2013 Off Season Dynasty Trade Thread (for completed trades) (3 Viewers)

[Concept Coop]

I am thinking Le'Veon Bell who just turned 21 has a great chance for mid to low rb2 stats this year and chance for mid to low rb1 stats over the next 5 years assuming he stays healthy. Looks like a great trade for the guy who traded away MJD.

Historically speaking, there is more than a 50% chance that Bell never does anything important, fantasy wise. I think that's why it's close; it's a gamble.

 

[kutta]

Mjd3.05For1.06. Pick was OTC and the guy took Leveon bell

The guy getting MJD is going to regret that.

I'd rather have MJD over 1.06, and its not even remotely close in my mind.

Yea, that's what I'm thinking. 28-year old workhorse back for the 1.06? Yahtzee! Who are you going to get at the 1.06 that is better than even one or two years of a feature back?

I am thinking Le'Veon Bell who just turned 21 has a great chance for mid to low rb2 stats this year and chance for mid to low rb1 stats over the next 5 years assuming he stays healthy. Looks like a great trade for the guy who traded away MJD.

Only one in four RBs drafted in the 2nd round give you 50 career VBD. MJD should surpass that in 2013 alone if he's healthy. 28 year old stud >>>>>>>>>> young mediocrity. Unless your team is an absolute dog for the next few years this is a slam dunk in favor of MJD. The odds of a random 2nd round rookie RB giving 5+ years of RB1 production are obscenely low.

Bell is not a random 2nd round rookie. He is a specific 2nd round rookie. Have you looked at 2nd round rookie RB's with a clear path to being the starter and who the coaches have called a 3-down back? What are the chances they become fantasy relevant?

And how do you know that Bell is mediocre? We haven't seen him take a snap in the NFL.

You make a lot of snap judgments based upon cherry-picked stats in that post.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Interesting that you consider looking at every RB drafted in the 2nd round over the last 20 years "cherry picking." It's a fact that more than 70% of round 2 RBs are completely insignificant fantasy-wise. And they're all random rookies until we actually see them on an NFL field. The guys who invest millions on the scouting process run a hit rate well below 50% in round two. I'm guessing that no one doing this as a hobby is doing any better than the actual NFL GMs.

 

[Concept Coop]

And how do you know that Bell is mediocre? We haven't seen him take a snap in the NFL.

You make a lot of snap judgments based upon cherry-picked stats in that post.

You're both right - 2nd round RBs bust at a high rate, and Bell has a better than average opportunity - the truth is likely in the middle. But I wouldn't call his stats cherry-picked. It's 10 years of blanket data.

 

[djb916420]

Team A gave: A.Foster/Roddy/Gates

Team B gave: Trent/2014 1st

I'd rather get Foster and Roddy here. I think both have plenty of tread left.

I was on the side landing Trent....Could regret this one come week 1 but I felt my team was competitive without Roddy and landing the 1st was icing for me.

 

[kutta]

Interesting that you consider looking at every RB drafted in the 2nd round over the last 20 years "cherry picking." It's a fact that more than 70% of round 2 RBs are completely insignificant fantasy-wise. And they're all random rookies until we actually see them on an NFL field. The guys who invest millions on the scouting process run a hit rate well below 50% in round two. I'm guessing that no one doing this as a hobby is doing any better than the actual NFL GMs.

They are not all random rookies. Some go to good situations and some go to bad. Do you not think situation matters?

Instead of looking at "2nd round RB's," how about looking at "the first five RB's drafted?" There are all kinds of stats you can look at, and my point is that you picked "random 2nd round RB" because it makes your argument look better. If I look at "first five RB's drafted," those numbers are going to look much better. If I look at "2nd round RB's with very little competition for carries," those numbers are going to look much better also.

I agree with Coop. It is probably somewhere in the middle based upon his situation. We don't know if he is going to be successful. But we do know he went to a good spot and will most likely win the starting job. That makes him more valuable than just a "random 2nd round RB." How much more valuable is yet to be seen.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

If I owned MJD I would want more than the 1.06.

If I was buying MJD I would not pay the 1.06. Lis Frank is not a RB's friend. MJD pretty clearly already lost a step in 2011/2012... he is a gamble after another injury.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

MJD pretty clearly already lost a step in 2011/2012.

