Danish Bengal
Footballguy
PPR 12 teams QRRWWWTF
RB Kelley, WAS
for
WR Austin LAR
RB Kelley, WAS
for
WR Austin LAR
Lacy
for
martellus Bennett
Seems dirt cheap when you look at the details of Lacy's contract. He was brought in to be the starterLacy
for
martellus Bennett
Austin for mePPR 12 teams QRRWWWTF
RB Kelley, WAS
for
WR Austin LAR
Believe this trade was me getting Lacy. I'm in a dispersal and guy offered me Lacy for this pick. He then took Martellus. It's 0.75 PPR for RB and 1.25 for TE.Lacy
for
martellus Bennett
austinPPR 12 teams QRRWWWTF
RB Kelley, WAS
for
WR Austin LAR
martyLacy
for
martellus Bennett
ewww12 Team PPR IDP
Team A received 1.03
Team B received 1.09, 2.06, 2.10
Green Bay TE Fantasy Points ranking for the last 7 years:Bennett in the Packer offense versus fat Eddie? That's an easy one.
The GB TE is cheap for a GB washout RB? I'd take Bennett all day in that deal.Seems dirt cheap when you look at the details of Lacy's contract. He was brought in to be the starter
This trade only approaches equal value in a redraft league.12 Team PPR IDP
Team A received 1.03
Team B received 1.09, 2.06, 2.10
I agree Lacy was likely brought in to be the starter but it's not like he's without risk (weight, bad o-line) or competition (Rawls, Prosise, Collins). Bennett has been a very productive TE and Green Bay was an excellent landing spot. I see this as pretty close.Seems dirt cheap when you look at the details of Lacy's contract. He was brought in to be the starter
You kind of have to look at who the TEs were during those years. Cook looked good in the second half of the season when he was healthy and Marty B >>> Cook.Green Bay TE Fantasy Points ranking for the last 7 years:
It is an easy one. I'd take Fat Eddie. Aaron Rodgers is a great QB, but he hasn't put up great TE numbers in 7 years, that's not going to change now that they got Marty B. He only plays well in Sept. So, if I made this trade I'd trade Bennet away after the first 4 games.
- 2016 - 26
- 2015 - 17
- 2014 - 23
- 2013 - 17
- 2012 - 14
- 2011 - 9
- 2010 - 20
I'd say those numbers are more indicative of the talent at the position than the featured use.Green Bay TE Fantasy Points ranking for the last 7 years:
It is an easy one. I'd take Fat Eddie. Aaron Rodgers is a great QB, but he hasn't put up great TE numbers in 7 years, that's not going to change now that they got Marty B. He only plays well in Sept. So, if I made this trade I'd trade Bennet away after the first 4 games.
- 2016 - 26
- 2015 - 17
- 2014 - 23
- 2013 - 17
- 2012 - 14
- 2011 - 9
- 2010 - 20
I like the Kelly side in this one.PPR 12 teams QRRWWWTF
RB Kelley, WAS
for
WR Austin LAR
Lacy for me, and by quite a bit IMOLacy
for
martellus Bennett
Como se what???You kind of have to look at who the TEs were during those years. Cook looked good in the second half of the season when he was healthy and Marty B >>> Cook.
Top TEs by season:
2016 - Rodgers/Cook
2015 - Rodgers
2014 - Quarless
2013 - Quarless/ Finley (played in 6 games)
2012 - Finley
2011 -Finley
2010 - Quarless/Finley (played in 5 games)
So when Finely was healthy those rankings look ok - would you throw to Andrew Quarless or Richard Rodgers a lot? I don't see how these numbers are relevant. Bennett is a top 5 talent at the position.
He's surely a talent. Not sure why that's a controversial statement. I suppose I could have added the word "arguably".Como se what???
Eifert/IngramFFPC......not involved.
Team A gets Eifert + Ingram
Team B gets Kelce + 3.12
:X12 Team PPR IDP
Team A received 1.03
Team B received 1.09, 2.06, 2.10
If we're talking pure talent...He's surely a talent. Not sure why that's a controversial statement. I suppose I could have added the word "arguably".
He's a bit of a head case, but anywhere he's been featured, he's been highly productive and I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of more "talented" tight ends:
Gronk
Reed
and then the list gets debateable after that imo (Kelce, Eifert...). Situation dictates production in addition to talent.
Let's just say I strongly disagree with a lot of players on that list. I should have put Graham clearly ahead of him before though.:X
If we're talking pure talent...
Gronk
Reed
Kelce
Graham
Henry
Eifert
Olsen
Ebron
Ertz
Howard
Rudolph
Frankly, I don't think Bennett is any more talented than Jared Cook. Cook hasn't put it together, but Bennett really only did for one year.
I don't but most of all don't agree that he's the starter based on his contract. I think they genuinely like Rawls and the things Prosise can do but both have struggled to stay on the field. I think Lacy was brought in to compete and be in the mix, not walking in as the starter.I agree Lacy was likely brought in to be the starter
This might not be the best thread for the discussion but I'd like to hear more about the strong disagreement with most of those guys. I don't think very highly of Benett so that might be part of it.Let's just say I strongly disagree with a lot of players on that list. I should have put Graham clearly ahead of him before though.
I own Eifert a few places in FFPC and he's awfully frustrating with his injuries so I can see basically using Ingram as the chip to get a similar productive TE but one is usually always available. I honestly have him on one FFPC team and sometimes I mentally think about my roster without staring at it and I think of my TE situation as it relates to team need and a few times I've actually forgot he was on the team.FFPC......not involved.
