Buy Low / Sell High Candidates (1 Viewer)

[GoBills02]

Evans is a no brainer. You really think you can get anyone to let that stud go after just 1 game?

Id say for buy low:

Brandon Jackson - received bulk of carries. Will be asked to run the load.

Lamont Jordan - Is he really a buy low? Well, looking at todays line and how he has been asked to perform, I think he can only do better from today. After todays performance it seems he could really be a RB2 for the year.

Cedric Benson - He will only better his performances from today

I'm an Evans owner and I have no plans to part with him. He was wide open having ran past the defense and Losman botched the throw on what would have been a 60 yard TD. Tack that onto his stats and he wouldn't even be in this thread.

What stats? In non-PPR and non-decimal scoring leagues, he scored a zero. That said, I expect this from Evans - at least 4 or 5 games of uselessness this yea, several games where he has 3 catches for 140 yards and 2 TDs, and maybe - MAYBE - one game this year where he is targeted enough to accumulate more than 6 catches.All that said, Champ Bailey shuts people down and I am not worried quite yet - you spent way too much for Evans to sell him low simply because he faced the best shutdown corner in the league and was shut down.

CHAMP BAILEY WAS NOT COVERING LEE EVANS!!!!!!!!!!! Are you all assuming he was becasue of his numbers? Dre Bly was covering him. Lee was targeted 4 times I believe, 2 on quick screen slants that Bly made a great play on. Champ did light up Price for a loss on another unsuccesful try.Losman overthrew Evans by a yard, wouldn't say he blew it, it was a stupid decision BTW. 3rd and 5, up by 2 with 3 minutes left, and Marshawn running well.

The Broncos were doing everything in their power to keep the play in front of them. The Bills looked to be focusing on getting Marshawn involved, and really made no down field attempts, except the near miss.

It had nothing to do with Champ Bailey!!!!

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

HOLD

Titans run game- Last year i was debating moving T.Henry who did nothing the year before with the titans but sit behind C.Brown..... I decided to let him sit cause really he was like my rb4/5 anyway and its hard to gauage there value unless someone reall overpays for them at that time.

I held Henry only for him to help me win my championship as a rb3. It was shocking to see the titans tun the rock like they did with a less than stella O line, BUT the thing here is Vince......He makes all the rb's he plays with better ala M.Vick.

Who knows what to expect out of Brown/White going foward, but if you have them as a rb4/5 then that means you dont have to depend on them and you can sit back and see what you really have. If i only had 2rb's i would definitely look into trying to nab one of the guys for the right price.

 

[Couch Potato]

In general I don't believe in selling "high" on starters because you just may be unloading a top-10 guy for 2007 but don't realize it yet.

Let's say that there's a WR who had a great Week 1. Let's call him Plaxico Burress.Someone is willing to give you WR5 value for him.

Now, there's a 40% chance he's WR3, 40% that he's WR10 (still higher than preseason value), and 20% than he's really WR20 this year.

.4*3+.4*10+.2*20=9.2

So, he's really about WR9 right now, and you can sell him for WR5 value.

But, you don't want to trade him because of that 40% chance he's better? That's poor management. Many players have a "chance" to be "top 10 talent". That doesn't mean you should reject good, high-value trades because of that chance.

We don't know who is a WR5 value. It's all just educated guesses and consensus opinion. We also don't know there's a 40% chance of this or that. But I do believe Eli is a year more developed and can see that he's looking to Burress early and often. You go ahead and calculate yourself right out results we all just observed if you want to in the hope you may do better. Me, if I owned Plaxico, I'd be happily sitting tight.

You just missed the entire point of my post, because you're too busy trying to tear the post apart. It's an analogy. It's not meant to be absolutely correct--but the point is there. You don't reject excellent value for a player because of the "chance" he could be better.

Bayes Theorem is too much for some people to comprehend. You a HE player?

Thanks for the insult. Anything else you care to let me know I can't comprehend? Wait, let me check and see if I drool when I talk too.Interesting that Myaths just assumed that his percentages for Plaxico/hypothetical player made sense, and that this mythical "WR5 value" was 100% certain to be WR5 value and not 20% WR5, 50% WR10, and 30% WR20 instead. Players are all over the map in terms of preseason rankings vs end-of-year actuals from year to year.

I use a helluva lot of calculations in my FF work, but one thing I DON'T do is ignore real production and another thing I DON'T do is let others decide for me who is #10 or #20 or #30 and make decisions because they say so. I spend a lot of thought on the overall picture of an offense, what's changed, who is improving, who is regressing, and that leads me to my projections as to a player's role, numbers, and ranking. In the NYG situation, Manning in his 4th year and Tiki's retirement mean good things for Burress. So if you want to start using Bayes Theorem (or any other math), be sure you know your inputs are good. Otherwise it's garbage in, garbage out.