Wat?In 2011 he led the NFL in rushing. In both years he had a higher YPC than he had from 2007 - 2010, despite having rookie and 2nd year Blaine Gabbert at QB.The injury is a legitimate concern. I personally feel that him playing for his last NFL contract more than outweighs that. Guess we'll see...

 

[Concept Coop]

MJD pretty clearly already lost a step in 2011/2012.

Wat?In 2011 he led the NFL in rushing. In both years he had a higher YPC than he had from 2007 - 2010, despite having rookie and 2nd year Blaine Gabbert at QB.

Yeah - for my money, he was the best RB in the NFL in 2011. That level of production despite the awful situation is impressive.

 

[doowain]

Team A gave: A.Foster/Roddy/Gates

Team B gave: Trent/2014 1st

I'd rather get Foster and Roddy here. I think both have plenty of tread left.

I was on the side landing Trent....Could regret this one come week 1 but I felt my team was competitive without Roddy and landing the 1st was icing for me.

I'd give Foster/Roddy/Gates just for Trent. Getting the 1st on top was robbery.

 

[ghostguy123]

Interesting that you consider looking at every RB drafted in the 2nd round over the last 20 years "cherry picking." It's a fact that more than 70% of round 2 RBs are completely insignificant fantasy-wise. And they're all random rookies until we actually see them on an NFL field. The guys who invest millions on the scouting process run a hit rate well below 50% in round two. I'm guessing that no one doing this as a hobby is doing any better than the actual NFL GMs.

Going back 20 years probably isnt that good to do here, since RBs are going later and later every year, so the top RB talent that used to get drafted in the first round is now slipping to the 2nd round.

I still take MJD there if my team can win now, but I am fully prepared for him to start sucking soon. Maybe even this year. However, I think whatever rookie you get at pick 6 isnt leading your team anywhere like MJD can.

 

[ghostguy123]

Team A gave: A.Foster/Roddy/Gates

Team B gave: Trent/2014 1st

I'd rather get Foster and Roddy here. I think both have plenty of tread left.

I was on the side landing Trent....Could regret this one come week 1 but I felt my team was competitive without Roddy and landing the 1st was icing for me.

I'd give Foster/Roddy/Gates just for Trent. Getting the 1st on top was robbery.

I am not sure I can call it robbery when the Foster/White side will get drastically higher production over the next 3 years than Richardson will give. After that it looks good sure. Assuming Richardson is still playing well at that time.

I think this is one where my roster definitely matters, but I think if I am competitive I would deal Trich for that and be even more competitive for a while

 

[humpback]

Team A gave: A.Foster/Roddy/Gates

Team B gave: Trent/2014 1st

I'd rather get Foster and Roddy here. I think both have plenty of tread left.

I was on the side landing Trent....Could regret this one come week 1 but I felt my team was competitive without Roddy and landing the 1st was icing for me.

I like this long term, but I think Foster outscores Trent this year as well, so you're most likely going to be less competitive now.

Interesting that you consider looking at every RB drafted in the 2nd round over the last 20 years "cherry picking." It's a fact that more than 70% of round 2 RBs are completely insignificant fantasy-wise. And they're all random rookies until we actually see them on an NFL field. The guys who invest millions on the scouting process run a hit rate well below 50% in round two. I'm guessing that no one doing this as a hobby is doing any better than the actual NFL GMs.

Going back 20 years probably isnt that good to do here, since RBs are going later and later every year, so the top RB talent that used to get drafted in the first round is now slipping to the 2nd round.

I still take MJD there if my team can win now, but I am fully prepared for him to start sucking soon. Maybe even this year. However, I think whatever rookie you get at pick 6 isnt leading your team anywhere like MJD can.

This really isn't true.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Of course situation matters. But IMO it matters much less in a dynasty format. I also wouldn't necessarily call Pittsburgh a good situation for a RB. Sure, the competition is garbage there. But so is the offensive line. And they're a passing team built around their franchise QB. And Ben has never been a guy who checks down to his RBs much.Bell might be the best guy on the roster currently -- but IMO that certainly doesn't make him a lock for fantasy relevance even this year, much less in 2014, 2015, etc.Obviously there are exceptions, but IMO trying to out-think historical data going back years is a low percentage bet. As is projecting long term value based on a one time snapshot of a teams' roster makeup at this particular moment in time. But to each his own.

