*** OFFICIAL *** 13/14 Off-Season Dynasty Trade Thread (1 Viewer)

[Rolling_akg]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

 

[Adam Harstad]

That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and

In PPR that's not great. Its Shonn Greene level production (if only Shonn Greene's name rhymed with Mendoza). Lower cost players provide more upside. Given Bolden and presumably White are more trusted as receivers, you're looking at 2014 upside as stopgap RB2 or modest flex play.

talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

Ridley is a good RB and his upside would be higher anywhere other than NE (or NO). But how often does the Gerhart scenario happen really? And with the rookie class next year how many starting positions are available? It's a nice dream to have, but you have to be satisfied with a LeGarrette Blount or Donald Brown situation.

I would agree with your first point. I wouldn't count on much more than flex value from Ridley in 2014 in PPR leagues. Although I would disagree with characterization of that as his "upside". Ridley produced RB10-14 numbers in 2012. An injury to Vereen could send his stock up. If the coaching staff regains their trust in him, such an injury might not even be necessary. I wouldn't count on top-10 numbers, but I could easily see Ridley getting 1400/12 this year if things broke right for him.

As for how often a Gerhart situation happens... pretty often. In addition to Gerhart, there's Tate and Chris Johnson this offseason. Plus Moreno and Rashad Jennings, which may or may not work out. Reggie Bush has done it twice. Marshawn Lynch, Michael Turner. Ahmad Bradshaw in Indy. BenJarvus Green-Ellis in Cincy. Darren Sproles. Rashard Mendenhall. Steven Jackson, Michael Bush. Willis McGahee has done it twice. Cedric Benson. Thomas Jones did it three times. Chester Taylor. LaMont Jordan. Tatum Bell. "Talented RB (often a backup) falls out of favor with one team, is let go, signs on with another team to get starter carries" is one of the oldest and most common stories in fantasy football. Results like Michael Turner are by far the exception, but it's not at all uncommon for these journeymen to get us a top-12 season or a pair of top-24 finishes in their new location.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

 

[thriftyrocker]

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

Are you betting on injury? (It would be a pretty safe bet.)

 

[Adam Harstad]

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

Are you betting on injury? (It would be a pretty safe bet.)

No, although I agree that Shorts is at greater risk. I just don't see how "weekly consistency" is a problem for Ridley and not for a WR in an atrocious passing offense with a rookie QB that just dropped major draft value on a pair of new receivers. I don't think either player will be at all consistent. Typically, players who score in the range I would expect Shorts and Ridley to score in are rarely consistent weekly plays.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

gave Justin Hunter

got C Michael

non ppr. not relying on C Michael production this year. I feel Hunter will perform better this year due to more PT

 

[thriftyrocker]

No, although I agree that Shorts is at greater risk. I just don't see how "weekly consistency" is a problem for Ridley and not for a WR in an atrocious passing offense with a rookie QB that just dropped major draft value on a pair of new receivers. I don't think either player will be at all consistent. Typically, players who score in the range I would expect Shorts and Ridley to score in are rarely consistent weekly plays.

While they did add 2 rookie WR, the depth outside of those 3 players is abysmal, and its unlikely both WR will be ready. Shorts put up 12.4 ppg last year, and one of those games he only played part of the 1q. Assuming Henne starts a lot of games as reported and Shorts stays healthy, he should be consistent as much as any mediocre NFL WR1 is consistent. This isn't a Vincent Brown situation where he's the guy just because he's the only veteran you've heard of. He's actually put up consistent numbers before. In redraft, he's a solid arbitrage play compared to Wright or G Tate who go 3 rounds earlier. The real risk is injury as he's already nursing a hamstring and any head injury could mean an extended leave. It's because of that risk I'd gladly bail on him, not any lack in consistency or utility, assuming PPR format.

As for how often a Gerhart situation happens... pretty often.

