Trading Offense for Defense (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

From talking to many of the owners in my leagues, they are very hesitant to deal offense for defense, even if it is a major upgrade at D and a small drop at O, even if they have a lot of depth.

Do you, in most leagues, even consider trading offense for defense? Do you do it only if you're getting an elite IDP for a scrub O? What about decent O prospects for good D? It may depend on your league rules and such, if so, what criteria do you use?

 

[T Bell]

In a word, yes I do it, because that's where you can come away with value given (in my experience) the way that many/most IDP players tend to be undervalued in trade. You have to be careful because in dynasty, overall team circumstances and scheme mean more (and the player's individual talent means less) as to the player's value, and this criteria is more difficult to interpret for IDP's than for offensive players, but if done right you can often come out with better value than you traded away.

It's trying to trade away IDP talent for offense that is tough.

 

[-baller]

It may depend on your league rules and such,

yes.

 

[lyon812]

In my experience there have been two major factors leading to the difficulty in trading/trading for IDP players.

1. Inconsistency, often due to scheme changes. People have trouble accurately gauging an IDP player's value long-term. A WR breaking out big one year fills people with a lot more faith than a LB having a great year. For example, take Tinoisamoa. I'm sure many realized he wasn't long-term material and that it was a fluky year. However, many didn't. Schemes mean that there are always players that look like they should that don't (Boley) or that just disappear overnight (Rhodes).

2. Every year there are quality defensive players available as free agents. At least in my leagues, it of course depends on what you play in. In one league, my start-2 LBs were Rivers and Harris at the start of the year, but Farrior and Porter at the end. I didn't miss a beat. It seems far easier to find a LB to plug in each week for a few tackles than it is to find a worthwhile offensive player after week 5 or 6.

 

[FUBAR]

In my experience there have been two major factors leading to the difficulty in trading/trading for IDP players. 1. Inconsistency, often due to scheme changes. People have trouble accurately gauging an IDP player's value long-term. A WR breaking out big one year fills people with a lot more faith than a LB having a great year. For example, take Tinoisamoa. I'm sure many realized he wasn't long-term material and that it was a fluky year. However, many didn't. Schemes mean that there are always players that look like they should that don't (Boley) or that just disappear overnight (Rhodes). 2. Every year there are quality defensive players available as free agents. At least in my leagues, it of course depends on what you play in. In one league, my start-2 LBs were Rivers and Harris at the start of the year, but Farrior and Porter at the end. I didn't miss a beat. It seems far easier to find a LB to plug in each week for a few tackles than it is to find a worthwhile offensive player after week 5 or 6.

#1 feeds into #2. In leagues that start less than a full defense, I don't see ever trading decent O for D. In my leagues though, most start 11 IDPs which makes it a little more worthwhile, but I'm trying to gauge whether to trade O prospects for good D and just can't pull the trigger. In a startup league I can see it, but part of the problem is I already have decent D starters which I will either have to cut or trade if I acquire D for my O. He doesn't want my D, and they're very hard to trade for more than maybe a late pick.

 

[sgtrobo]

IDP for offense is tough, in many cases because the IDP won't score anywhere near what a top-level offensive player scores

HOWEVER, I will, depending upon scoring, sacrifice a solid "scheme dependent" offensive player for a stud LB/DE in a good system, if my depth allows it (and the scoring scheme is conducive to such a switch, value-wise)

 

[obxlegends]

I do, but when I do it you try and pwn the hell out of whoever you're trading with.

RB's and WR's are hard to come by, so if you're lucky to have a surplus you need to make it MORE than worth your while when pulling a deal.

Good question.

 

[MAC_32]

I'll consider any deal, but the only times I've found myself seriously considering a deal is if it involved a stud IDP (Charles Tillman, Patrick Willis, etc.) and non-studs on offense (Eli Manning, LenDale White, Bernard Berrian, etc.), good IDP's (DQwell Jackson, Mario Williams, etc.) for offensive guys I don't expect to amount to much/anything (Tim Hightower, Marc Bulger, Devin Thomas, etc.), or high ceiling IDP prospects (Justin Durant, Tavares Gooden, Mike Mitchell, etc.) for not talented handcuffs (LaDell Betts, Maurice Morris) and projects I've given up on.

The only deal I've executed since I started playing IDP three years ago is me getting Ernie Sims + Jason Hill for Lee Evans, this trade fell into the good IDP's for an offensive guy I don't expect to amount to much/anything. I may be right about Evans but I think I over valued Sims a bit.

 

[stevegamer]

I'm only in one IDP league, and it starts 11. I've had a fairly stacked D with offensive holes for almost the whole time I've been in the league, but I would make a deal to improve my D if I felt that the offensive player wasn't worth much.

Higher scoring is good, no matter where it comes from - however defensive players are easier to find on the wire.