Interesting that you consider looking at every RB drafted in the 2nd round over the last 20 years "cherry picking." It's a fact that more than 70% of round 2 RBs are completely insignificant fantasy-wise. And they're all random rookies until we actually see them on an NFL field. The guys who invest millions on the scouting process run a hit rate well below 50% in round two. I'm guessing that no one doing this as a hobby is doing any better than the actual NFL GMs.

They are not all random rookies. Some go to good situations and some go to bad. Do you not think situation matters? Instead of looking at "2nd round RB's," how about looking at "the first five RB's drafted?" There are all kinds of stats you can look at, and my point is that you picked "random 2nd round RB" because it makes your argument look better. If I look at "first five RB's drafted," those numbers are going to look much better. If I look at "2nd round RB's with very little competition for carries," those numbers are going to look much better also. I agree with Coop. It is probably somewhere in the middle based upon his situation. We don't know if he is going to be successful. But we do know he went to a good spot and will most likely win the starting job. That makes him more valuable than just a "random 2nd round RB." How much more valuable is yet to be seen.

 

[Concept Coop]

I'd give Foster/Roddy/Gates just for Trent. Getting the 1st on top was robbery.

I'm torn. I think everyone would make the deal for Trent if we have the luxary. But over the next two years, Foster > Richardson and Roddy > Pick. If it brings you a championship it's hard to call it robbery. In a vacuum I do like the Trent side, however.

Going back 20 years probably isnt that good to do here, since RBs are going later and later every year, so the top RB talent that used to get drafted in the first round is now slipping to the 2nd round.

Right. But teams are less likely to use a single back, thus, fewer quality options.

 

[EBF]

This really isn't true.

Yea, don't let the fact that this year's RB class sucks trick you into believing that teams won't spend a first round pick on a RB.

 

[doowain]

Team A gave: A.Foster/Roddy/Gates

Team B gave: Trent/2014 1st

I'd rather get Foster and Roddy here. I think both have plenty of tread left.

I was on the side landing Trent....Could regret this one come week 1 but I felt my team was competitive without Roddy and landing the 1st was icing for me.

I'd give Foster/Roddy/Gates just for Trent. Getting the 1st on top was robbery.

I am not sure I can call it robbery when the Foster/White side will get drastically higher production over the next 3 years than Richardson will give. After that it looks good sure. Assuming Richardson is still playing well at that time.

I think this is one where my roster definitely matters, but I think if I am competitive I would deal Trich for that and be even more competitive for a while

Foster will not be producing at his current level in 3 years. Neither will Roddy. Both are on the downslope of their productivity. Foster may not even be Top 5 this year. If his YPC drops again this year, he isn't going to have the heavy workload to offset it with a healthy Tate (and rookies) in the mix.

 

[ghostguy123]

I'd give Foster/Roddy/Gates just for Trent. Getting the 1st on top was robbery.

I'm torn. I think everyone would make the deal for Trent if we have the luxary. But over the next two years, Foster > Richardson and Roddy > Pick. If it brings you a championship it's hard to call it robbery. In a vacuum I do like the Trent side, however.

>Going back 20 years probably isnt that good to do here, since RBs are going later and later every year, so the top RB talent that used to get drafted in the first round is now slipping to the 2nd round.

Right. But teams are less likely to use a single back, thus, fewer quality options.

"quality fantasy RB" determination is also changing, which influences things. How many "feature" backs are there now compared to 10-20 years ago?? Like 1/3? 1/4??

Plus, just using the stat "2nd round RB" isnt very good anyway. A lot of RBs have been drafted in the 2nd round for teams who have ZERO intention of making them some 20 touch per week kind of player, in which case, these guys shouldnt be looked at in the first round of fantasy drafts anyway. Adding those guys into the equation will just skew the stats.

 

[ghostguy123]

This really isn't true.

Yea, don't let the fact that this year's RB class sucks trick you into believing that teams won't spend a first round pick on a RB.

Thats not what I am saying. Teams are placing less priority on drafting a RB early, and also going to more 2 RB type systems where the starter doesnt get 25 touches every week.

No more Touchdown Tommy Vardells going in the 1st round.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Most of my leagues will be awarding trophies in 2013 and 2014 as well as 2015 forward. And both Trent and the Browns have some serious improving to do for Richardson to come even ballpark close to the production that Foster alone provides, much less multiple years of Foster + White.