I realize my post was written like I have no idea what has happened in the NFL the past 10 years. But I was more referencing the numbers game that happens every year. Yes, every year FA RB sign with new teams, and sometimes they start. But some years there are only a couple non-backup opportunities for veterans. 2012 only BJGE got a big role. 2011 was pretty much just Sproles and McGahee, and 2009/2010 were both dry as well. Maybe RB shuffling is the new norm and a side effect of the devaluing of the position, as teams are less likely to resign the RB they have. 2015 likely has a very deep rookie class and other marquee FA like Mathews, Ingram and Vereen (and Murray if he doesn't stay in DAL), plus potentially Lynch and Spiller. It is possible a team sees him as a value signing and gives him starters carries, but part B in a committee seems more likely to me, similar to his current role. The main reason he is a good target is because people are sick of him.

 

[thriftyrocker]

gave Justin Hunter

got C Michael

non ppr. not relying on C Michael production this year. I feel Hunter will perform better this year due to more PT

Michael is an easy win in non-PPR. A little closer in PPR but I don't have much faith in Hunter.

 

[FUBAR]

gave Justin Hunter

got C Michael

non ppr. not relying on C Michael production this year. I feel Hunter will perform better this year due to more PT

Michael is an easy win in non-PPR. A little closer in PPR but I don't have much faith in Hunter.

I don't care about ppr here. What is the lineup requirement? Hunter isn't going to be big in ppr as he should be a big play guy.

I think it's close and agree with S's logic.

 

[renesauz]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

Consensus might say Ridley, but it's not exactly a runaway. Personally, I don't see Ridley as being all that talented, and with Vereen in town I'm not at all sold on his PPR value. Shorts isn't all that sexy either, but I like his chances to maintain WR2/3 numbers for a lot longer than Ridley maintains RB2/3 numbers.

I think the deal's a wash, and could go either way depending on roster needs.

 

[renesauz]

12 team, 1 PPR 1QB, 2-3RB, 3-4WR, 1-2TE

I just traded: Michael Floyd, Marvin Jones

for: LeVeon Bell, Marquis Wilson

All I had at RB besides prospects was Stacy and Gore and I was pretty stacked at WR and still have Keenan Allen, Crabtree, Cordarelle Patterson, Welker, as my core and Latimer as a prospect and got another nice prospect in Wilson in return. I know a lot of people like Floyd but now I've got 2 solid RB's under age 23.

Who is trading Bell for that? Bell, not close.

I might think about trading Bell for Floyd depending on my situation. Actually not a big reach at all imo and I might take Floyd more often than not given that choice

Agreed.

 

[False Start]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

 

[False Start]

gave Justin Hunter

got C Michael

non ppr. not relying on C Michael production this year. I feel Hunter will perform better this year due to more PT

Michael is an easy win in non-PPR. A little closer in PPR but I don't have much faith in Hunter.

You must be on the boat that Michael is the next best thing since sliced bread. I'll wait for more than 18 carries and a majority of the year being inactive before I crown him that. As far as the trade goes, pretty even in all scoring.

 

[loose circuits]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

hes also a free agent so he can head to much greener pastures like Cleveland or Indy

 

[maxhyde]

12 Team PPR - Start 3 WRs and a flex.

Team A Gets: Randall Cobb

Team B Gets: Victor Cruz, Eric Decker, Cody Lattimer, 2nd Round Pick.

Team B wants depth as Team A wants a stud.

Crazy value for Cobb.

 

[FUBAR]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

hes also a free agent so he can head to much greener pastures like Cleveland or Indy

 

[FUBAR]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

How is his situation worse than last year?

He was injured but played through most of last year until the end, he was clearly the #2 for the brief period JB was healthy but he isn't an ideal #1 WR IMO. Henne isn't going to get worse this year and Bortles has a better arm if he gets the start. While I don't like Jax's potential as to win games, being the veteran WR for a rookie strong armed QB could be a good thing. The rookie WRs don't pose much of a threat this year, and if he does leave next year his situation can only get better (most likely anyway).

He could net over 1,000 yards this year. Agree that he's far more likely a WR4 than a WR2, but he's a solid depth play.

 

[cstu]

if he does leave next year his situation can only get better (most likely anyway).

I like Shorts this year but there aren't many places for him to be a starter next year.

 

[False Start]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

How is his situation worse than last year?

He was injured but played through most of last year until the end, he was clearly the #2 for the brief period JB was healthy but he isn't an ideal #1 WR IMO. Henne isn't going to get worse this year and Bortles has a better arm if he gets the start. While I don't like Jax's potential as to win games, being the veteran WR for a rookie strong armed QB could be a good thing. The rookie WRs don't pose much of a threat this year, and if he does leave next year his situation can only get better (most likely anyway).

