense”, the Seahawks were schizophrenic last year on that side of the ball. In 5 games they scored only one TD or less, but then in 5 games they also scored over 30 points. That’s not great when trying to analyze a team’s predictability, though 4 of the 5 low scoring games were on the road, and 4 out of the 5 high scoring games were at home- so at least there is some consistency to their inconsistency. Is there a reason for this disparity? Well one thing is clear: The Seahawks don’t have the same offensive identity from their Marshawn Lynch days. However, the main reason for the problems on offense might have been Russell Wilson’s hidden injuries. Although he started every game, he played hurt all throughout the year, injuring his ankle in week one, then suffering subsequent knee and pectoral injuries. This led to Russell running far less (a career low 72 attempts) and throwing more (a career high 546 attempts) in 2016. So taking into consideration Russell being healthier, and Pete Carroll’s insistence that they want to run the ball more, a case could be made that the 2017 Seahawks will look a lot more like the 2015 Seahawks than 2016’s team.
If this is the case, then from a fantasy perspective, it makes me like the prospects of Jimmy Graham and Doug Baldwin less, and Eddie Lacy/Thomas Rawls more, though there is an open question on how that duo will work together, as well as find snaps for CJ Prosise. This is an opposite problem than what we are used to seeing in the Seahawks backfield, in that they haven’t had a full, healthy season from an RB in a while. However, if someone does emerge as a clear favorite out of the backfield, I see that player being undervalued based on the Seahawks’ passing the ball more than they wanted to last year. And again-when trying to base future results off the past, it helps if you get the context of the past right- therefore if you are basing the Seahawks’ past off of their 2016 season, it’s likely you aren’t going to get a true measurement of what’s to come.
Lastly, the Seahawks coaching and front office are all virtually perfect from a continuity perspective. The FO has done a phenomenal job finding players to fit their specific schemes, and the coaches create an intense and unique atmosphere that the players seem to thrive on. Their only slight deduction in continuity comes from other teams picking off their coordinators to be head coaches, so it’s no surprise that “the Carroll coaching tree” is the fastest growing in the league, and with success comes imitation. However, the other teams that tried to copy the “Legion of Boom” style Cover-3 found out something that the Seahawks themselves learned at the end of last year: There is only one Earl Thomas.
Los Angeles Rams: 34.9% Continuity
Coaches: (Years completed in position) Sean McVay HC and Playcaller (First Year) Matt LaFleur OC (First Year) Wade Phillips DC (First Year) Continuity Score: 0 out of 20
QB & System: (Years on team and in system) Jared Goff (1 Year, First in System) Continuity Score: 3.7 out of 20
Defensive Scheme: (Years in system) Base 34? (First Year) Continuity Score: 0 out of 20
Offensive Line: 3+ year starters: (1) two-year starters: (2) one-year starters: (0) first year starter or position battle: (2) Continuity Score: 4.6 out of 10
Defensive Personnel : 3+ year starters: (8) two-year starters: (2) one-year starters: (0) first year starter or position battle: (1) Continuity Score: 9.3 out of 11
Top Skill Positions: Leading Rusher : Todd Gurley (2 Years) Leading Receiver: Tavon Austin (3+ Years) Continuity Score: 8.3 out of 10
Front Office: Les Snead GM (3+ Years) Continuity Score: 10 of 10
Analysis:
At face value, there are many obvious reasons why the Rams lack continuity. New coaches, new systems on both sides of the ball, and although it isn’t measured in this metric, they even have new facilities that they are working from. But as bad as the Rams’ continuity score is, an argument could be made that it could be even worse, as the bright spots for them should have a couple of asterisks next to it. First, the good news is that their defense has spent the most time playing together of any unit in the NFC. The asterisk? Wade Phillips is a 3–4 coach, and the Rams have previously been a consistent 4–3. I think Aaron Donald will be great anywhere you put him, but will Robert Quinn flourish in a Von Miller-type LB role? There are a lot more questions than you’d think from a defense that has spent this much time playing together.