Team A gave: A.Foster/Roddy/Gates Team B gave: Trent/2014 1st

I'd rather get Foster and Roddy here. I think both have plenty of tread left.

I was on the side landing Trent....Could regret this one come week 1 but I felt my team was competitive without Roddy and landing the 1st was icing for me.

I'd give Foster/Roddy/Gates just for Trent. Getting the 1st on top was robbery.

I am not sure I can call it robbery when the Foster/White side will get drastically higher production over the next 3 years than Richardson will give. After that it looks good sure. Assuming Richardson is still playing well at that time. I think this is one where my roster definitely matters, but I think if I am competitive I would deal Trich for that and be even more competitive for a while

Foster will not be producing at his current level in 3 years. Neither will Roddy. Both are on the downslope of their productivity. Foster may not even be Top 5 this year. If his YPC drops again this year, he isn't going to have the heavy workload to offset it with a healthy Tate (and rookies) in the mix.

 

[EBF]

Trent is worth two Fosters. Add in a 1st for White and I agree that it's a lopsided deal.

 

[menobrown]

Mjd3.05For1.06. Pick was OTC and the guy took Leveon bell

The guy getting MJD is going to regret that.

Could not agree more

 

[Concept Coop]

Trent is worth two Fosters. Add in a 1st for White and I agree that it's a lopsided deal.

Trent is likely my #1 RB in a weak dynasty crop, but I don't think he's worth anywhere near two Arian Fosters. He's got chronic knee issues and a 3.5 career YPC. I fully expect that to rise, and am willing to gamble on his knee, as Cleveland did, but he’s not a young Adrian Peterson or LT2.

The benefit of starting Arian Foster as your RB2 is league winning. Give me championships.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Mjd3.05For1.06. Pick was OTC and the guy took Leveon bell

The guy getting MJD is going to regret that.

I'd rather have MJD over 1.06, and its not even remotely close in my mind.

Yea, that's what I'm thinking. 28-year old workhorse back for the 1.06? Yahtzee! Who are you going to get at the 1.06 that is better than even one or two years of a feature back?

He already said the guy took Le'Veon Bell with the 1.06.

Bell may very well give you one or two years of a feature back within the next one or two years.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Trent is worth two Fosters. Add in a 1st for White and I agree that it's a lopsided deal.

Yeah, we know you hate Foster and think it's time to bail on players before they hit the wall at 25. But in reality, Richardson looked average at best last year and his value was based 100% on sheer volume (which is exactly what you've been bagging on Forte for for years), and the Browns are the worst run franchise in the NFL, maybe in all of professional sports. Two years, maybe less, of Foster + White is very likely to provide more cumulative value over baseline than Richardson's entire career.

 

[Concept Coop]

Two years, maybe less, of Foster + White is very likely to provide more cumulative value over baseline than Richardson's entire career.

On top of this, VBD (or value or points) are more valuable when provided in a single season. Using the following example, B+C is going to help you win much more than A will, if championships are our goal.

RBA:100 VBD x 6 Years

RBB:100 VBD x 3 Years + WRC 100 VBD x 3 years

 

[doowain]

Trent is worth two Fosters. Add in a 1st for White and I agree that it's a lopsided deal.

Yeah, we know you hate Foster and think it's time to bail on players before they hit the wall at 25. But in reality, Richardson Foster looked average at best last year and his value was based 100% on sheer volume (which is exactly what you've been bagging on Forte for for years), and the Browns are the worst run franchise in the NFL, maybe in all of professional sports. Two years, maybe less, of Foster + White is very likely to provide more cumulative value over baseline than Richardson's entire career.

Fixed.

 

[menobrown]

Mjd3.05For1.06. Pick was OTC and the guy took Leveon bell

The guy getting MJD is going to regret that.

I'd rather have MJD over 1.06, and its not even remotely close in my mind.

Yea, that's what I'm thinking. 28-year old workhorse back for the 1.06? Yahtzee! Who are you going to get at the 1.06 that is better than even one or two years of a feature back?

He already said the guy took Le'Veon Bell with the 1.06.

Bell may very well give you one or two years of a feature back within the next one or two years.

And I'll further add that Lacy and Ball were also available at 1.6 so even if you did not like Bell you still had other viable options.