He could net over 1,000 yards this year. Agree that he's far more likely a WR4 than a WR2, but he's a solid depth play.

They added better WRs and a rookie QB will be coming in at some point. I think that is clearly a worse situation for him and his stats.

 

[FUBAR]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

How is his situation worse than last year?

He was injured but played through most of last year until the end, he was clearly the #2 for the brief period JB was healthy but he isn't an ideal #1 WR IMO. Henne isn't going to get worse this year and Bortles has a better arm if he gets the start. While I don't like Jax's potential as to win games, being the veteran WR for a rookie strong armed QB could be a good thing. The rookie WRs don't pose much of a threat this year, and if he does leave next year his situation can only get better (most likely anyway).

He could net over 1,000 yards this year. Agree that he's far more likely a WR4 than a WR2, but he's a solid depth play.

They added better WRs and a rookie QB will be coming in at some point. I think that is clearly a worse situation for him and his stats.

they did? and here I thought they added rookies who still have to learn the game in the NFL.

If Bortles starts, there's a good chance he's better for his WRs in FF than Henne.

 

[FUBAR]

if he does leave next year his situation can only get better (most likely anyway).

I like Shorts this year but there aren't many places for him to be a starter next year.

We'll just have to disagree here. He's better than most teams #2 receiver. Just my opinion of course, but there are plenty of places for him to start next year. Including Jacksonville.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Consensus might say Ridley, but it's not exactly a runaway. Personally, I don't see Ridley as being all that talented, and with Vereen in town I'm not at all sold on his PPR value. Shorts isn't all that sexy either, but I like his chances to maintain WR2/3 numbers for a lot longer than Ridley maintains RB2/3 numbers.


I think the deal's a wash, and could go either way depending on roster needs.

Consensus gives a slight- but robust- edge to Ridley in the most Shorts-favorable setup out there. It's not like they're rounds and rounds apart, but that's surprisingly strong agreement- stronger than I would have thought when I began looking into it. It's not just consensus, it's unanimous consensus, if that makes any sense.

Again, obviously the guy who has Rob Gronkowski ranked at #5 and Percy Harvin ranked at #12 in dynasty isn't going to be all that zealous in defending the virtues of consensus. I was just surprised by how near-universal the agreement was.

 

[maxhyde]

Consensus might say Ridley, but it's not exactly a runaway. Personally, I don't see Ridley as being all that talented, and with Vereen in town I'm not at all sold on his PPR value. Shorts isn't all that sexy either, but I like his chances to maintain WR2/3 numbers for a lot longer than Ridley maintains RB2/3 numbers.


I think the deal's a wash, and could go either way depending on roster needs.

Consensus gives a slight- but robust- edge to Ridley in the most Shorts-favorable setup out there. It's not like they're rounds and rounds apart, but that's surprisingly strong agreement- stronger than I would have thought when I began looking into it. It's not just consensus, it's unanimous consensus, if that makes any sense.

Again, obviously the guy who has Rob Gronkowski ranked at #5 and Percy Harvin ranked at #12 in dynasty isn't going to be all that zealous in defending the virtues of consensus. I was just surprised by how near-universal the agreement was.

I would probably side with Shorts in most cases but I see it as pretty even swap of guys that mostly disappointed last year. Both have some upside but I would probably take my chances with Shorts

 

[NeonDeion21]

Team A: Jake Locker

Team B: Tavon Austin

Full PPR, big bonus for return yards. Team B already owns Andrew Luck, RGIII, Joe Flacco and Mike Glennon.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Team A: Jake Locker

Team B: Tavon Austin

Full PPR, big bonus for return yards. Team B already owns Andrew Luck, RGIII, Joe Flacco and Mike Glennon.

Unless that's superflex, that seems crazy low for Tavon.

 

[loose circuits]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

hes also a free agent so he can head to much greener pastures like Cleveland or Indy

single coverage across from Gordon/Cameron with Manziel tossing the rock could be a good spot for somebody unless Baby Hawk proves to be the real deal

 

[loose circuits]

if he does leave next year his situation can only get better (most likely anyway).