Second, the front office has a lot of continuity, but their asterisk is that they bet the farm on Jared Goff, which now puts a lot of pressure on the organization to be right. If Goff doesn’t make the leap with Sean McVay, then ownership could (and should) hold Les Snead accountable. It doesn’t help that Goff has to start all over in a new system. Fortunately, McVay has a reputation for being a quarterback whisperer, which presumably is the reason why the Rams made him head coach. Now I’m not suggesting that the Rams overreached with McVay- he may very well have been the best guy for the job in general. But it does suggest the team is heavily invested, from the coaching staff to the front office, in Jared Goff. So simply put, the Rams need Goff to be better, now. There is no three-year plan for quarterbacks anymore, especially when you are drafted with the #1 overall pick- Cam Newton and Andrew Luck are recent testaments to this. Plus there is the added indignity of Carson Wentz having a much better rookie season than Goff, but now Goff has to start all over while Wentz gets more comfortable with another year in the same system. This leads me to believe that the gap between the two players will widen before it closes, which means the pressure is on for Goff to close that gap before the Rams front office ends up being fired for their decision to draft him. Therefore, my contention is that all this underlying pressure is bad for continuity, making the Rams situation worse. If things go bad for this team again in 2017, I wouldn’t be surprised if Les Snead gets sent packing, even before the season ends. After all, they did the same thing to Jeff Fisher last year.
From a fantasy football perspective, the big question is how will Todd Gurley be utilized? Until I see differently, Gurley is a stay-away for me- Let someone else draft him in the first or second round, as I’m certain in those rounds I can get a player just as productive as Gurley, but on a more predictable and better offense. I’d probably only start to consider Gurley in Round 3, but even then it would be based on who is available. As far as anyone else, I’d like to look at how Washington ran their offense and tell you that McVay’s system is going to turn Tavon Austin into the next DeSean Jackson, but I can’t, because it all hinges on Goff, and unfortunately, I haven’t seen all that much to like in Goff yet. Therefore, any opinion you have on this team should not be based on anything you saw from them in previous years. So if a tout tells you to bet on the Rams this year based upon having some great record historically in a certain scenario, feel free to laugh in their face. You’d be doing them a favor.
San Francisco 49ers: 18% Continuity
Coaches: (Years completed in position) Kyle Shanahan HC, playcaller and OC (First Year) Robert Saleh DC (First Year) Continuity Score: 0 out of 20
QB & System: (Years on team and in system) Brian Hoyer (First Year, 1 Year in System) Continuity Score: 3.3 out of 20
Defensive Scheme: (Years in system) Base 43 Cover 3? (First Year) Continuity Score: 0 out of 20
Offensive Line: 3+ year starters: (1) two-year starters: (1) one-year starters: (2) first year starter or position battle: (1) Continuity Score: 4.6 out of 10
Defensive Personnel: 3+ year starters: (3) two-year starters: (1) one-year starters: (4) first year starter or position battle: (3) Continuity Score: 5 out of 11
Top Skill Positions: Leading Rusher: Carlos Hyde (3+ Years) Leading Receiver: Pierre Garcon (First Year) Continuity Score: 5 out of 10
Front Office: John Lynch GM (First Year) Continuity Score: 0 of 10
Analysis:
The 49ers are in a much-needed rebuilding phase after the short Chip Kelly era mercifully ended. (As you might now be guessing, I wasn’t a big fan of Chip.) Obviously, that is going to wreck havoc on a team’s continuity, but if you are going to blow things up, I’m in favor of full measures. I think it’s a great idea for a new regime to start fresh, with everyone on the same page. In a way, that gives a type of hidden continuity to the team in-and-of itself. That’s why even though the 49ers and (try to act surprised about this) the Browns may have measurably worse continuity ratings than the Rams, I still feel the Rams situation is just as bad. (But let’s face it: Whether you get a 35 or an 18 on a test, you still failed miserably.)
Offensively, Kyle Shanahan running the Falcons offense last year to the 49ers offense this year is like downgrading from a brand new Corvette to a Cavalier that used to be a rental car. Now maybe Shanahan is a genius, and he can turn his Chevy Cavalier into a monster that crushes the rest of the league, but it isn’t like there’s a ton of Julio Joneses out there that can be picked up off the street and cut and pasted into his offense. And no offense to Brian Hoyer, who had a couple of surprisingly good games with the Bears last year, but he more resembles Ryan Fitzpatrick than he does Matt Ryan.