 

[humpback]

This really isn't true.

Yea, don't let the fact that this year's RB class sucks trick you into believing that teams won't spend a first round pick on a RB.

Thats not what I am saying. Teams are placing less priority on drafting a RB early, and also going to more 2 RB type systems where the starter doesnt get 25 touches every week.

No more Touchdown Tommy Vardells going in the 1st round.

You said "RBs are going later and later every year, so the top RB talent that used to get drafted in the first round is now slipping to the 2nd round". That's simply not the case.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Two years, maybe less, of Foster + White is very likely to provide more cumulative value over baseline than Richardson's entire career.

On top of this, VBD (or value or points) are more valuable when provided in a single season. Using the following example, B+C is going to help you win much more than A will, if championships are our goal. RBA:100 VBD x 6 Years RBB:100 VBD x 3 Years + WRC 100 VBD x 3 years

Exactly. One title is certainly worth more than 5 years of "...but I've got the prettiest team on paper" and "my team will be a beast in 2016!"Championship banners fly forever. Even the ones you win with a bunch of old guys and/or unsexy / less talented players that fall into great situational value.

 

[EBF]

Trent is worth two Fosters. Add in a 1st for White and I agree that it's a lopsided deal.

Yeah, we know you hate Foster and think it's time to bail on players before they hit the wall at 25. But in reality, Richardson looked average at best last year and his value was based 100% on sheer volume (which is exactly what you've been bagging on Forte for for years), and the Browns are the worst run franchise in the NFL, maybe in all of professional sports. Two years, maybe less, of Foster + White is very likely to provide more cumulative value over baseline than Richardson's entire career.

I'll take that bet. Trent averaged 16 ppg in an injury-plagued rookie season on a horrible team. Foster averaged 18 ppg on 400 carries.

Trent is a coin flip to outscore Foster next year and in any other. Add in the fact that he's five years younger and he's worth far more.

The ultra conservative risk-averse approach can help you dodge some grenades, but you'll leave a lot of value on the table in the long run if you can't recognize favorable spots to gamble. When you have a chance to trade an aging player for a significantly younger player of comparable ability, it's time to cash in.

 

[menobrown]

Is it that they are so good, or the other people are so bad for giving away their players. Maybe a bit of both.

That's irrelevant to me. Every team in the league has a chance to make the same kind of deals. When I see a team "take advantage" of another team I never think about it terms of they did not do a good job because they obviously did. Instead I usually am upset at myself for not being proactive enough to offer up similar deals. It's like I'll say things to myself like why did I not think to make an offer like that?

Now, and don't take offense to this Ground and Pound, I believe you two offer the worst trades on a consistent basis I play in leagues with. Don't get wrong, we've made some deals so they are not all bad but you guys sure don't mind offering up a one sided deal in hopes the other party just might hit accept I just wish you would realize I'm not that guy. You two have me thinking I should stop trying so hard to put what I deem as fair trades together and just start throwing offers out hoping someone hits accept. And I mean that as a compliment, I really do because you two have pulled off some really good trades.

Anyway congrats on both these deals, they are great for you. I wish you two had not bailed on my $500 league either. I enjoy your activity level and being in a league with you two.

I couldn't disagree more. There have been several times I have offered much more for a guy, only to have that team turn around and trade him to someone else much cheaper than I had offered.

Good example. In my league with Ernol, I offered Steve Johnson and a 2014 1st (easily non playoff) for Russell Wilson. The guy said no, and that Wilson was a mega stud, and that the ONLY player on my team he would discuss dealing Wilson for was Jamaal Charles.......................only to have the guy trade Wilson to Ernol like 4 days later for pick 7 and Dwyer. Now, who in their right mind would take pick 7 and Dwyer over Johnson and a 99.99999% guaranteed top 5 pick next year.

This particular scenario has NOTHING to do with my abilities or Ernol's abilities, and has everything to do with that owner not only asking the world for Wilson, but then selling him cheaper than my offer to him.

Are you going to tell me you would be upset at yourself for not being proactive enough in that situation??

I can't dispute that example. One of the best salesmen I ever met in my life used to always tell me the one thing he could do was sale to irrational people. I've got a guy like that, same guy, in a few of my leagues who constantly does horrible trades with other people but won't deal with me for nothing. So yea it happens.