I like Shorts this year but there aren't many places for him to be a starter next year.

Clev (mentioned above)Indy (could hold his own against Rogers/Moncrief)

Pitt (Haven't seen enough of Wheaton and Bryant is a longshot)

SanFran (Crabs in contract year & even then he's probably better than Steve J and aging Boldin)

Oak

Miami (Landry is unprove, Hartline pedestrian)

NYJets

Hou (since Dre wants out)

KC

GB (with all their free agents)

Det (I'd put him pretty even if not better than Tate)

Minn (Jennings isn't getting any younger)

ATL (Roddy a FA)

Bal (Steve Smith about done, jury out on Marlon Brown)

Car

STL (still looking for WR's, maybe they have them, maybe they don't)

 

[kutta]

Team A: Jake Locker

Team B: Tavon Austin

Full PPR, big bonus for return yards. Team B already owns Andrew Luck, RGIII, Joe Flacco and Mike Glennon.

Unless that's superflex, that seems crazy low for Tavon.

No kidding. Locker could easily be on the wire in 1 QB leagues, and in "big bonus for return yards" leagues, Tavon should be pretty valuable. That trade makes no sense to me.

 

[Andrew74]

Two trades today; 12 team, 0.5PPR, start 1/2/3/1

Team A gives: Boykin, 2015 3rd (guess top half)

Team B gives: 2.05

Team C (me) gives: 1.01 + 1.06

Team D gives: D Thomas

I feel pretty darn good about getting DT.

 

[maxhyde]

Two trades today; 12 team, 0.5PPR, start 1/2/3/1

Team A gives: Boykin, 2015 3rd (guess top half)

Team B gives: 2.05

Team C (me) gives: 1.01 + 1.06

Team D gives: D Thomas

I feel pretty darn good about getting DT.

cheap for DT.

I would also take 2.05

 

[bostonfred]

I'm not high on Watkins or Demaryius, but I think I take the picks. In two years, when Watkins is fully developed and Thomas is about to start playing with a new quarterback, which one will be more valuable? It's easy to say Demaryius when he's just had a monster season, but we really have no idea what he'll look like without Manning and no idea what Watkins will look like in a couple years, either. If you had to place a bet on who would have more VBD left in their careers, 2016 Thomas or 2016 Watkins, and it was even odds, are you sure you'd take Thomas?

And if not, then is 1.6 worth the points you'd expect to get from Thomas over the next two years?

 

[jeaton6]

I'm not high on Watkins or Demaryius, but I think I take the picks. In two years, when Watkins is fully developed and Thomas is about to start playing with a new quarterback, which one will be more valuable? It's easy to say Demaryius when he's just had a monster season, but we really have no idea what he'll look like without Manning and no idea what Watkins will look like in a couple years, either. If you had to place a bet on who would have more VBD left in their careers, 2016 Thomas or 2016 Watkins, and it was even odds, are you sure you'd take Thomas?

And if not, then is 1.6 worth the points you'd expect to get from Thomas over the next two years?

Maybe but it's 2014. (

 

[humpback]

Non-ppr, start 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE.

Graham, BJGE, LaFell and A. Robinson (TE)

for

L. Green, Ertz, Fitzgerald and Hyde

 

[jeaton6]

Graham side by a lot though if other side is in rebuild I could understand why they might do. They need to go flip Fitz for a young prospect or 2015 1 now.

 

[cstu]

I'm not high on Watkins or Demaryius, but I think I take the picks. In two years, when Watkins is fully developed and Thomas is about to start playing with a new quarterback, which one will be more valuable? It's easy to say Demaryius when he's just had a monster season, but we really have no idea what he'll look like without Manning and no idea what Watkins will look like in a couple years, either. If you had to place a bet on who would have more VBD left in their careers, 2016 Thomas or 2016 Watkins, and it was even odds, are you sure you'd take Thomas?

And if not, then is 1.6 worth the points you'd expect to get from Thomas over the next two years?

Maybe but it's 2014. (

I'm assuming the team trading away DT is rebuilding. If the 1.6 pans out then the team will be much better in the long run.

