Sanders/Ridley for Godwin/Diggs? (1 Viewer)

On the surface, this looks like a good deal.  I am pretty weak at wide receiver and I don't believe giving up Sanders would be too much.  However, with the flexibility of the 2 flex spots, am I getting better or making a lateral move?  

FYI...our rookie/free agent draft begins on 8/1.  I currently hold pick 1.4 and was planning to take Lamb if he's still there.

12-team dynasty.

Starters:  1 QB; 1 RB; 1 WR; 1 TE; 2 RB/WR/TE; 1 D/ST; 1 K

Current Roster:

QB:  Watson, Lock

RB:  Elliott, Drake, Sanders, Hunt, J. Jackson, D. Harris

WR:  Boyd, Coutee, Hardman, Diontae Johnson, Pascal, Ridley, Woods

TE:  Andrews, I. Smith

pkroper22 said:

On the surface, this looks like a good deal.  I am pretty weak at wide receiver and I don't believe giving up Sanders would be too much.  However, with the flexibility of the 2 flex spots, am I getting better or making a lateral move?  

FYI...our rookie/free agent draft begins on 8/1.  I currently hold pick 1.4 and was planning to take Lamb if he's still there.

12-team dynasty.

Starters:  1 QB; 1 RB; 1 WR; 1 TE; 2 RB/WR/TE; 1 D/ST; 1 K

Current Roster:

QB:  Watson, Lock

RB:  Elliott, Drake, Sanders, Hunt, J. Jackson, D. Harris

WR:  Boyd, Coutee, Hardman, Diontae Johnson, Pascal, Ridley, Woods

TE:  Andrews, I. Smith

Click to expand...

This trade is very even I believe. Comparing projections over the season you make out 13 points better over the season for ppr, and 6 points better for half ppr, and virtually even for standard. This is because in ppr Woods is more valuable than in standard.

You would get upgrade from Godwin to Ridley, but downgrade at flex from Sanders to Woods. So slight advantage in getting Godwin.

However, 13 points over the season is less than one point per game. 
 

I think RBs are difficult to come by this season. You have great depth already at WR. Boyd decent. Hard man has upside. Johnson may be the lead dog in Pittsburgh by seasons end. 
 

Sanders is the only RB of significance on that roster. I anticipate he is a three down back and only guy getting touches except for breathers. Plus he is a young guy with good future. But if you do the trade you get Diggs for depth.

So it is a tough decision for me. I guess if you go with Godwin/Diggs you should draft RB. Maybe Swift or Akers. 
 

I’d probably do the trade and draft a RB. 

Very even trade and you need more help at WR than RB.  Generally I would say the Sanders side but given your roster I think it makes sense to stabilize your WR corps.  You now have your must play WR1 and can mix and match your lineup flexibility from there.  With your current roster there is no for sure WR1 that is always in your lineup.  That could lead to making wrong matchup decisions that frustrate you.  Because of that I would go with the trade to get Godwin.

Let's look at how it affects your likely weekly lineup -

Currently you'd probably start Elliott, Drake, Sanders then probably Ridley (with Boyd, depending on how he does with rookie QB, Johnson a possibility as well if he continues trend from last season, and Woods based on matchup/performance)

If you do the deal, you'd start Elliott, Drake, Godwin and then have the same group of WRs, just with Diggs tossed in to the mix and Ridley taken out of it.

I personally think the 3 RB lineup with Ridley looks quite a bit stronger than the potential post trade lineup, and with the #4 pick you can still afford to take best player available (be that RB or WR)

I would do the trade for Godwin & Diggs.  It may be a lateral move overall, but i still like it for your team position-wise.

for me, value wise, Godwin/Diggs side for me.  As most say, a solid #1 type WR with Godwin.  With this, for the #4 pick, take the best player available.

I think consensus is that you need to go BPA with the 1.4, don't just zero in on Lamb no matter what.

As for the deal, it is close as others have said, though apparently I am the contrarian in liking Sanders and Ridley in your lineup over Godwin and whichever WR has the hot hand. Maybe the others are higher on Diggs than I am, as I think the leading factor for me is that I have Ridley well ahead of Diggs in my short and long term projections, as with Diggs I just see him as a JAG with the other WRs that you already have. Sanders/Godwin is pretty much a push IMO.

Thank you for the input guys.  I decided to accept the trade.  I prefer being able to have a guy that I can lockdown at a position and I think Godwin does that for me at WR.  It's always frustrating trying to pick which guy will have the best week, which is what I had with my current WR group last year.  Hopefully, Godwin cures all that.

In regards to the 1.04 pick, I normally go with BPA and believed if Lamb was available I'd have the best of both worlds with getting a top notch receiver in a position of need.  However, with this trade, if the guys on my board are that close together, going RB will probably be the tiebreaker.

Thanks as always gentlemen.

acarey50 said:

I think consensus is that you need to go BPA with the 1.4, don't just zero in on Lamb no matter what.

As for the deal, it is close as others have said, though apparently I am the contrarian in liking Sanders and Ridley in your lineup over Godwin and whichever WR has the hot hand. Maybe the others are higher on Diggs than I am, as I think the leading factor for me is that I have Ridley well ahead of Diggs in my short and long term projections, as with Diggs I just see him as a JAG with the other WRs that you already have. Sanders/Godwin is pretty much a push IMO.

Click to expand...

He would probably bench Diggs and play Woods in starting lineup. therefore his lineup scoring improves slightly. So starting line up wise it is Sanders and Ridley or Woods and Godwin. Pretty fair trade though. Like him accepting if he snags CEH.