Guess that depends on whether you meant block as in make a competing offer, or as in veto. Vetoing that trade would be disgraceful.Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
What have you been offered for P. Manning? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter LawFitz
- Start date
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Yes...good point.
In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOLIf I were him, this would be my final year in this league.In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOLIf I were him, this would be my final year in this league.In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
A. yes, Manning is regressing to the mean this year from last.B. Take a look at his stats(which is all that matters in FF). He does not suck.
C. ???
Edited to add: Bledsoe will end the year with more FF points than Manning. Sig bet if you're interested.
Last edited by a moderator:
LawFitz
Footballguy
A. Manning's mean is about 27-29 TDs, meaning there are a lot left on the table for this year.B. Bledsoe looked good for his first half season in Buffalo; I won't trust the guy until I see at least a full year of competence.
C. Priniciple: as is I'm not gonna trade my 1st round pick for a guy picked up off the WW 2 weeks ago. The world hasn't changed that much in the last month.
My original post was fecetious. Not a should I/ shouldn't I trade thread. If anything, I would be a Manning buyer given how down everyone is on him right now. This is freakin ridiculous. Look at his remaining schedule. He will finish in the top 5 by the end of the year, although even I now doubt he'll be #1.
Thx, but no thx on the sig bet. I see no point in it.
Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOL
If I were him, this would be my final year in this league.
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.
So the league approval is based entirely on whether the trade would threaten your relative positions/strength within the league. You might as well have a no-trade rule since it appears that your vetoes have nothing to do with collusion or cheating. It's not what I would call true competitiveness. More like a childish "If I can't have him nobody else can either!"
If I were him, this would be my final year in this league.
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.
So the league approval is based entirely on whether the trade would threaten your relative positions/strength within the league. You might as well have a no-trade rule since it appears that your vetoes have nothing to do with collusion or cheating. It's not what I would call true competitiveness. More like a childish "If I can't have him nobody else can either!"crazygutgut
Footballguy
Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOL
If I were him, this would be my final year in this league.
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.
So the league approval is based entirely on whether the trade would threaten your relative positions/strength within the league. You might as well have a no-trade rule since it appears that your vetoes have nothing to do with collusion or cheating. It's not what I would call true competitiveness. More like a childish "If I can't have him nobody else can either!"
Yes that league is in need of a commish instead of some guys voting on trades. Nothing at all wrong with Moss for Manning, how good it makes his team should make no difference.
If I were him, this would be my final year in this league.
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.
So the league approval is based entirely on whether the trade would threaten your relative positions/strength within the league. You might as well have a no-trade rule since it appears that your vetoes have nothing to do with collusion or cheating. It's not what I would call true competitiveness. More like a childish "If I can't have him nobody else can either!"Yes that league is in need of a commish instead of some guys voting on trades. Nothing at all wrong with Moss for Manning, how good it makes his team should make no difference.
I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.
So the league approval is based entirely on whether the trade would threaten your relative positions/strength within the league. You might as well have a no-trade rule since it appears that your vetoes have nothing to do with collusion or cheating. It's not what I would call true competitiveness. More like a childish "If I can't have him nobody else can either!"Yes that league is in need of a commish instead of some guys voting on trades. Nothing at all wrong with Moss for Manning, how good it makes his team should make no difference.
LOL! Yes, we are all childish...or, maybe we are just really smart and do not want someone to run away with the league. FYI, we have an established league and it has always been like this - hard to put trades through if we think it is going to put an owner over the top.
Since this is a "Manning Trade Offers" thread and not a "let's bash how other people's leagues are run" thread, FWIW, looks like this trade may go through:
Moss and D. Jackson
for
Manning, D. Branch and Ro. Williams
Vetoing a trade just because you're afraid that team will kill yours = ###### move. You should be removed form FF.Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOLIf I were him, this would be my final year in this league.In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
northwoods
Footballguy
This one's been proposed in my 10 team league:Manning and C. Brown for Westbrook and HoushI think it's going to get the o.k.NW
I just submitted an offer of McNabb+Cincy DST for Manning+Kevin Curtis (essentially McNabb for Manning).This sports hernia business has got me spooked, and Manning has been a top-5 QB for what, 5 or 6 consecutive years now? Peyton's slow start concerns me less than the possibility of Donovan missing a couple months.Not hopeful, but who knows how frustrated the PM owner is right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
ELI2TYREE
Footballguy
what's competitive about it? Sounds like it sucks to me.I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOLIf I were him, this would be my final year in this league.In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
what's competitive about it? Sounds like it sucks to me.I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOLIf I were him, this would be my final year in this league.In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
I just had a trade vetoed in my league. I was trading Eli, Keyshawn, Fred Taylor, Dunn and Barlow for Manning and Holt.One guy said the other guy was giving up to much, another guy said I was giving up too much, but I know the main reason is the vetoers feel it makes my starting lineup too good.
