Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


78 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Chicago Bears
  1. I don't care what the situation. Deangelo for Dez is a terrible offer. The exact kind that belongs in this thread. No way. Ever. Should you trade Dez for Deangelo. Yeah, see - that's kinda my point. Many of the people in this thread think that too. Context doesn't matter....except it does. In every situation.
  2. And here we go. Yes, in a complete vacuum, Dez >>>>>>> DWilliams in dyno. But what if the team that has Dez also has OBJr., Antonio Brown and Fitz? And what if they can only start 2 WRs and no flex? The problem with this thread is that the "insulted" party posts their side, often rationalizing their stance and often leaves out huge chunks of details that would make the trade at least make some sense. There is no context whatsoever. The issue in this thread is that we are often trying to judge based an absolute dynasty value (i.e. in the proverbial vacuum) - however, all trades take place within the context of a league, with certain starting lineup requirements and involve teams with varying goals, ideologies, strengths, weaknesses, future draft picks, etc. Judging trades in a seasonal league is much easier - in dynasty, I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as many in this thread seem to think it is. And, as is typical, you left out the follow up and focused only on the initial offer. Diggs for DWill? Hardly "insulting" - and, as was said, probably shouldn't even be in this thread.
  3. Does not belong in this thread. It's a far worse off than many that have been posted so far. Are you saying you would trade a first round start up value like Dez for a 31 year old RB - that's playing very well right now but will go back to being a backup next year? Some one looking to move Williams has to set his sights much lower. Maybe if he just posted the Diggs offer you could make that claim, but even then it would still at least qualify as a bad offer This is the type of problem I have with this thread. If the team being offered DWill was in "win now" mode and was very deep at WR (and depending on how many WRs they start) - then it's not unreasonable at all. DWill will make many teams into Champions this season. He is arguably a solid RB1 the rest of the way (his last start being the outlier, imho) that most people either had stashed or snagged off the waiver wire. Will he go back to being a backup next year? Absolutely. But the check still cashes and championship banners fly forever. Frankly, I love playing in dynasty leagues with owners who will sell this year's title to try to assure they're in position to win one next year. The goal is to win. Now, if possible. Next year aint guaranteed to anyone. Just ask any of the owners who drafted/own L. Bell, J. Charles, A. Foster, S. Smiff, K. Allen, etc. Many of these "horrible" trades only look bad in a vacuum. Often the complainers posting don't list rosters, starting lineups, standings, etc.
  4. As a Bears fan, i actively root against 2 teams. The Packers - honestly because I was pretty much born with that. Second is the Patriots. That one was learned - basically because the team is a bunch of damn cheaters and their fans take every opportunity to be annoying and try to convince people that Brady is the GOAT. Solid work up in here.
  5. Snagged him dynasty. (D.Thomas owner to boot) There is a reason Elway snagged him in the second round. I trust that more than anything else I've read/seen.
  6. The slow WRs are still coming out of their breaks....wait for it..
  7. Okay - so in summary, 72% of FBGs are misguided on this topic, which has now been resolved. Can mod simply mark this one as "Solved", please? Good work everybody. Someone please cut off the lights before you leave. TIA.
  8. Read it. A few points that hardly make it a "closed case" (all quoted from linked article): So now they've changed their mind?? Oh and also: Oh wait, they didn't change their mind - they LOST it. That's freaking ape-#### crazy talk. If self-aggrandizing crazy people who think a freaking hot dog is it's "food category" are your primary and most definitive source, than I do think the case is closed - only not in the way you think it is. Craptacular.
  9. I'm glad somebody brought this up, I was about...wait. WTF does this even mean????
  10. Well, is a privately held company with a deeply religious foundation. And according to Wiki The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." So...yeah. Nice . Typical FFA silliness - feign ignorance, then argue when anyone tries to disagree with your pre-conceived notion. Crap like this is why I generally stay out of here.
  11. I eat a couple cans a week. Great lowfat snack Except that they're not "low fat" - one ounce (about 6-8 black olives) has 3 grams of fat - or 25 of the 32 calories from fat. 75%+ calories from fat is not a low fat snack in my book. Plus they taste like ####.
  12. No one is arguing that it is. Sometimes you can be such an ignoramus.
  • Create New...