I just checked. I don't drool when I talk. Maybe I'm not as stooopid as you think.

 

[Keys Myaths]

In general I don't believe in selling "high" on starters because you just may be unloading a top-10 guy for 2007 but don't realize it yet.

Let's say that there's a WR who had a great Week 1. Let's call him Plaxico Burress.Someone is willing to give you WR5 value for him.

Now, there's a 40% chance he's WR3, 40% that he's WR10 (still higher than preseason value), and 20% than he's really WR20 this year.

.4*3+.4*10+.2*20=9.2

So, he's really about WR9 right now, and you can sell him for WR5 value.

But, you don't want to trade him because of that 40% chance he's better? That's poor management. Many players have a "chance" to be "top 10 talent". That doesn't mean you should reject good, high-value trades because of that chance.

We don't know who is a WR5 value. It's all just educated guesses and consensus opinion. We also don't know there's a 40% chance of this or that. But I do believe Eli is a year more developed and can see that he's looking to Burress early and often. You go ahead and calculate yourself right out results we all just observed if you want to in the hope you may do better. Me, if I owned Plaxico, I'd be happily sitting tight.

You just missed the entire point of my post, because you're too busy trying to tear the post apart. It's an analogy. It's not meant to be absolutely correct--but the point is there. You don't reject excellent value for a player because of the "chance" he could be better.

Bayes Theorem is too much for some people to comprehend. You a HE player?

Thanks for the insult. Anything else you care to let me know I can't comprehend? Wait, let me check and see if I drool when I talk too.Interesting that Myaths just assumed that his percentages for Plaxico/hypothetical player made sense, or that this mythical "WR5 value" was 100% certain to be WR5 value and not 20% WR5, 50% WR10, and 30% WR20 instead. Players are all over the map in terms of preseason rankings vs end-of-year actuals from year to year.

I use a helluva lot of calculations in my FF work, but one thing I DON'T do is ignore real production and another thing I DON'T do is let others decide for me who is #10 or #20 or #30 and make decisions because they say so. I spend a lot of thought on the overall picture of an offense, what's changed, who is improving, who is regressing, and that leads me to my projections as to a player's role, numbers, and ranking. In the NYG situation, Manning in his 4th year and Tiki's retirement mean good things for Burress. So if you want to start using Bayes Theorem (or any other math), be sure you know your inputs are good. Otherwise it's garbage in, garbage out.

I just checked. i don't drool when I talk. Maybe I'm not as stooopid as you think.

Methinks you're taking a fantasy football message board thread too personally.The reason you're not getting what I'm saying is because I'm assigning value to a mythical WR5, and an equivalent trade value to him. Let's say the WR5 position is worth 1600 "trade value" points, and the WR9 position is worth 1100. My point is, you're giving up 500 hypothetical trade value points in this hypothetical analogy to play the lottery to see if he can be WR2 or WR3.

The expected value of this hypothetical Plax is WR9. You're arguing that because his value could end up being more, then you need to stick with him, even if you're getting more in trade than his expected value. Psychologically, it makes sense...people are afraid to look foolish, and when the 40% hits, and the hypothetical Plax becomes a stud, then you look dumb.

Personally, I take FF like I take poker. If I look dumb, it's part of the process. I know I'm going to win long-term, and I (and I'm sure, you have) proven that over time. Why do you care how you look in the process?

 

[AnonymousBob]

LJ, Maroney and Deuce are all looking like they're some great buy low candidates.

 

[spurs44]

My advice is not to overreact and do something stupid. It is only week 1.

Although it's good material for the pool to discuss. You don't want to be jumping off the cliff just yet.

 

[Couch Potato]

In general I don't believe in selling "high" on starters because you just may be unloading a top-10 guy for 2007 but don't realize it yet.

Let's say that there's a WR who had a great Week 1. Let's call him Plaxico Burress.Someone is willing to give you WR5 value for him.

Now, there's a 40% chance he's WR3, 40% that he's WR10 (still higher than preseason value), and 20% than he's really WR20 this year.

.4*3+.4*10+.2*20=9.2

So, he's really about WR9 right now, and you can sell him for WR5 value.

But, you don't want to trade him because of that 40% chance he's better? That's poor management. Many players have a "chance" to be "top 10 talent". That doesn't mean you should reject good, high-value trades because of that chance.

We don't know who is a WR5 value. It's all just educated guesses and consensus opinion. We also don't know there's a 40% chance of this or that. But I do believe Eli is a year more developed and can see that he's looking to Burress early and often. You go ahead and calculate yourself right out results we all just observed if you want to in the hope you may do better. Me, if I owned Plaxico, I'd be happily sitting tight.