 

[Andrew74]

I'm not high on Watkins or Demaryius, but I think I take the picks. In two years, when Watkins is fully developed and Thomas is about to start playing with a new quarterback, which one will be more valuable? It's easy to say Demaryius when he's just had a monster season, but we really have no idea what he'll look like without Manning and no idea what Watkins will look like in a couple years, either. If you had to place a bet on who would have more VBD left in their careers, 2016 Thomas or 2016 Watkins, and it was even odds, are you sure you'd take Thomas?

And if not, then is 1.6 worth the points you'd expect to get from Thomas over the next two years?

Maybe but it's 2014. (

I'm assuming the team trading away DT is rebuilding. If the 1.6 pans out then the team will be much better in the long run.

Yeah, he was. This gives him 3 of the top 6 picks, as he had the 1.03 already.

 

[FUBAR]

Ridley for shorts

Not as cut and dried as some of the previous posters seem to think...In PPR I actually would take Shorts, although if I was really roster deficient at RB, then I might go with the underwhelming Ridley.

Based on FBGs consensus rankings, it's RB26 vs. WR51. DLF has it as RB28 vs. WR45. FantasyPros has it as RB20 vs. WR44. Rotoviz consensus has it as RB29 vs. WR45. The June Mocks had Ridley at RB31 (108 overall) and Shorts at WR52 (113 overall). And I'm pretty sure all of these rankings assume PPR, and most of them assume WR-friendly lineups (1/2/3/1 + flex). Any deviations in scoring only serve to skew the comparison more to Ridley.

Not saying that just because consensus rankings prefer one side that that side is obviously the right one. I can see why someone might prefer Shorts, especially in a PPR league with 1/2/3/1/flex lineups. I'm just saying, for me, I think the consensus nailed this one- I think Ridley's the choice, regardless of league settings.

That is fine, I am tempted to quote the estimable EBF on the value (or lack thereof) of consensus rankings, but IMO Ridley is way overrated and I tend to agree with the Rotoworld blurb quoting ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss who "expects Shane Vereen to handle a majority of New England's running back snaps this season". http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen And that is just my opinion.

Yeah, obviously I'm not going to go defending consensus thought to the death or anything. I've got plenty of places where I'm pretty happy to disagree with pretty much every other ranker out there. Just in this case, I think the consensus has it right and that most people underrate just how good of a runner Ridley really is.

Looking at it from another perspective... Ridley got 13 carries per game last year even as the bottom fell out on him. He had 18 carries per game the year before. New England is regularly among the league leaders in total rushing attempts. Blount is gone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ridley inch that back up to about 15 carries per game... and if he does, then he'll probably translate that into about 66 rushing yards (4.4 ypc), with maybe 60 receiving yards and 8-10 TDs on the year. Those are just his like-clockwork career averages. That would translate into about 1100/8 or 1100/10 over a full season, and then afterwards he'll be a talented 26-year-old RB with a strong track record looking for a new Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart-type situation. I'm not saying he's the key to fantasy championships or anything, but that's a pretty nice piece to own in dynasty right now, especially as crappy as the current RB group is.

I understand the whole season numbers you're tossing out. Draftmaster, i like ridley. But i hate throwing him out ther and getting a -1 because he fumbles and BB benches him. Then he's on the bench when he gets two tds. Does that make sense?

You think Cecil Shorts will be any more consistent in 2014?

This Shorts discussion is lasting here and is interesting. He is on a bad team with two rookie WRs and a decent RB who will get fed. I dont think he will do any better then what he already has because his situation got worse and he wasnt that good of a producer to start with. His QB situation isn't any better either so it leads me to wonder what process someone and some of you are using in evaluating him as his stats and situation say he is nothing more than an average WR4. The Shorts supporters are clearly hoping he can do well because nothing shows or has shown that he will. For what it is worth, he did only catch half the balls thrown his way last year, thats not that great either.

hes also a free agent so he can head to much greener pastures like Cleveland or Indy

single coverage across from Gordon/Cameron with Manziel tossing the rock could be a good spot for somebody unless Baby Hawk proves to be the real deal

I think bortles will be better for receivers than JFF

 

[jeaton6]

I'm not high on Watkins or Demaryius, but I think I take the picks. In two years, when Watkins is fully developed and Thomas is about to start playing with a new quarterback, which one will be more valuable? It's easy to say Demaryius when he's just had a monster season, but we really have no idea what he'll look like without Manning and no idea what Watkins will look like in a couple years, either. If you had to place a bet on who would have more VBD left in their careers, 2016 Thomas or 2016 Watkins, and it was even odds, are you sure you'd take Thomas?