 

[kmg1016]

I'm only in one IDP league, and it starts 11. I've had a fairly stacked D with offensive holes for almost the whole time I've been in the league, but I would make a deal to improve my D if I felt that the offensive player wasn't worth much. Higher scoring is good, no matter where it comes from - however defensive players are easier to find on the wire.

Value is value. You should make the determination based upon your team's needs and based upon the value of the players you're dealing. In many cases IDPs are actually worth more than offensive players. A good MLB on a 4-3 defense (Ryans, Vilma) is worth more than many starting WRs and even some starting RBs if you're getting points for tackles.

 

[stevegamer]

I'm only in one IDP league, and it starts 11. I've had a fairly stacked D with offensive holes for almost the whole time I've been in the league, but I would make a deal to improve my D if I felt that the offensive player wasn't worth much. Higher scoring is good, no matter where it comes from - however defensive players are easier to find on the wire.

Value is value. You should make the determination based upon your team's needs and based upon the value of the players you're dealing. In many cases IDPs are actually worth more than offensive players. A good MLB on a 4-3 defense (Ryans, Vilma) is worth more than many starting WRs and even some starting RBs if you're getting points for tackles.

We agree - I think. Personally, my team is in a odd spot, where I need a really good to stud defender to get marginal upgrades in some spots. I think I had 2 DB1's and 2 DB2's starting for me last year, with depth behind them.If the offensive player you deal opens a gaping hole, it's not worth it, since you will have more trouble filling it. However, dealing from strong offense to fill weak defense can work if you've got offensive depth to plug in and/or the PPG upgrade is big enough.

 

[Biabreakable]

I'm only in one IDP league, and it starts 11. I've had a fairly stacked D with offensive holes for almost the whole time I've been in the league, but I would make a deal to improve my D if I felt that the offensive player wasn't worth much. Higher scoring is good, no matter where it comes from - however defensive players are easier to find on the wire.

Value is value. You should make the determination based upon your team's needs and based upon the value of the players you're dealing. In many cases IDPs are actually worth more than offensive players. A good MLB on a 4-3 defense (Ryans, Vilma) is worth more than many starting WRs and even some starting RBs if you're getting points for tackles.

Since you are talking about value then your making a VBD. Not a decision based on total points.The reason it is difficult to trade offense for defense is because so many defenders are not significantly better than a large grouping of players. Some of who may still be free agents. Free agents on the offensive side are more likely to be picked over and it is a bit more difficult to find impact free agents on the offensive side of the ball than it is on defense.I do prefer the steady consistency of tackle based scoring compared to fringe RB/WR yardage scoring. And I wouldn't hesitate to trade offense for defense if the deal either1. Improves my starting lineup.2. The value of the deal gives me more trade bait and depth.Scenario 2 is less likely than scenario 1 because for the most part trading defense is more difficult than offense.

 

[The Future Champs]

It is tough in most leagues to get decent value for IDPs. (IMHO) I can give three reasonable explanations:

1. Everyone hates to lose in a trade, and in FF public opinion is weighted towards Off due to the vast numbers of Off only leagues. Therefore, most owners have little experience with IDPs, and they automatically discount the value of anything they don't know about. Most commentary on trades on FF boards reflects this lack of value, and causes owners to shy away from trading Off players for IDPs.

2. There is a shortage of point producing Off players vs point producing IDPs, in relation to the number of starters, at least in most leagues. The solution is to increase the number of IDP starters to equal the number of Off starters.

3. Studly def players can put up ####ty numbers, as the Off has the ability to decide where the ball is going on every play. For example, a great shut down CB looks worthless in the stat column (which means we need to refine our stats.) This obviously limits the value of some IDPs, as hitting the upside (studliness) can mean a decrease in point production.

(Personally, I prefer a league with big tackle points, as it decreases the boom or bust nature of the "big play" leagues. I think those leagues are too much like playing the lottery- skill means nothing, & chance rules the day.)

 

[The Future Champs]

It is tough in most leagues to get decent value for IDPs. (IMHO) I can give three reasonable explanations:

1. Everyone hates to lose in a trade, and in FF public opinion is weighted towards Off due to the vast numbers of Off only leagues. Therefore, most owners have little experience with IDPs, and they automatically discount the value of anything they don't know about. Most commentary on trades on FF boards reflects this lack of value, and causes owners to shy away from trading Off players for IDPs.

2. There is a shortage of point producing Off players vs point producing IDPs, in relation to the number of starters, at least in most leagues. The solution is to increase the number of IDP starters to equal the number of Off starters.

3. Studly IDPs can put up ####ty numbers, as the Off has the ability to decide where the ball is going on every play. For example, a great shut down CB looks worthless in the stat column (which means we need to refine our stats.) This obviously limits the value of IDPs, as hitting the upside (studliness) can mean a decrease in point production.