 

[Slider]

Looks like we need a MJD/Foster thread. So, any trades

 

[doowain]

Looks like we need a MJD/Foster thread. So, any trades

It's a discussion on the value of these players as a result of the trades. Do you really not get that?

 

[Concept Coop]

Looks like we need a MJD/Foster thread. So, any trades

I think the conversation can be more valuable than the deal itself. Just my opinion.

 

[tdmills]

Trent is worth two Fosters. Add in a 1st for White and I agree that it's a lopsided deal.

Yeah, we know you hate Foster and think it's time to bail on players before they hit the wall at 25. But in reality, Richardson looked average at best last year and his value was based 100% on sheer volume (which is exactly what you've been bagging on Forte for for years), and the Browns are the worst run franchise in the NFL, maybe in all of professional sports. Two years, maybe less, of Foster + White is very likely to provide more cumulative value over baseline than Richardson's entire career.

I'll take that bet. Trent averaged 16 ppg in an injury-plagued rookie season on a horrible team. Foster averaged 18 ppg on 400 carries.

Trent is a coin flip to outscore Foster next year and in any other. Add in the fact that he's five years younger and he's worth far more.

The ultra conservative risk-averse approach can help you dodge some grenades, but you'll leave a lot of value on the table in the long run if you can't recognize favorable spots to gamble. When you have a chance to trade an aging player for a significantly younger player of comparable ability, it's time to cash in.

This is the holdup. I have concerns about Trich's ability to stay healthy and his production(3.6 YPC).

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And even if we grant that Richardson is as good a player as Foster (in the face of all of the evidence suggesting that he's not), then there's still the situation to deal with. 2/3 years in Houston >>> almost any amount of years on the cesspool that is the Cleveland Browns.

 

[EBF]

And even if we grant that Richardson is as good a player as Foster (in the face of all of the evidence suggesting that he's not)

All of the evidence = a rookie season in which he played 9 games with broken ribs on a bad team, with pain so severe that he couldn't lay flat on his side or back.

There's a reason why he was the #3 overall pick in a strong draft despite playing a non-premium position.

He hasn't come close to hitting his peak yet and he's already a top 10 FF back. Don't overthink this.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And even if we grant that Richardson is as good a player as Foster (in the face of all of the evidence suggesting that he's not)

All of the evidence = a rookie season in which he played 9 games with broken ribs on a bad team, with pain so severe that he couldn't lay flat on his side or back. There's a reason why he was the #3 overall pick in a strong draft despite playing a non-premium position. He hasn't come close to hitting his peak yet and he's already a top 10 FF back. Don't overthink this.

He was a top 3 pick by a GM desperate for a player that could make an immediate impact and save his job. And LOL at the ribs excuse. He looked the same all year.I'm sure you'll continue to dodge, but again: how is Richardson's rookie year any different at all from Matt Forte's? Except for being crappier in every way. You consistently refer to per touch metrics as the end all, except of course when it doesn't add to your argument.Richardson averaged 3.6 YPC. His percentage of TDs vs the Browns as a team was absurd and completely unsustainable. The team is hot garbage. I'm not the one grasping at straws here if you think that Richardson's rookie year justified the "next Peterson" hype in any way whatsoever.

 

[ghostguy123]

Team A gave: A.Foster/Roddy/Gates

Team B gave: Trent/2014 1st

I'd rather get Foster and Roddy here. I think both have plenty of tread left.

I was on the side landing Trent....Could regret this one come week 1 but I felt my team was competitive without Roddy and landing the 1st was icing for me.

I'd give Foster/Roddy/Gates just for Trent. Getting the 1st on top was robbery.

I am not sure I can call it robbery when the Foster/White side will get drastically higher production over the next 3 years than Richardson will give. After that it looks good sure. Assuming Richardson is still playing well at that time.

I think this is one where my roster definitely matters, but I think if I am competitive I would deal Trich for that and be even more competitive for a while

Foster will not be producing at his current level in 3 years. Neither will Roddy. Both are on the downslope of their productivity. Foster may not even be Top 5 this year. If his YPC drops again this year, he isn't going to have the heavy workload to offset it with a healthy Tate (and rookies) in the mix.

If Richardson's YPC drops, he will be out of the league.