And if not, then is 1.6 worth the points you'd expect to get from Thomas over the next two years?

Maybe but it's 2014. (

I'm assuming the team trading away DT is rebuilding. If the 1.6 pans out then the team will be much better in the long run.

Could be but it's still super cheap for him. He and any of the top 6/7 startup picks are easily worth 1.1 + 1.2 + another solid piece even if rebuilding. Now if he shopped it and that's the best he could and he wanted to make the move now so be it but I'll bet the guy getting DT would have paid more.

 

[Kree]

Julio (4 years) + Charles Johnson DE (1 year)

for

Cobb (4 years) + 1.12

 

[Adam Harstad]

Julio (4 years) + Charles Johnson DE (1 year)

for

Cobb (4 years) + 1.12

Julio easy.

 

[Kree]

Julio (4 years) + Charles Johnson DE (1 year)

for

Cobb (4 years) + 1.12

Julio easy.

The second party ontraded 1.12 for Hopkins

 

[FUBAR]

Julio (4 years) + Charles Johnson DE (1 year)

for

Cobb (4 years) + 1.12

Julio easy.

The second party ontraded 1.12 for Hopkins

That 1.12 must be highly sought after.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Julio (4 years) + Charles Johnson DE (1 year)

for

Cobb (4 years) + 1.12

Julio easy.

The second party ontraded 1.12 for Hopkins

Still Julio easy.

 

[Hawkfire]

12 team standard scoring, 1Qb, 2Rb, 2Wr, 1Te, 1Wr/Rb Flex

Team A: K. Wright, Z. Ertz, 2.8

Team B: Forte

Team A: K. Davis and 3.08

Team B: K. Stills

Team A: MJD and 2.4

Team B: T. Austin

 

[bostonfred]

Team A: K. Wright, Z. Ertz, 2.8

Team B: Forte

Team A: K. Davis and 3.08

Team B: K. Stills

Team A: MJD and 2.4

Team B: T. Austin

1st trade is a good one. I take ertz and co unless im legitimately a player away. Second trade give me stills, but im not really enamored with it.

Third trade give me the pick side. 2.4 for austin isn't a bad deal on its own, so you basically get mjd for free.

 

[humpback]

Non-ppr, start 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE.

Graham, BJGE, LaFell and A. Robinson (TE)

for

L. Green, Ertz, Fitzgerald and Hyde

Graham side by a lot though if other side is in rebuild I could understand why they might do. They need to go flip Fitz for a young prospect or 2015 1 now.

I don't see Graham traded very often, but this seems pretty fair IMO. Wonder how much the potential WR designation/holdout has changed things if at all.

 

[cloppbeast]

Joe Flacco + 2.11

for

Jared Cook + 4.01

 

[jeaton6]

Joe Flacco + 2.11

for

Jared Cook + 4.01

Flacco side by a big margin. Cook=Flacco so guessing Flacco buyer really needed TE

 

[cstu]

Team A: K. Wright, Z. Ertz, 2.8

Team B: Forte

Team A: K. Davis and 3.08

Team B: K. Stills

Team A: MJD and 2.4

Team B: T. Austin

1st trade is a good one. I take ertz and co unless im legitimately a player away.Second trade give me stills, but im not really enamored with it.

Third trade give me the pick side. 2.4 for austin isn't a bad deal on its own, so you basically get mjd for free.

People are really missing the boat on Austin in PPR.

 

[cloppbeast]

Joe Flacco + 2.11

for

Jared Cook + 4.01

Flacco side by a big margin. Cook=Flacco so guessing Flacco buyer really needed TE

In a vacuum I'll take Cook over Flacco by a little. He will do better with Bradford healthy.

I don't respect the difference between 2.11 and 4.01. I'd end up reaching at 2.11, anyway.

But yes, I needed a te with qbs to spare.