You just missed the entire point of my post, because you're too busy trying to tear the post apart. It's an analogy. It's not meant to be absolutely correct--but the point is there. You don't reject excellent value for a player because of the "chance" he could be better.

Bayes Theorem is too much for some people to comprehend. You a HE player?

Thanks for the insult. Anything else you care to let me know I can't comprehend? Wait, let me check and see if I drool when I talk too.Interesting that Myaths just assumed that his percentages for Plaxico/hypothetical player made sense, or that this mythical "WR5 value" was 100% certain to be WR5 value and not 20% WR5, 50% WR10, and 30% WR20 instead. Players are all over the map in terms of preseason rankings vs end-of-year actuals from year to year.

I use a helluva lot of calculations in my FF work, but one thing I DON'T do is ignore real production and another thing I DON'T do is let others decide for me who is #10 or #20 or #30 and make decisions because they say so. I spend a lot of thought on the overall picture of an offense, what's changed, who is improving, who is regressing, and that leads me to my projections as to a player's role, numbers, and ranking. In the NYG situation, Manning in his 4th year and Tiki's retirement mean good things for Burress. So if you want to start using Bayes Theorem (or any other math), be sure you know your inputs are good. Otherwise it's garbage in, garbage out.

I just checked. i don't drool when I talk. Maybe I'm not as stooopid as you think.

Methinks you're taking a fantasy football message board thread too personally.The reason you're not getting what I'm saying is because I'm assigning value to a mythical WR5, and an equivalent trade value to him. Let's say the WR5 position is worth 1600 "trade value" points, and the WR9 position is worth 1100. My point is, you're giving up 500 hypothetical trade value points in this hypothetical analogy to play the lottery to see if he can be WR2 or WR3.

The expected value of this hypothetical Plax is WR9. You're arguing that because his value could end up being more, then you need to stick with him, even if you're getting more in trade than his expected value. Psychologically, it makes sense...people are afraid to look foolish, and when the 40% hits, and the hypothetical Plax becomes a stud, then you look dumb.

Personally, I take FF like I take poker. If I look dumb, it's part of the process. I know I'm going to win long-term, and I (and I'm sure, you have) proven that over time. Why do you care how you look in the process?

Well, I'll give up here. Enjoy your hypotheticals and trade value points and hypothetical WR5 player who is guaranteed WR5 and not subject to the risks and probability distribution that the sell high player is. Good luck with that. Interesting too that because I choose real results (when I believe they will continue) over hypothetical value as determined by someone else, I'm the one who's not getting it. Enough of this.

 

[AnonymousBob]

My advice is not to overreact and do something stupid. It is only week 1.

:X Although it's good material for the pool to discuss. You don't want to be jumping off the cliff just yet.

You may not want to jump but you should be encouraging owners in your league to take a long walk off a short ledge. Everybody panics to some extent-if you're worth your salt you should be able to take advantage of that fact.

 

[Keys Myaths]

In general I don't believe in selling "high" on starters because you just may be unloading a top-10 guy for 2007 but don't realize it yet.

Let's say that there's a WR who had a great Week 1. Let's call him Plaxico Burress.Someone is willing to give you WR5 value for him.

Now, there's a 40% chance he's WR3, 40% that he's WR10 (still higher than preseason value), and 20% than he's really WR20 this year.

.4*3+.4*10+.2*20=9.2

So, he's really about WR9 right now, and you can sell him for WR5 value.

But, you don't want to trade him because of that 40% chance he's better? That's poor management. Many players have a "chance" to be "top 10 talent". That doesn't mean you should reject good, high-value trades because of that chance.

We don't know who is a WR5 value. It's all just educated guesses and consensus opinion. We also don't know there's a 40% chance of this or that. But I do believe Eli is a year more developed and can see that he's looking to Burress early and often. You go ahead and calculate yourself right out results we all just observed if you want to in the hope you may do better. Me, if I owned Plaxico, I'd be happily sitting tight.

You just missed the entire point of my post, because you're too busy trying to tear the post apart. It's an analogy. It's not meant to be absolutely correct--but the point is there. You don't reject excellent value for a player because of the "chance" he could be better.

Bayes Theorem is too much for some people to comprehend. You a HE player?

Thanks for the insult. Anything else you care to let me know I can't comprehend? Wait, let me check and see if I drool when I talk too.Interesting that Myaths just assumed that his percentages for Plaxico/hypothetical player made sense, or that this mythical "WR5 value" was 100% certain to be WR5 value and not 20% WR5, 50% WR10, and 30% WR20 instead. Players are all over the map in terms of preseason rankings vs end-of-year actuals from year to year.

