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!
I should have listened to my own advise and just traded up for Bush right before the Combine when his value exploded.The time to trade for Bush (or the rights to the pick) is going to be just before the combine IMO. No need to rush it now. Yes, there is a mild chance he gets injured in the Texas game. There is also a mild chance that LT gets hurt in the preseason or something too, which nobody seems to want to talk about. There is an even smaller chance that he does not come out. That of course is highly doubtful. No matter what Bush does in the Texas game though, his stock WILL NOT RISE any more than it already is. Which IMO means if you want to make a play for him, wait it out and maybe hope he underperforms in the Texas game. I know I am.
lolI should have listened to my own advise and just traded up for Bush right before the Combine when his value exploded.The time to trade for Bush (or the rights to the pick) is going to be just before the combine IMO. No need to rush it now. Yes, there is a mild chance he gets injured in the Texas game. There is also a mild chance that LT gets hurt in the preseason or something too, which nobody seems to want to talk about. There is an even smaller chance that he does not come out. That of course is highly doubtful. No matter what Bush does in the Texas game though, his stock WILL NOT RISE any more than it already is. Which IMO means if you want to make a play for him, wait it out and maybe hope he underperforms in the Texas game. I know I am.
Nah, I'm the guy that gave up LT, Turner, Hines, and a #1. Not patting myself on the back really, I think it was a pretty fair deal for both sides. I did take a dropoff on the LT to Bush end, but I'm a gambler sometimes and I think Bush is going to be great. 5.7 years of age is a pretty big thing there too.
Terrible trade for you..you just needed to get in position to grap DeAngelo Williams and look for an upgrade at QB/Wr and your were solid..just a god awful deal for you..anyone but LT!!
Far too early to be patting yourself on the back yet.
You make it sound like "just getting into position to grab DeAngelo Williams" is a triviality. This is a 14 team, start 2 RB league. You don't just say "I want DeAngelo Williams" and get him without giving up much of anything. The guy that has him has Corey Dillon and a bunch of crap. Another backfield has Barlow, DD, and crap. One guy has Curtis Martin, Maurice Drew, Chris Perry, J Harrison, and crap. Another guy has Addai, Thomas Jones, Calhoun, Moats, and junk. Young RB's aren't easy to come by - WR's are so much easier. And I managed to get 2 of them in this deal....
I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.guppie
Turner will end up better than all of themI also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.
I remember a 28 year old Emmitt Smith getting traded for a hot young rookie Lawrence Phillips. Well Emmitt kept cranking out 1500 yard 15 TD years and Phillips was well..... Phillips.You can stay on top without taking risks on rookies.I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.
Emitt Smith, one of the models of durability, had 2 seasons in the top 10 after that 96 season (where he was still 27). His best ranking outside of that was 18. He hardly "kept cranking out 1500 yard and 15 TD years".When a RB is 28, he is old. Even if he's Emmitt Smith, don't expect to get too many more top 10 seasons out of him.But the common thinking is that 30 is the magic number instead, so 28 is the ideal time to dump these guys. It's almost certain that a RB is on the decline at that age and people still believe that his past history gives him some sort of immunity that other RB's didn't have. I was 1 year too soon here, I can live with that.I remember a 28 year old Emmitt Smith getting traded for a hot young rookie Lawrence Phillips. Well Emmitt kept cranking out 1500 yard 15 TD years and Phillips was well..... Phillips.You can stay on top without taking risks on rookies.I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.
Tomlinson just turned 27 so let's start there. I think your stats on Emmitt are wrong. I see that Emmitt had top 10 seasons at age 27, 28, 30, and 31. Still too much in Tomlinson's tank to trade him for a prospect.Emitt Smith, one of the models of durability, had 2 seasons in the top 10 after that 96 season (where he was still 27). His best ranking outside of that was 18. He hardly "kept cranking out 1500 yard and 15 TD years".When a RB is 28, he is old. Even if he's Emmitt Smith, don't expect to get too many more top 10 seasons out of him.But the common thinking is that 30 is the magic number instead, so 28 is the ideal time to dump these guys. It's almost certain that a RB is on the decline at that age and people still believe that his past history gives him some sort of immunity that other RB's didn't have. I was 1 year too soon here, I can live with that.I remember a 28 year old Emmitt Smith getting traded for a hot young rookie Lawrence Phillips. Well Emmitt kept cranking out 1500 yard 15 TD years and Phillips was well..... Phillips.You can stay on top without taking risks on rookies.I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.
