This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
what I do is deal that depth for clear cut starters. Package up some of those fringe RBs to teams that are hurting and get back a more solid weekly starter.
Bingo...This is exactly what I try to do.For countless years I spent all season building the greatest team imaginable. There is nothing like looking at your team and thinking "damn! I am rock solid at every position, but not quite perfect" Although I have learned that having depth is important, it is also equally(or more in my eyes) important to have the best starting team you can. In the end, the ones you have starting are the ones that give you points. If your league doesn't like to trade, then you have to play the shuffle. You are not alone....
Did the same yesterday. Might cost me but I should still win. You might look to try a best ball league. I don't like the idea but it sounds like you might enjoy it. No decisions to make on who to start.
Welker is bench material right now. His targets are way down and there's competition for all the underneath stuff with Moss gone. He's also not scored in 6 weeks. Starting Welker over a viable player like Tampa Mike (at Arizona) or Dez (vs. Jax) is just a bad read, not bad luck.
(that being Orton or Vince Young which was a no brainer). Sometimes the FF gods just have a way of working things out for you.
Yea but the OP was talking about Lynch vs Blount. These are 2 Waiver wire pickups at the begining of the season. Lynch was the consensus "Big Play" this week while Blount was a sleeper. I was tempted to play Blount but I thought the safer bet was lynch. To get 0 points from lynch vs 29 from Blount on my bench is aggravating.
Yeah, I thought so as well. Unfortunately, Lineup Dominator/CBS/everybody else would disagree with you and I. I went with them instead of my own thoughts. I would have been kicking myself if I benched Welker and his QB Brady threw 2 TD's to him or something. He will not be starting anymore.Welker is bench material right now. His targets are way down and there's competition for all the underneath stuff with Moss gone. He's also not scored in 6 weeks. Starting Welker over a viable player like Tampa Mike (at Arizona) or Dez (vs. Jax) is just a bad read, not bad luck.
Ha! I did the same but with Mike X and Brandon Tate. Started Tate last week (in a KR league) lost by what Williams would have got for me. Started Mike X this week over Tate, going to lose tonight and Tate might have saved me.I feel your pain:Started Fitzgerald over Britt last week - lost.Started Britt over Fitzgerald this week - lost.Turn it around and I win both weeks.
Looking at it logically, if you start 1 QB and bench 2, start 2 RB's and bench 4, start 3 WR's and bench 3 a well rounded team stands a better than average chance of leaving pts on the bench every week. All I'd say is look at the big picture. Bench pts are a GOOD thing! It means you have more tradeable commodities on your squad. Where I think most people mess up is by chasing last week's points, rather than trying to answer the equation of talent + strength of opponent + opportunity for this week.
The problem with this strategy is you have to find a team that is in so much trouble that your 2 or 3 for 1 trade makes sense to them. The problem is that if you have a set it and forget it stud do you really want to take over the lineup decissions that the other team is trying to avoid?You at minimum have to give up 2 every week starters (no decision type of guys but not studs) or maybe 3....At some point that trade starts to not make sense for your team as well. Many teams will not give up a stud unless it is for another stud too. I tried getting Roddy White for what I consider a pretty decent 3 player for 1 deal but I got shot down (as I expected to).
Agreed.In my keeper league, the top-10 QBs were all kept (by 4 teams!) this year. I got stuck with Favre as my starter, so I went to those 4 teams and tried to make a trade. No one was willing to make a trade. At one point, I offered R Moss and MJD for Joe Flacco and Cadillac Williams. The other owner has Peyton Manning as his QB1, but his best WRs were Fitzgerald and Mike Wallace. Plus his RBs were Matthews, Cadillac, and Benson. He turned me down, saying that he Flacco was worth more than that.The ideas espoused on this (and other FF boards) of trading depth for studs seem to be unlikely, especially in the leagues I play in. Guys seem to value the players that they drafted more than players on other teams. The usual trades are for lesser players, to cover byes, injuries, etc.I currently have 4 top-24 RBs (plus Blount, who looks like he may have earned more carries), but I can't give one away for another team's back-up QB.
ya you'll definitely be overpaying, and it can't be margin players. if we are talking about good depth it means you have consistent performers on your bench that makes it tough to set your line up. Im talking if you have a TO or Moreno like player on your bench you can package them for a Andre Johnson and then pick up say a Danny Woodhead off waivers and still come out on top. You'll def be paying for a stud tho. Of course this is trading with a bottom team looking for help.
However, all is not equal in our fantasy football scenario. For the top fantasy players, the penalty for being wrong and suggesting a benching is much worse than the benefit. If you make projections for a living and honestly believe AP will have a bad game, you are still not going to recommend benching him. If he has a huge c2007 game, your reputation is toast. So you lower his projections just a little and blend in with the crowd. When the penalty for being wrong is so much greater than the benefit of being right, nobody is really willing to go out on a limb.