I use a helluva lot of calculations in my FF work, but one thing I DON'T do is ignore real production and another thing I DON'T do is let others decide for me who is #10 or #20 or #30 and make decisions because they say so. I spend a lot of thought on the overall picture of an offense, what's changed, who is improving, who is regressing, and that leads me to my projections as to a player's role, numbers, and ranking. In the NYG situation, Manning in his 4th year and Tiki's retirement mean good things for Burress. So if you want to start using Bayes Theorem (or any other math), be sure you know your inputs are good. Otherwise it's garbage in, garbage out.

I just checked. i don't drool when I talk. Maybe I'm not as stooopid as you think.

Methinks you're taking a fantasy football message board thread too personally.The reason you're not getting what I'm saying is because I'm assigning value to a mythical WR5, and an equivalent trade value to him. Let's say the WR5 position is worth 1600 "trade value" points, and the WR9 position is worth 1100. My point is, you're giving up 500 hypothetical trade value points in this hypothetical analogy to play the lottery to see if he can be WR2 or WR3.

The expected value of this hypothetical Plax is WR9. You're arguing that because his value could end up being more, then you need to stick with him, even if you're getting more in trade than his expected value. Psychologically, it makes sense...people are afraid to look foolish, and when the 40% hits, and the hypothetical Plax becomes a stud, then you look dumb.

Personally, I take FF like I take poker. If I look dumb, it's part of the process. I know I'm going to win long-term, and I (and I'm sure, you have) proven that over time. Why do you care how you look in the process?

Well, I'll give up here. Enjoy your hypotheticals and trade value points and hypothetical WR5 player who is guaranteed WR5 and not subject to the risks and probability distribution that the sell high player is. Good luck with that. Interesting too that because I choose real results over hypothetical value as determined by someone else, I'm the one who's not getting it. Enough of this.

I'm expressing an opinion, and trying to back it up. It was never required that you had to play along. The reason we aren't using "real results" is because we don't have real results for the rest of the year. So, of course we're dealing in hypotheticals.Seriously, you're acting insulted by this whole thing. That's what's confusing the hell out of me.

 

[Couch Potato]

Seriously, you're acting insulted by this whole thing. That's what's confusing the hell out of me.

Not insulted, but it's annoying being told "You missed the entire point of my post, because you're too busy trying to tear the post apart" simply because I disagreed with you and said why, and being told that your calculation is "too much for some people to comprehend" (said by the other poster). Keys, it's a little condescending to assume that if someone disagrees with you it must be because they missed the entire point of your post. Maybe they just disagree, yes?

 

[jonred]

Eh? Did you watch the flow of the game on why Maroney didn't get the TD? It was in garbage time long after the outcome was decided. I agree that he's got some risk due to the number of options available however he wasn't specifically pulled at the GL.

I am a bit worried that Maroney shared so many carries yesterday, but then again, maybe they were working him back in since he didn't get much work in the exhibition games. Same with Portis.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Seriously, you're acting insulted by this whole thing. That's what's confusing the hell out of me.

Not insulted, but it's annoying being told "You missed the entire point of my post, because you're too busy trying to tear the post apart" simply because I disagreed with you and said why, and being told that your calculation is "too much for some people to comprehend" (said my the other poster). Keys, it's a little condescending to assume that if someone disagrees with you it must be because they missed the entire point of your post. Maybe they just disagree, yes?

It wasn't condescending at all. You took my hypothetical (which I used to have a semi-tangible example of what I was thinking), made it completely literal, then proceeded to tell me why it wasn't real. I was trying to steer you back.You don't want to discuss it. That's fine. Just don't act like I took your lollipop.

 

[SuperJohn96]

See what happens when I jump into the Shark Pool.

I shoulda stayed in the FFA.

 

[salmonstud]

Agreed. A Gore owner tried to trade him along with a QB that happen to start out good in NOLA - Brees for McNabb & a future draft pick around week 3. I turned him down, stating that Gore got lucky & Brees was way too big of a downgrade from McNabb (When McNabb was off to a hot start last season). Needless to say, the owner was quite estactic later in the year when he didn't trade Gore & Brees for McNabb.

It's 2006, just after week one ended. Frank Gore just had 85 yards rushing, 83 receiving, and 2 TDs. But it was only against Arizona. Trade-happy types say "I'm selling high baby! He's ranked in the 20s, I can get preseason top-10 guy Jordan for him!"Oops. I'm not trying to kill this thread regarding the sell highs and buy lows. I'm just saying be very careful about who you are considering trading away, know the player's role on his team, and remember that preseason rankings are just opinions that are guaranteed to be wrong; the question that is answered as the season unfolds is "how wrong?"Ronald Curry was ranked mid-40s most of preseason while I was saying all over these boards "undervalued, grab him, especially in PPR, I think he's top-20!" He worked his was up to about WR40 in a lot of rankings by preseason's end, still horribly undervalued IMO. So would I sell him high after this week in exchange for the consensus #30 WR? Not a chance. Would I suddenly be all wrong if Denver contains him in week 2? Nope. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Just be very careful with your sell high ideas. Don't give away this year's stud players for last year's stud players based on preseason rankings. Things change.