What Hoyer does bring is a guy who has a year in Shanahan’s offense, and who along with Pierre Garcon (2 years with Shanahan in Washington) can help to communicate it effectively to the rest of the team. Both are also good
locker room guys who will immediately take leadership roles without having to worry too much about having to give a lot of deference to the old hierarchy, as there isn’t much left in place.
It seems like John Lynch, in his first year as a GM or in a front office in any capacity, is doing an excellent job at taking locker room dynamics into consideration, as he is not too far removed from being in one himself. He also killed it in his first draft, as I have no doubt it was true he was considering Reuben Foster with the 2nd overall pick, only to steal him when he slid to 31. It wasn’t on the field that he had his problems, and no one in the 2017 draft had better tape than Foster. So with Foster, Solomon Thomas, DeForest Buckner last year, and Arik Armstead the year before, That’s a nice nucleus of young talent on the front 7- but how is it all going to come together? Enter Robert Saleh as defensive coordinator. He’s a first time DC who I admit I’d never heard of before, so what scheme is he going to install? Well, he spent his last 6 years coaching with Gus Bradley, so I think it’s safe to assume they are going to go with a Seattle-type 43 scheme, especially since Shanahan just came from a team with that type of defense in Atlanta. I would count on some growing pains, as the transition wasn’t seamless in either Atlanta or Jacksonville, where Saleh was LB coach last year. I don’t know much about the man or his personal philosophy or what wrinkles he may want to add, so there isn’t a good way to accurately predict how the 49ers defense will perform in 2017, but they clearly have a lot of good young talent to work with on that side of the ball.
Finally, from a fantasy perspective, it’s hard to like anyone on this team. RB Carlos Hyde doesn’t seem to have the luxury of being treated like an incumbent for the starting job, and besides him there isn’t a player worth drafting as a fantasy starter. Even with Garcon being the “#1 WR,” there is no guarantee that he and Hoyer will click or that the offense will be centered around anyone. My read here is that the 49ers know who they are this year, and will “game manage” on offense, and rely on their more talented defense to keep games close. That’s not going to bode well for fantasy stats, but if the defense can come together quickly, then they might win a few more games than you’ll expect in year one of the new regime.
So in conclusion, the NFC West is the division with the most contrast, as we have two of the teams with the most continuity, and two of the teams with the least. The application of this indicates that past performance will be a reasonable metric to consider when evaluating the Cardinals and Seahawks, but becomes almost meaningless for the Rams and 49ers. In particular, this should mean that when the Cardinals and Seahawks play each other, their outcome should have a high degree of predictability. This is helpful to know from a DFS (Daily Fantasy Sports) perspective, but for betting purposes, this should also mean that their outcome will more likely end up close to what the spread for the game is, because if something is predictable, then you can be sure that Vegas will be good at predicting it.
As far as trying to profit on what was learned here, If the Cardinals and Seahawks are destined to have outcomes close to the spread, I might try a 2 team teaser on both sides when they play. For example, the Cardinals and Seahawks play in Arizona Week 10. CG Technologies, which put out advance odds for every game already, has it at Seahawks -1.5. A 6 point teaser on both sides would give me Cardinals +7.5 & Seahawks +4.5, which means I am betting that the outcome will stay within those margins. (Good odds for a 2 team 6 point teaser is 11 to 10, or -110.) Considering that they finished tied, if you had made the same two team teaser when they played last year, you would’ve looked like a genius. And isn’t that what we all strive for? Well that, and making a little money.
This is part one of a 9 part series which will be published in total by the start of the season. (I decided to break it down by division once I realized this was approaching a ridiculous 50,000 words. If Bill Simmons were still alive, even he might think that was too much.) For part 2 we will cover the NFC South, so be sure to follow me on twitter as I tweet out links to new articles as soon as they are published. Also, feel free contact me with any feedback you may have- I am always interested in learning insights from knowledgeable fans. And If you aren’t particularly knowledgeable, that’s ok too.