Emmitt was born 5/16/1969. So in the 1996 season, he was 27.In 1997, he ranked #18.In 1998, #6In 1999, #5.2000 and beyond it was 20, 25, 26, 63, 23.Show me where these stats are wrong.Synthesizer said:Tomlinson just turned 27 so let's start there. I think your stats on Emmitt are wrong. I see that Emmitt had top 10 seasons at age 27, 28, 30, and 31. Still too much in Tomlinson's tank to trade him for a prospect.DrJ said:Emitt Smith, one of the models of durability, had 2 seasons in the top 10 after that 96 season (where he was still 27). His best ranking outside of that was 18. He hardly "kept cranking out 1500 yard and 15 TD years".When a RB is 28, he is old. Even if he's Emmitt Smith, don't expect to get too many more top 10 seasons out of him.But the common thinking is that 30 is the magic number instead, so 28 is the ideal time to dump these guys. It's almost certain that a RB is on the decline at that age and people still believe that his past history gives him some sort of immunity that other RB's didn't have. I was 1 year too soon here, I can live with that.Synthesizer said:I remember a 28 year old Emmitt Smith getting traded for a hot young rookie Lawrence Phillips. Well Emmitt kept cranking out 1500 yard 15 TD years and Phillips was well..... Phillips.You can stay on top without taking risks on rookies.DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
Ahhh, I see. You left out his 27 year old season where he was #6. And I was one year off when I counted his 26 year old season.Emmitt was born 5/16/1969. So in the 1996 season, he was 27.In 1997, he ranked #18.In 1998, #6In 1999, #5.2000 and beyond it was 20, 25, 26, 63, 23.Show me where these stats are wrong.Synthesizer said:Tomlinson just turned 27 so let's start there. I think your stats on Emmitt are wrong. I see that Emmitt had top 10 seasons at age 27, 28, 30, and 31. Still too much in Tomlinson's tank to trade him for a prospect.DrJ said:Emitt Smith, one of the models of durability, had 2 seasons in the top 10 after that 96 season (where he was still 27). His best ranking outside of that was 18. He hardly "kept cranking out 1500 yard and 15 TD years".When a RB is 28, he is old. Even if he's Emmitt Smith, don't expect to get too many more top 10 seasons out of him.But the common thinking is that 30 is the magic number instead, so 28 is the ideal time to dump these guys. It's almost certain that a RB is on the decline at that age and people still believe that his past history gives him some sort of immunity that other RB's didn't have. I was 1 year too soon here, I can live with that.Synthesizer said:I remember a 28 year old Emmitt Smith getting traded for a hot young rookie Lawrence Phillips. Well Emmitt kept cranking out 1500 yard 15 TD years and Phillips was well..... Phillips.You can stay on top without taking risks on rookies.DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
Why the hell did you include Turner in the deal?DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
Well, despite the fact that he's some sort of folk hero on FBG, I don't think it's guaranteed he's going to be a starter in this league. In fact, I'd stake his odds at well under 50%.Why the hell did you include Turner in the deal?DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
Just out of curiousity, you don't think he'll get the opportunity or you don't think he's good enough?Well, despite the fact that he's some sort of folk hero on FBG, I don't think it's guaranteed he's going to be a starter in this league. In fact, I'd stake his odds at well under 50%.Why the hell did you include Turner in the deal?DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
Well, it's going to be 2 full seasons before he has the opportunity. And I'm really not sure that he's good enough. Yes, he has had a couple of nice runs and his stats look ok. But everyone was saying this same stuff about Jesse Chatman last year, he got cut, and where is he now?57 carries in a backup role isn't enough to evaluate a guy...I have been trying to trade him in another dynasty with no takers, even the Tomlinson owner. And I'm not getting outrageous either. I managed to get him dirt cheap when I did deal for him this offseason to handcuff Tomlinson in this league. In the 3rd dynasty I am in, he was literally cut. I admit, it was a dumb cut, but he was cut the same. He was available in that rookie draft and didn't go until the end of the 2nd! So outside of few guys here at FBG that love him and swear he's the next big thing, I just don't see it as a popular opinion.Just out of curiousity, you don't think he'll get the opportunity or you don't think he's good enough?Well, despite the fact that he's some sort of folk hero on FBG, I don't think it's guaranteed he's going to be a starter in this league. In fact, I'd stake his odds at well under 50%.Why the hell did you include Turner in the deal?DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
No one wants Turner in your dynasty leagues? Sounds to me like you play in some really weak leagues. You're comment above should read, "to say on top, sometimes you have to take risks. and it's easy to do it knowing that even if I'm wrong I can still probably trade a rookie stuck in an RBBC for the number 1 player in fantasy football.Well, it's going to be 2 full seasons before he has the opportunity. And I'm really not sure that he's good enough. Yes, he has had a couple of nice runs and his stats look ok. But everyone was saying this same stuff about Jesse Chatman last year, he got cut, and where is he now?57 carries in a backup role isn't enough to evaluate a guy...I have been trying to trade him in another dynasty with no takers, even the Tomlinson owner. And I'm not getting outrageous either. I managed to get him dirt cheap when I did deal for him this offseason to handcuff Tomlinson in this league. In the 3rd dynasty I am in, he was literally cut. I admit, it was a dumb cut, but he was cut the same. He was available in that rookie draft and didn't go until the end of the 2nd! So outside of few guys here at FBG that love him and swear he's the next big thing, I just don't see it as a popular opinion.Just out of curiousity, you don't think he'll get the opportunity or you don't think he's good enough?Well, despite the fact that he's some sort of folk hero on FBG, I don't think it's guaranteed he's going to be a starter in this league. In fact, I'd stake his odds at well under 50%.Why the hell did you include Turner in the deal?DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