 

[salmonstud]

Guys that I drafted that I'm holding unless great value comes along:

Witten (I think the new regime utilizes him more than Parcells did). 800 yards & 7-8 TD's are very attainable.

Burress (The Giants D sucks & the running game isn't the same without Tiki - Burress will get allot of opportunity this year)

Big Ben

Kitna

Coles

A.Johnson

 

[shadyridr]

Im still thinking about selling Peterson high. If Taylor's injury isnt serious then he will still get carries. Maybe 65/35 favoring Peterson. Remember most drafted Peterson as a RB3. And Minnesota isnt exactly a stellar offense so I dont know how many scoring opportunities Peterson will get. Plus he plays SD once and CHI twice. Im not saying he wont be good but it might be the best time to trade him now for a top 3 WR and a decent RB in return. I might offer him and a WR for Steve Smith and Thomas Jones.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Some good comedy in this thread. GB guys who want to unload stud players as sell highs because they had great weeks. Um, just why do you think you'll get someone better in return I wonder? Your studs are your studs. You keep them. If I'm a Burress owner (sadly, I'm not), I'm thrilled Manning is maturing and I'm looking forward to a top-15 year from Plaxico rather than looking to give him up after a stellar start. That's just nuts. You don't sell Randy Moss. You don't sell Curry. You pat yourself on the back for being one of the ones who believed in them, you don't get rid of them once they've proven you right!

In general I don't believe in selling "high" on starters because you just may be unloading a top-10 guy for 2007 but don't realize it yet. Imagine having unloaded Muhsin Muhammad a few years ago after a hot start and missing out the rest of the year on the #1 WR in FF because you thought you were making a shark move by selling high. The guys you sell high are secondary players who had a surprising game but whose roles won't change and therefore will not have many useful weeks, and you're hoping the guy you are selling to is just a box score reader without deeper understanding. J Avant. D Carter. A Randle El. S McDonald. Those kinds of guys. Not Burress, not Coles, not Moss, not Owens.

I do believe in buying low though. The guys you look to buy low are those who had surprisingly unproductive games but whose roles in their offenses have not changed and therefore still have their productive weeks ahead of them. The poster boy here is Branch. I was just reading in the Branch thread a few people who plan to bench him until he has a great week. Huh? Isn't the point to have him in the lineup when that happens? I've never understood that thinking. He does poorly so they bench him. He does well while on their bench so they put him back in. This prior-week stat chasing is just the opposite of what you should be doing! Branch will be fine. His role in the offense and the quality of the players around him insure he'll be fine. Go after him hard if his owner in your league is discouraged.

To the guys who think a player was a bad play simply because he didn't happen to get into the end zone this particular week (e.g., the goofy thinking by one poster concerning Willie Parker): you don't get fantasy football. The ups and downs from week to week are absolutely normal. If this had been week 8 instead of week one, every player wouldn't be under the microscope like this.

Relax, and don't be the dunderhead that guys like the OP (and I) plan to take advantage of. Reggie Brown will be fine. Maroney will be fine. Lee Evans, Branch, Santana Moss, McAllister, SJax, etc. will be fine. Go after front line players as buy lows, don't panic dump them for guys who had a better week one but who are in inferior situations.

Now THIS is one smart couch potato

 

[Couch Potato]

Just don't act like I took your lollipop.

See, it's crap like that... Tell you what, please explain for me in your hypothetical how the sell high player is subject to various probabilities of reaching various rankings but the WR5 value to be traded for is not. Of course any idiot would make a deal for a guaranteed #5 player if there is no downside risk, but that's a flawed hypothetical. I've stated more than once that rankings are just opinions and that preseason rankings vs. end of season actuals are often poorly correlated.Also explain how those probabilities are to be determined. Who decides whether the sell-high guy now has a 20% or a 60% chance of being top-5? The theme I keep coming back to is that the so-called sell-high player has demonstrated concretely by his performance that his value may not have been correctly assessed by the consensus. So do I rely on this same consensus to decide what his value is now? Not me. I use my own judgment. Frankly, I know I'm much better than the consensus at determining value. What it really comes down to is whether I'm a believer in this player, all things considered. If so, I'm happy to keep him rather than deal him for someone who had a higher preseason ranking but may need to be revised downward. I think people often get too cute trying to wheel and deal using a lot of hypothetical point values and rankings when they ought to be concentrating on the production they are seeing on the field.