Like I said, it depends on my roster. If this deal would drastically improve my championship potential to the point where I am a top team, I probably do it. Of COURSE it wouldnt be good 3 years from now. Thats the trade off for huge improvement short term 2-3 years

 

[ghostguy123]

I am actually trying to trade Rice/Maclin for Richardson in a league, and as of right now the guy is saying no.

I would consider dealing Rice/White for Richardson if I was stacked at WR.

So I prefer not to look at this trade in a vacuum, and rather what it does for my team. In a vacuum, the "value" of Foster+White is clearly higher than Richardson. Foster is still a 1st round startup pick, and White is about a 4th. Would you deal your 4th round pick in a startup to move up from pick 8 to a top 2-3 pick?? I highly doubt it.

However, clearly Richardson will be more valuable than both of them starting in a 2 seasons, possibly even next year if Richardson improves his YPC by a full yard, which I think he can.

So would I sell Richardson off to make a run at the next 2-3 championships??? Sure, and then rebuild a year or two. Unlike some, I don't mind the occasional rebuild. You cant win your league every year, not if it has other good owners.

 

[menobrown]

and his production(3.6 YPC).

This is the worst point I continue to see brought up. Hate him or be down on him for something else but this is just silly.

Even if you want to take a giant step of ignoring his injuries as a major reason for the the YPC some of you need a history lesson. You might want to go look up the rookie year YPC of the two leading rushers in the history of the NFL. In fact 3 of the top 5 runners in the history of the NFL had sub 4 YPC averages as rookies and a 4th one was exactly at 4. Trent's YPC was higher than Payton and tied with LT so yea it's a reason to be concerned with his production.

 

[ghostguy123]

And even if we grant that Richardson is as good a player as Foster (in the face of all of the evidence suggesting that he's not)

All of the evidence = a rookie season in which he played 9 games with broken ribs on a bad team, with pain so severe that he couldn't lay flat on his side or back. There's a reason why he was the #3 overall pick in a strong draft despite playing a non-premium position. He hasn't come close to hitting his peak yet and he's already a top 10 FF back. Don't overthink this.

He was a top 3 pick by a GM desperate for a player that could make an immediate impact and save his job. And LOL at the ribs excuse. He looked the same all year.I'm sure you'll continue to dodge, but again: how is Richardson's rookie year any different at all from Matt Forte's? Except for being crappier in every way. You consistently refer to per touch metrics as the end all, except of course when it doesn't add to your argument.Richardson averaged 3.6 YPC. His percentage of TDs vs the Browns as a team was absurd and completely unsustainable. The team is hot garbage. I'm not the one grasping at straws here if you think that Richardson's rookie year justified the "next Peterson" hype in any way whatsoever.

Some people say a LOT about players without ever really watching them play. I am a Clevelander and watched plenty of Richardson. He didnt look special last year at all. I know he was hampered by nagging injuries the entire year, but that does not change the fact he didnt look special. I cant just assume he will double all his abilities this coming year. For all we know he will be banged up forever. And the knee issues are LEGIT issues for longterm success.

 

[ghostguy123]

and his production(3.6 YPC).

This is the worst point I continue to see brought up. Hate him or be down on him for something else but this is just silly.

Even if you want to take a giant step of ignoring his injuries as a major reason for the the YPC some of you need a history lesson. You might want to go look up the rookie year YPC of the two leading rushers in the history of the NFL. In fact 3 of the top 5 runners in the history of the NFL had sub 4 YPC averages as rookies and a 4th one was exactly at 4. Trent's YPC was higher than Payton and tied with LT so yea it's a reason to be concerned with his production.

Well, there is SOME validity to it. It's not that great of an argument to go pack and pick a couple guys who had bad stats their rookie years, and then assume this player we are discussing will follow the career path of those 2-3 great players.

I would say quite a bit more of the great players in history started out much better than the other great players who didn't at the RB position.

If people want to value Richardson as the #1 dynasty player, that is fine, I can't argue. But if you want to say he is just as valuable as Peterson after his rookie year, I simply can not agree.

Much like the #1 rookie pick this year isnt close to the value of the #1 rookie pick last year. Same thing. Just cause T-rich is #1 doesnt make him as valuable

 

[EBF]

And even if we grant that Richardson is as good a player as Foster (in the face of all of the evidence suggesting that he's not)

All of the evidence = a rookie season in which he played 9 games with broken ribs on a bad team, with pain so severe that he couldn't lay flat on his side or back.