They're made entirely of people that frequent this board and others. Who are these people that you play with that are all certain that Turner is going to be the next great RB and are willing to trade a fortune to get him? If you look at this site's own dynasty rankings, Michael Turner is the #41 overall RB and ranks #34 on a single guy's list - the next highest is 42. A borderline #3 RB in a 14 team league, yeah - that's just gold. You can get guys that rank like that with a decent pick in just about any rookie draft. To me, Turner is not at the core of this deal, nor is the #1 in 08 - 2 years from now. Say we give it a value of the 7 pick...that's hit/miss territory. I can make some nifty moves and replace those pieces easily so I try not to get hung up on those types of pieces and instead focus on the meat of the deal. Tomlinson and Hines Ward for Bush and Kevin Jones is what this deal essentially is. And I really think people are overlooking KJ, as much as his last season wasn't good, he still has the potential to be a top 10 RB. The difference between him and Hines Ward is pretty darned big.No one wants Turner in your dynasty leagues? Sounds to me like you play in some really weak leagues. You're comment above should read, "to say on top, sometimes you have to take risks. and it's easy to do it knowing that even if I'm wrong I can still probably trade a rookie stuck in an RBBC for the number 1 player in fantasy football.Well, it's going to be 2 full seasons before he has the opportunity. And I'm really not sure that he's good enough. Yes, he has had a couple of nice runs and his stats look ok. But everyone was saying this same stuff about Jesse Chatman last year, he got cut, and where is he now?57 carries in a backup role isn't enough to evaluate a guy...I have been trying to trade him in another dynasty with no takers, even the Tomlinson owner. And I'm not getting outrageous either. I managed to get him dirt cheap when I did deal for him this offseason to handcuff Tomlinson in this league. In the 3rd dynasty I am in, he was literally cut. I admit, it was a dumb cut, but he was cut the same. He was available in that rookie draft and didn't go until the end of the 2nd! So outside of few guys here at FBG that love him and swear he's the next big thing, I just don't see it as a popular opinion.Just out of curiousity, you don't think he'll get the opportunity or you don't think he's good enough?Well, despite the fact that he's some sort of folk hero on FBG, I don't think it's guaranteed he's going to be a starter in this league. In fact, I'd stake his odds at well under 50%.Why the hell did you include Turner in the deal?DrJ said:I also remember a 28 year old Marshall Faulk getting traded for a rookie LT with similar responses. Well, Faulk had one more great year left in him and then his value took a nosedive. LT has been....well, LT...To stay on top, sometimes you have to take risks.Steve Polychronopolous said:DrJ said:
Michael Turner is a very important piece of that trade. IMO he is gold once he leaves SD, and that could be at the end of 2006 (RFA), and likely at the end of 2007 (UFA). Michael Turner's value reminds me of L Jordan when he was with the Jets, but he may just have more talent. By the way, I agree with you about KJ this year.
Nifty moves like the one you just made huh?
Listen, Its not that I want to make fun of your decision, its that its justified.
BUMP. It was a terrible trade at the time and it's even worse now since Tomlinson is having one of the greatest seasons ever.
HMMM, not a bad deal when you look back.Looking at your team, even with LT I don't know if you would be in the running. At least with the trade you are building for the future. With Brees getting hurt and might need a long rehab, the QB situation could change. Gore has looked fantastic. Mike Williams....LT has been hurt 2 years in a row. Last year with the groin and this year with the ribs. Has all the touches finally caught up with him? You never know. I don't really like the trade, but can't say it's terrible either.You should now try and trade him Michael Turner for something.There's one fact about Reggie Bush, he can only disappoint.
i like to look back at dynasty trades a year or 2 after the fact. This is not that bad of a deal, you got 2 young RBs(gore and reggie) for LT. Rivers gives you depth but you had Vick so you really did not need a starting QB.I still would rahter have LT. I do think his best years are still to comeTHE UNDERCOVER BROTHA said:HMMM, not a bad deal when you look back.Looking at your team, even with LT I don't know if you would be in the running. At least with the trade you are building for the future. With Brees getting hurt and might need a long rehab, the QB situation could change. Gore has looked fantastic. Mike Williams....LT has been hurt 2 years in a row. Last year with the groin and this year with the ribs. Has all the touches finally caught up with him? You never know. I don't really like the trade, but can't say it's terrible either.You should now try and trade him Michael Turner for something.There's one fact about Reggie Bush, he can only disappoint.
Remember this post?THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA said:HMMM, not a bad deal when you look back.
Just think how much better the trade would be if you had gotten full value back then. You'd have Bush, Gore, Rivers and more now. You hit big on Gore, but might easily have missed. I'm having a tough time coming up with a comparable trade right now, but here goes: Would you tradeLT+Roddy WhiteforPeterson+Norwood+Cutler+Troy Williamson+a 4th?
Really? I really don't believe he ever tops last season.i like to look back at dynasty trades a year or 2 after the fact. This is not that bad of a deal, you got 2 young RBs(gore and reggie) for LT. Rivers gives you depth but you had Vick so you really did not need a starting QB.I still would rahter have LT. I do think his best years are still to comeTHE UNDERCOVER BROTHA said:HMMM, not a bad deal when you look back.