 

[salmonstud]

Im still thinking about selling Peterson high. If Taylor's injury isnt serious then he will still get carries. Maybe 65/35 favoring Peterson. Remember most drafted Peterson as a RB3. And Minnesota isnt exactly a stellar offense so I dont know how many scoring opportunities Peterson will get. Plus he plays SD once and CHI twice. Im not saying he wont be good but it might be the best time to trade him now for a top 3 WR and a decent RB in return. I might offer him and a WR for Steve Smith and Thomas Jones.

In non-ppr leagues, Chester Taylor was the #14 RB last year. He did that even though he missed week 14. Minn has a great O-line & they can run the ball. Peterson is the home run threat that Taylor is not. I think Peterson can put up top 10 numbers. I drafted him as my #3 RB & he will be in my lineup in week 2 regardless if Taylor is playing.

 

[shadyridr]

Im still thinking about selling Peterson high. If Taylor's injury isnt serious then he will still get carries. Maybe 65/35 favoring Peterson. Remember most drafted Peterson as a RB3. And Minnesota isnt exactly a stellar offense so I dont know how many scoring opportunities Peterson will get. Plus he plays SD once and CHI twice. Im not saying he wont be good but it might be the best time to trade him now for a top 3 WR and a decent RB in return. I might offer him and a WR for Steve Smith and Thomas Jones.

In non-ppr leagues, Chester Taylor was the #14 RB last year. He did that even though he missed week 14. Minn has a great O-line & they can run the ball. Peterson is the home run threat that Taylor is not. I think Peterson can put up top 10 numbers. I drafted him as my #3 RB & he will be in my lineup in week 2 regardless if Taylor is playing.

Who is your RB2?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Evans is a no brainer. You really think you can get anyone to let that stud go after just 1 game?Id say for buy low:Brandon Jackson - received bulk of carries. Will be asked to run the load.Lamont Jordan - Is he really a buy low? Well, looking at todays line and how he has been asked to perform, I think he can only do better from today. After todays performance it seems he could really be a RB2 for the year.Cedric Benson - He will only better his performances from today

I think Cedric Benson is a sneaky buy low. I thought he did OK vs. that defense. Against teams like Detroit, Green Bay and some of the other NFC defenses.......he will do much better. I like the Cedric Benson Buy LowI hope Lee Evans bounces back......I just don't like Losman.Another sneaky play is if you can get Terry Glenn for about nothing. Dallas looks like they're going to score some points this year and if you can get their No.2, a guy nobody really has on their radar because there's question marks about him, he could be a steal down the stretch. I'm definately not saying give up a starting WR3 for your team for him, because that's basically what he is when he's healthy.......but you can't tell me there's not some owners hurting out there who may own this guy at WR after this first week who'd gladly trade him away for some smoke and mirror play. If Glenn comes back relatively healthy, you'll see him consistently ranked in the top 25 on the weekly lineups.Sell High: Chris Brown is the most obviousBut I have two more; Ronald Curry and Lamont Jordan You may have just seen each's best game of the year. Going into that game we all knew someone or some people who have big games for the Raiders because people ALWAYS do vs. Detroit. Don't be fooled into thinking they're gonna do that. If having to choose who I think should be traded more out of the two, I'd say Jordan. In a few more weeks it'll be a more crowded backfield with Rhodes........this was the perfect thing for Jordan owners to happen in week 1. If he's your RB 3 or 4, I'd push hard for a team struggling at RB and try to snag a starting receiver for him.

 

[shadyridr]

Another sneaky play is if you can get Terry Glenn for about nothing. Dallas looks like they're going to score some points this year and if you can get their No.2, a guy nobody really has on their radar because there's question marks about him, he could be a steal down the stretch. I'm definately not saying give up a starting WR3 for your team for him, because that's basically what he is when he's healthy.......but you can't tell me there's not some owners hurting out there who may own this guy at WR after this first week who'd gladly trade him away for some smoke and mirror play. If Glenn comes back relatively healthy, you'll see him consistently ranked in the top 25 on the weekly lineups.

You really think he is going to play this year? He was dropped in my league

 

[Bills Fan]

Curious what everyone's thoughts on Rivers are...VJack looked awful, regardless if it was Chicago D or not. LT will not face too many defenses like that (after week 2, anyway)...I am weak at QB (unless Eli is healthy and last night was NOT an aberration) and have been offered him stragiht up for S. Moss.

 

[Keys Myaths]

What it really comes down to is whether I'm a believer in this player, all things considered. If so, I'm happy to keep him rather than deal him for someone who had a higher preseason ranking but may need to be revised downward.

I'm not talking about trading based on preseason rankings. If it needs to be revised upward or downward, fantastic. Do it.I'm just saying, don't refuse a trade of B+ value just because your player MIGHT reach A- status. The downside is still there, too, no matter if you're a believer in a particular player or not. My goal is to take emotion out of the equation as much as possible, to make trades objectively. Not trading someone because you don't want to be the idiot who traded Frank Gore in Week 1 last year is emotional, rather than rational.