There's a reason why he was the #3 overall pick in a strong draft despite playing a non-premium position.

He hasn't come close to hitting his peak yet and he's already a top 10 FF back. Don't overthink this.

He was a top 3 pick by a GM desperate for a player that could make an immediate impact and save his job. And LOL at the ribs excuse. He looked the same all year.I'm sure you'll continue to dodge, but again: how is Richardson's rookie year any different at all from Matt Forte's? Except for being crappier in every way. You consistently refer to per touch metrics as the end all, except of course when it doesn't add to your argument.

Richardson averaged 3.6 YPC. His percentage of TDs vs the Browns as a team was absurd and completely unsustainable. The team is hot garbage. I'm not the one grasping at straws here if you think that Richardson's rookie year justified the "next Peterson" hype in any way whatsoever.

You make it sound as if the Browns reached for him. Everyone and their brother had him pegged as a top 6-7 pick in the draft all along. He was a unanimous elite prospect. Pick any scouting service or draft pundit and they'll tell you the same thing. Rare talent. Once or twice per decade. Best player in the draft according to some.

If you put stock in what the professional evaluators think, you should be sky high on Richardson.

In terms of how he compares to Forte, the fact that he was unanimously rated as a top 5 overall prospect is one major difference.

One of the big mistakes you're making is assuming that his rookie year is completely representative of his skill set and expectations going forward. He had several things working against him: inexperience, injury, and a weak supporting cast. It's highly likely that we haven't seen his best yet.

I don't think anyone ever said his game was a carbon copy of Peterson's. Two very different styles. Peterson is more of a home run hitter whereas Trent is more of a do-everything power back. He'll never have Peterson's speed, but he's more powerful and already a much better receiver. In terms of style and talent, I would say he's a bigger, stronger Ray Rice.

 

[Concept Coop]

Peterson is more of a home run hitter whereas Trent is more of a do-everything power back. He'll never have Peterson's speed, but he's more powerful and already a much better receiver. In terms of style and talent, I would say he's a bigger, stronger Ray Rice.

I can't agree with this. I do agree with you when you suggest a top prospect deserves some benefit of the doubt. His situation sucked, too. But there is no reason to compare him to Adrian Peterson or claim he's a better version of Ray Rice. Peterson is a no-brainer, I'd think, but Ray Rice has done it at an NFL level. Trent hasn't yet, aside from raw stats due to volume. He was a better prospect than Ray Rice, but it's quite a stretch to call him a bigger stronger version of one of the NFL's best over the last 4 years. Not at an NFL level, anyway.

 

[doowain]

Peterson is more of a home run hitter whereas Trent is more of a do-everything power back. He'll never have Peterson's speed, but he's more powerful and already a much better receiver. In terms of style and talent, I would say he's a bigger, stronger Ray Rice.

I can't agree with this. I do agree with you when you suggest a top prospect deserves some benefit of the doubt. His situation sucked, too. But there is no reason to compare him to Adrian Peterson or claim he's a better version of Ray Rice. Peterson is a no-brainer, I'd think, but Ray Rice has done it at an NFL level. Trent hasn't yet, aside from raw stats due to volume. He was a better prospect than Ray Rice, but it's quite a stretch to call him a bigger stronger version of one of the NFL's best over the last 4 years. Not at an NFL level, anyway.

Saying someone is bigger and stronger is a physical evaluation. Why are you making it a comparison of production?

 

[Concept Coop]

Saying someone is bigger and stronger is a physical evaluation. Why are you making it a comparison of production?

Calling someone a bigger faster version is more than a physical evaluation. And Ray had a faster 40 time. Rice ran a 4.42 at the combine. Richardson fastest reported time was 4.45, while some timed him as slow as 4.58, at his pro-day.

 

[samkongado]

Team A gets:

Wes Welker

Tony Gonzalez

Cyrus Gray

Team B gets:

Antonio Brown

Bernard Pierce

 

[Concept Coop]

Team A gets:

Wes Welker

Tony Gonzalez

Cyrus Gray

Team B gets:

Antonio Brown

Bernard

Is this a TE heavy league, by chance? If not, I think the team moving Gonzo did very well.

ETA: I have no idea how I missed Welker when I quoted him, but I didn't notice him. Much closer and would depend on my roster, as to which side I'd prefer.