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!
Those are pretty horrible offers.I just traded Mike Wallace away in a 12 team ppr dynasty:Gave: Mike Wallace, 3.09, 4.09Got: Donnie Avery, Laurent Robinson, 2.03
Sounds like you give up on a lot of players just before they break out. Strange reasoning.
If you want to extrapolate that I give up on a lot of players just before they break out because I think I believe that there is a good chance that the perceived value for the one specific wide receiver Mike Wallace is be higher than his actual value that have at it.Strage leap of logic, thought.
Same could be said about Harvin, Crabtree, Maclin, Nicks, Britt. The same could surely be said of Beanie Wells. This mainly applies to Harvin, Nicks and Wells, think we should sell?
As I said above, I like to look at things situation by situation.I don't like what I'm seeing in Pittsburgh in regards to their passing game.
Well I guess about as much as Crabtree's ..Dez is headed for a SF visit
I'll be content to hold him rather than trade him if my league mates are thinking this way.He's replacing a 1250 yard receiver, with a 34 year old on the other side. The other rostered WRs of note are Randle El, Sweed, and Battle, none of whom are threats to take away a larger than normal WR3 portion.There is zero chance this team is drafting Dez after what's gone on this offseason with Ben, Holmes, and Reed. Any other WR drafted will be looked upon to replace Ward when he's through, not push Wallace out of the way.Wallace exceeded his 3rd round pedigree from day one. He's going to be one of those guys who continues to do so IMO, as have Austin, Colston, Steve Smith South, Marshall, MSW, Garcon, Breaston, and many many others before them. Draft pedigree is not the end-all of success. It's just an indicator and a head start toward opportunity. It is trumped rather quickly by production, and the starting opportunity for Wallace is already here.
visits don't mean squat.
Well wherever one of these rooks end up be it a RB or WR the current number one takes a hit. The question was "if", so and so were drafted.
That's a fair trade, but I understand why you turned it down. I personally think you can get a WR at least as good as Wallace with the 1.11. Now is the time to trade Wallace since his value is sure to drop when the Steelers draft a WR.
It's a fair trade, but the argument could be made that in a year or two, Wallace and his owners may be the winners over Harvin, Maclin, and rival Crabtree. Harvin will be dealing with a QB upheaval and Rice, Maclin has Djax and a new QB who should be a good one though. Crabtree will see another WR and the jury still out on Smith. If Ben keeps his nose clean Wallace should be better then Holmes.
Again, more if more people in more leagues think like this, I see more reason why Wallace is a "sell" rather than a "buy".
As the guy who traded Wallace in this deal I would like to say the future first has a much better chance of being 1.3 then it does 1.10 or maybe even 1.6.
Let's see..he finally broke 1k yds with 140 targets and a whopping 4tds. Impressive..yawn. I'll take Wallace's futures and you can have Holmes'. Play for play Wallace has already outplayed him. I've owned Holmes and seen enough of the not getting his feet down, missing routes and being non existent in the RZ , not being a deep threat. I'll take Wallace, thank youAgain, more if more people in more leagues think like this, I see more reason why Wallace is a "sell" rather than a "buy".
I'd say it's a helluva deal even if next year's picks are a wash.
So you're saying that Wallace is already a better player than Holmes?You do know that play for play Wallace received the attention of a rookie slot receiver while Holmes was defended as a superbowl MVP. I can respect the argument that Wallace has a bright future but to argue that you'd take Wallace over Holmes as a player, off the field issues aside, right now seems out of kilter with the current reality.
I would absolutely turn down a late first. I've seen Wallace's speed, hands and scrambling savvy at work. Why trade that away for a late 1'st where you are going to take some rookie WR that you have never seen in NFL action?Will he be a full time WR1 stud? Likely not. But I would put his chances at being an every week startable WR at 85%+ right now, which is way more than I can say about any rookie WR that is gonna be selected in the late first.
the guy was probably what a 2nd rounder last year and the team thought enough of him to move holmes away. Now in my mind who would I rather have at say 1.11/1.12 - Mike Wallace, a QB like Bradford? a TE like Grisham? Im assuming about 5 RB's and 5WR's gone in the top10. I think knowing what we know about Wallace makes him more valuable than the late firsts.
Agreed. Lots of those late firsts also end up becoming the Jerome Simpsons and Chad Jacksons and Dwayne Jarretts of the world. When I now have a guy who has ascended to a solid starting job with a top-10 QB, I'm not throwing that away for a guy it'll take two years to learn whether he'll ascend to Wallace's circumstance or will become a bust. These aren't 1.01-1.04 Fitz/AJ/Calvin 1st rounders being offered here. If they were it would be different.
Well I can understand the arguments here for sure, but I would guess all of you must come from the players > picks philosophy. I think most dynasty players tend to value the picks higher, in which case I would guess a late first would be more valuable. I may be way off here though.What about the guy who turned down Sanchez/Ginn? My first reaction was that I would have jumped all over that.
I'm the guy who turned down Sanchez/Ginn. I guess it's just going to take some time for people not in the know to see how good Wallace really is.
And I'm not a fan of The Sanchize at all. I may be proven wrong on that one, we'll see.
Because you didn't start the thread?
What's it got to do with the Assistant Coach forum? Trying to establish value here.
Right now, I'm saying he's off to a better start then Holmes was at the same time. Yes, Wallace occupied the # 3 WR slot. For me, play for play this year Wallace outplayed him. Holmes for a "number 1" to me is a disappointment on and of the field. The # 25 overall pick Holmes was. He's managed 1 year of over a 1000 yards when Ben threw for over 4k. As I stated above with so many targets he's done alot less then other number 1 WR's. Wallace isn't gonna be Larry Fitz but will be a very solid startable WR Fantasy wise and NFL.Avery said:
Avery said:
Your post makes sense, there are lots of flipsides to what you said but Steeler football could turn out just like you say. The whole thing is are people getting offered good value? I've had several offers for Wallace in the past day and have considered them. If we are looking purely at picks and trading him right now then I would have to say 1.6 or 1.7 is a good barometer for him. I've been offered 1.11 and also been offered 2.1 + extras and also been offered two high 3rds + a 2nd next season. I looked into what will be 1.11 and just don't think Bradford/Clausen or Gresham is worth Wallace at this point. At 1.11 last season I took DHB, so those picks are high risk. At 1.6 I'd figure you would get Best or Dwyer which is a deal I would jump on. At 1.7 I am not so sure I would trade Wallace for that unknown WR at this point who falls to the best situation, Tate or Thomas, etc; the risk of getting DHB, David Terrell, Koren Robinson seems too risky for my taste, I would place his value personally at I would trade him for 1.6 and I would buy him for 1.7.
My best offer for Wallace is the 1.11 pick, you think I should sell and pick up either Bradford, Clausen or Gresham and hope they aren't busts?
Baloney.
1.11 is a bit too low unless you need QB or TE but I also don't think you'll be able to trade Wallace for the guy you would have wanted at 1.11 after the draft. That's based on my feeling that the Steelers take a WR early in the draft so if I'm wrong Wallace holds a lot more value.