 

[Couch Potato]

I think Cedric Benson is a sneaky buy low. I thought he did OK vs. that defense. Against teams like Detroit, Green Bay and some of the other NFC defenses.......he will do much better. I like the Cedric Benson Buy LowI hope Lee Evans bounces back......I just don't like Losman.Another sneaky play is if you can get Terry Glenn for about nothing. Dallas looks like they're going to score some points this year and if you can get their No.2, a guy nobody really has on their radar because there's question marks about him, he could be a steal down the stretch. I'm definately not saying give up a starting WR3 for your team for him, because that's basically what he is when he's healthy.......but you can't tell me there's not some owners hurting out there who may own this guy at WR after this first week who'd gladly trade him away for some smoke and mirror play. If Glenn comes back relatively healthy, you'll see him consistently ranked in the top 25 on the weekly lineups.Sell High: Chris Brown is the most obviousBut I have two more; Ronald Curry and Lamont Jordan You may have just seen each's best game of the year. Going into that game we all knew someone or some people who have big games for the Raiders because people ALWAYS do vs. Detroit. Don't be fooled into thinking they're gonna do that. If having to choose who I think should be traded more out of the two, I'd say Jordan. In a few more weeks it'll be a more crowded backfield with Rhodes........this was the perfect thing for Jordan owners to happen in week 1. If he's your RB 3 or 4, I'd push hard for a team struggling at RB and try to snag a starting receiver for him.

I agree on Chris Brown and Lamont Jordan as I don't believe in either player for the long-term. I think as the season progresses both teams will use RBBC and the value of these players will be relatively low. If you own either and can find someone who believes they are top-20 RBs and will give you that sort of value in return, I'd move them.I'm not convinced one way or the other about Benson. I still have concerns about Peterson's role in the offense taking away a lot of touches, as well as Benson's maturity and lack of track record. But the upside is there, and he was facing a good D on the road. As with any player, it would depend on what I'd have to give up. I don't see him as anything better than about RB15 going forward, if that.If I'm in a league where someone is foolish enough to give up Lee Evans cheaply after week one, that league is probably not one I should be in. I know that if I offered crap for him in any of my leagues right now I'd be laughed at. If you want Evans, you'll still need to pay big.As I said in an earlier post, I disagree concerning Curry being a sell. Of course it again depends on what someone wants to give up for him. Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens? Sure. Vincent Jackson? Nope, I'll keep Curry. I love the potential for a monster season, esp. in PPR, but maybe that's just me. For those who argued this offseason that Porter would be the main WR in Oakland, uh oh.As for Glenn, I own him in two dynasty leagues and won't drop him unless he goes for the microfrac surgery and his season is done, but I'm sure not looking to acquire him right now unless I'm only giving up a bit over WW value. He's damaged goods even if he plays again this year and won't put up numbers like he has in the last few years. If Glenn comes back they'll be careful with him, and Crayton and Hurd will see the field a lot more than if he were completely healthy. He's no better than a fantasy backup now and that's not the kind of buy-low I want to target, especially when there is still risk you'd be giving up something for nothing if he ends up done for the year.

 

[Couch Potato]

What it really comes down to is whether I'm a believer in this player, all things considered. If so, I'm happy to keep him rather than deal him for someone who had a higher preseason ranking but may need to be revised downward.

I'm not talking about trading based on preseason rankings. If it needs to be revised upward or downward, fantastic. Do it.I'm just saying, don't refuse a trade of B+ value just because your player MIGHT reach A- status. The downside is still there, too, no matter if you're a believer in a particular player or not. My goal is to take emotion out of the equation as much as possible, to make trades objectively. Not trading someone because you don't want to be the idiot who traded Frank Gore in Week 1 last year is emotional, rather than rational.

Peace to you Keys, and best of luck to you this year. (not sarcasm, in case anyone is wondering)

 

[Keys Myaths]

What it really comes down to is whether I'm a believer in this player, all things considered. If so, I'm happy to keep him rather than deal him for someone who had a higher preseason ranking but may need to be revised downward.

I'm not talking about trading based on preseason rankings. If it needs to be revised upward or downward, fantastic. Do it.I'm just saying, don't refuse a trade of B+ value just because your player MIGHT reach A- status. The downside is still there, too, no matter if you're a believer in a particular player or not. My goal is to take emotion out of the equation as much as possible, to make trades objectively. Not trading someone because you don't want to be the idiot who traded Frank Gore in Week 1 last year is emotional, rather than rational.

Peace to you Keys, and best of luck to you this year.

Same to you, gb.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

What it really comes down to is whether I'm a believer in this player, all things considered. If so, I'm happy to keep him rather than deal him for someone who had a higher preseason ranking but may need to be revised downward.