Team A gets Eifert + Ingram
Team B gets Kelce + 3.12
I'm not that worried because I honestly don't think Bennett has much value either way. I doubt all 3 TEs get much more than 120 targets. Bennett will probably lead the way with 70. Personally I see his upside as 50/550/5.Is anyone worried about Lance Kendricks hurting Bennett's value? Kendricks put up 50-499 in a horrible Rams passing offense last year (Bennett had 55-701 with the Pats) and is more of a flex/receiving TE. With the Packers talking about using more two TE sets, it could mean Bennett blocks more while Kendricks gets more routes.
Maybe I'm way off base, but I could see this Packers TE fantasy production being something like a 60/40 split in favor of Bennett and not the 90% type numbers that many seem to expect.
Personally, I'm not.Is anyone worried about Lance Kendricks hurting Bennett's value? Kendricks put up 50-499 in a horrible Rams passing offense last year (Bennett had 55-701 with the Pats) and is more of a flex/receiving TE. With the Packers talking about using more two TE sets, it could mean Bennett blocks more while Kendricks gets more routes.
Maybe I'm way off base, but I could see this Packers TE fantasy production being something like a 60/40 split in favor of Bennett and not the 90% type numbers that many seem to expect.
You said "he's a top 5 talent". Big difference between that and "he's surely a talent". He's not in the same class as guys you're saying are debatable. Eifert, Kelce, etc.He's surely a talent. Not sure why that's a controversial statement. I suppose I could have added the word "arguably".
He's a bit of a head case, but anywhere he's been featured, he's been highly productive and I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of more "talented" tight ends:
Gronk
Reed
and then the list gets debateable after that imo (Kelce, Eifert...). Situation dictates production in addition to talent.
Without mucking up the thread too much, I'll just say that perhaps I'm conflating "athleticism" with "talent" and you're conflating "good situations/production" with "talent". The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.This might not be the best thread for the discussion but I'd like to hear more about the strong disagreement with most of those guys. I don't think very highly of Benett so that might be part of it.
Probably because his QB played like a scared rabbit last season and dumped the ball off as fast as he could.Kendricks put up 50-499 in a horrible Rams passing offense last year
Apparently "debatable" is a concept you are not familiar with.You said "he's a top 5 talent". Big difference between that and "he's surely a talent". He's not in the same class as guys you're saying are debatable. Eifert, Kelce, etc.
If Kelce was on the Pats he would have blown away the numbers Bennett put up. Bennett won't end the year as a top 8 TE imo. After the year I'll come back for some humble pie if necessary.Apparently "debatable" is a concept you are not familiar with.
If Bennett was on the Chiefs, he'd put up Kelce numbers - and that's not a slam on Kelce, I'd buy the argument that he's the better receiver.
Bennett had 55 catches for 701 yards and 7 TDs played through lower leg injuries all last season.If Kelce was on the Pats he would have blown away the numbers Bennett put up. Bennett won't end the year as a top 8 TE imo. After the year I'll come back for some humble pie if necessary.
No, I have Ebron on my list. I'm talking raw talent. Benett is probably more talented than I give him credit, but I even for pure, raw talent he's not that great.Without mucking up the thread too much, I'll just say that perhaps I'm conflating "athleticism" with "talent" and you're conflating "good situations/production" with "talent". The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
12 Team PPR IDP
Team A received 1.03
Team B received 1.09, 2.06, 2.10
Last year everyone thought that the top 4 picks were the cream of the crop. Last year this trade might have netted the guy with 1.3 Treadwell meanwhile the guy with 1.9, 2.06 and 2.10 might have landed Michael Thomas at 9 and Howard with one of those 2nds and then what ?Robbery to get 1.3 at that price
While that is anecdotally true I suspect systematically trading, say the last dozen 1.3s for the last dozen 1.9s and 2.6s would be a losing proposition...Last year everyone thought that the top 4 picks were the cream of the crop. Last year this trade might have netted the guy with 1.3 Treadwell meanwhile the guy with 1.9, 2.06 and 2.10 might have landed Michael Thomas at 9 and Howard with one of those 2nds and then what ?
You really just never know. Thomas went pick 9 or 10 in multiple of my rookie drafts last year.
Oooh nice comeback. Look, just because your now backtracking on what you said there's no need to get saucy. .Apparently "debatable" is a concept you are not familiar with.
If Bennett was on the Chiefs, he'd put up Kelce numbers - and that's not a slam on Kelce, I'd buy the argument that he's the better receiver.
As deep as this class is, I have to think I can get a solid TE prospect comparable to Higbee at 2.6. I prefer the flexibility of the pick here.2.06
For
Tyler Higbee
So you're saying you would trade 1.03 for 1.09 and a couple seconds?Last year everyone thought that the top 4 picks were the cream of the crop. Last year this trade might have netted the guy with 1.3 Treadwell meanwhile the guy with 1.9, 2.06 and 2.10 might have landed Michael Thomas at 9 and Howard with one of those 2nds and then what ?
You really just never know. Thomas went pick 9 or 10 in multiple of my rookie drafts last year.
LolHigbee bigly.2.06
For
Tyler Higbee
I think I'd take Hyde, unless the pick was pretty early, I want to give Hyde one more chance in a decent offense with a good coach to see what he can do.Carlos Hyde and pick 4.04
for
2018 1st and 2018 2nd
Edit: I am not either of these teams.