I'm not talking about trading based on preseason rankings. If it needs to be revised upward or downward, fantastic. Do it.I'm just saying, don't refuse a trade of B+ value just because your player MIGHT reach A- status. The downside is still there, too, no matter if you're a believer in a particular player or not. My goal is to take emotion out of the equation as much as possible, to make trades objectively. Not trading someone because you don't want to be the idiot who traded Frank Gore in Week 1 last year is emotional, rather than rational.

Peace to you Keys, and best of luck to you this year.

Same to you, gb.

The Shark Pool. Uniting people since 2007.

 

[Marc Levin]

The Shark Pool. Uniting people since 2007.

I laughed.

 

[Sinrman]

Sell Jordan before week 5. Once Rhodes comes back the offense won't be the same.

First person that came to mind.I like Jordan. I think he's a good back. But he still plays on a bad, bad team. Once Rhodes is back, he's touches will go down a bit. Also, he did very well.............. against the Lions! This is not hard to do!I'm not saying try and offer him for a top RB or WR, but you may be able to weasel a decent player or two to help fill your roster (give depth) or maybe a nice pick or two next year if you don't need Jordan all that much...

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

The Shark Pool. Uniting people since 2007.

I laughed.

 

[salmonstud]

Im still thinking about selling Peterson high. If Taylor's injury isnt serious then he will still get carries. Maybe 65/35 favoring Peterson. Remember most drafted Peterson as a RB3. And Minnesota isnt exactly a stellar offense so I dont know how many scoring opportunities Peterson will get. Plus he plays SD once and CHI twice. Im not saying he wont be good but it might be the best time to trade him now for a top 3 WR and a decent RB in return. I might offer him and a WR for Steve Smith and Thomas Jones.

In non-ppr leagues, Chester Taylor was the #14 RB last year. He did that even though he missed week 14. Minn has a great O-line & they can run the ball. Peterson is the home run threat that Taylor is not. I think Peterson can put up top 10 numbers. I drafted him as my #3 RB & he will be in my lineup in week 2 regardless if Taylor is playing.

Who is your RB2?

McGahee

 

[nygiants56]

*could* this possibly be the season that Chris Brown FINALLY puts it all together?!

I view him as a buy-low candidate, instead of a sell-high one..

I think most, if not all fantasy football GM's , view his as a sneeze away from IR, brittle,fragile, etc..as a result, many will overlook him on the waiver wire this week.

I just get a feeling that he's going to be a top RB in terms of rushing yards this season...

even Rob't Smith put it all together for one season, leading the NFC in rushing..

 

[nygiants56]

Judging by the looks of things, I'd say Kyle Boller is an excellent buy low candidate..McNair looks shot..

 

[msinex]

Would you sell high on Derrick Ward right now to a very scared Brandon Jacobs owner (also has Cadillac right now), or do you think his value goes up next week after playing the Pack?

 

[HoTnickZ]

Would you sell high on Derrick Ward right now to a very scared Brandon Jacobs owner (also has Cadillac right now), or do you think his value goes up next week after playing the Pack?

I'd sell. Eli will be out.

 

[snorlax]

If I'm a Burress owner (sadly, I'm not),

Regret?

 

[-OZ-]

Would you sell high on Derrick Ward right now to a very scared Brandon Jacobs owner (also has Cadillac right now), or do you think his value goes up next week after playing the Pack?

Ward for Caddy? BTW, I find it distressing that I couldn't have bought Ward in the contest.

 

[aggie_dave]

What do you think of Mark Clayton (Bal). Cincy's D seems to be much improved, first game showing a shaky offense, and he got blanked. Could be a decent buy low candidate if you think he has the potential that he was hyped for all off/preseason.

 

[Jimboozie]

Sell D Ward, Plaxico Burress, and Randy Moss.

Buy Frank Gore and Steven Jackson. hehe.

Especially sell Burress high if you can...he's a turd and was working on Dallas backup CB.

 

[ready5]

without naming names, some of you seem confused about what exactly an "analogy" is...

 

[KellysHeroes]

I would buy Brandon Jacobs... I sure the owner spent a high draft pick on him and is about it now. He'll be back in atleast Mid too late Oct and should make a decent #3 RB.

 

[Couch Potato]

What do you think of Mark Clayton (Bal). Cincy's D seems to be much improved, first game showing a shaky offense, and he got blanked. Could be a decent buy low candidate if you think he has the potential that he was hyped for all off/preseason.

He got blanked primarily because he's still not healthy. He hurt his ankle in preseason and although he played he did not start and was only targeted twice. He was mostly used as a decoy. He's the #1 on this team when 100% which should be soon. If the owner in your league doesn't understand the circumstances and wants to sell him below his value due to week 1, I'd be all over that.