This will be my last year in this league.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
Looks like urnmyseat will never earn his seat in this place."too cut throat" and "competitiveness".....your league is a joke, not cut throat and competitive.what's competitive about it? Sounds like it sucks to me.I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOLIf I were him, this would be my final year in this league.In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
"Featured" running back is fairly vague, no? That runs the gamut from the LT/Alexander class to the Barlow/Dunn/Shipp class. Something in between, say a Dillon or a Portis, is very reasonable IMO.Despite the slow start, I still believe Manning's production will remain on par with a mid-second, early-third round pick, which is where he's typically been taken every year until this one. There are plenty of "featured" RBs in that same tier.Got this league-wide e-mail yesterday afternoon:
Granted, dude is 1-2 and looking to get off the schneid, but c'mon!??! He can't be that serious about dumping PM for a RB, especially when he drafted him at 1.08 in a 16-team redraft?
Sockmonkey
Footballguy
Trade went through in our league. Team 1 had crap running backs and crap receivers, Peyton and Plummer. He traded Peyton for Fast Willie Parker, Brandon Lloyd, and Matt Hasselback.
I just traded Manning and Stephen Davis for Hasselbeck and Rudi Johnson.A couple reasons. I think Manning will improve, but at best will improve to 2 TDs per game.I think Hasselbeck will be short of Manning, but will keep it close.I think Stephen Davis' trade value is at the peak right now...and his week 3 performance will more closely resemble the rest of the season....Rudi is going to be a huge upgrade.We shall see....Plus...looking to the playoffs...both Rudi and Hasslebeck have sweet scheudules in weeks 13-16.....Seattle has the easiest schedule overall for QBs....(according to FBG)
Deranged Hermit
Not cool & Pissed
I offered Willie Parker and Plummer for Manning. We'll see......
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
This trade was rejected by the Manning owner, and I cannot say that I blame him. However, it got his attention and he is going to make a counter offer soon. It will be interesting to see how he values Manning at this time. More info will come as available.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
I approached a Manning owner this week about a trade. He's asking for Vick AND Westbrook. 
LawFitz
Footballguy
:X :X :X Okay, so I have P Man in one league, but since I am a glutton for punishment (and a value investor), I just made an offer in my auction league to get him as well and the other owner says he's seriously considering it...The Griese, S. Smith and Mewelde-4-Manning and (one of T. Jones, S. Jax or Rudi)Aaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhh! Do I really want this bum bringing down both of my teams??? 
In 1 of my $$ keeper leagues I traded C.Johnson for Manning straight up, I couldn't keep him next year anyway because we can only keep a player 2 years max and I've already kept him for the 2 years. Oh and my other WRs are Harrison/Wayne/Boldin/Driver we start 2, my QBs before the trade were Brooks/Griese so I'm loving this upgrade!!
dstroop
Riding the wave where it takes me
Agreed. "Fairness" is too subjective. If both owners agree to the deal (and there's no shadiness involved), then another owners should deal with it. If anything they should be pissed that they didn't draft better or make an offer of their own.Looks like urnmyseat will never earn his seat in this place."too cut throat" and "competitiveness".....your league is a joke, not cut throat and competitive.what's competitive about it? Sounds like it sucks to me.I guess our league is too cut-throat in the opinion of some. Of course any owners that can't handle the competitiveness of our league are welcome to leave at any time.Wow! Poor guy is getting gang raped because he drafted well! LOLIf I were him, this would be my final year in this league.In your example, I would not block the trade. In the Moss for Manning example, I might consider blocking it since the owner with Manning also has Palmer, therefore, his team will be noticeably better with Moss on it. If the Manning owner had, say, Aaron Brooks, I'd not consider blocking the trade as he will have a considerable drop-off in QB production in exchange for Moss. That would make the trade more even (looking at "end state" rosters of the two owners) . With Palmer waiting in the wings, the trade is lobsided in favor of the current Manning owner, imo, hence I said I was "considering" blocking it. BTW, enough owners in the league must have felt the same as me as the trade was blocked....Well, imo it is disgraceful if you block a trade for that sole reason alone when you believe the trade itself to be fair.For example, if one team loses a starting RB for the year, and another team loses a starting WR, would you veto a RB for WR trade between these 2 teams to keep them "weak"...even if it is a fair offer?Did not know it was "disgraceful" to try to win my fantasy league by not wanting one owner's team to get too stacked.Thanks for putting me in my placeThat's disgraceful. Trying to block a trade because even though it's an even deal it makes one team a lot stronger. I hope you were kidding.I'm trying to get Manning in two of my leagues. One guy wants players like Manning has 15 TDs through five games, the other I think we're fairly close....he offered Manning straight up for Tiki which would leave me a little thin at RB so I countered with Green and Tiki for Manning and Brown which he flinched at.Lots of variety in trade offers here.
Pending trade in our league:
R.Moss for Manning
Looks pretty even to me, but the current Manning owner also has Palmer. If I were him, I'd be pretty happy with that trade. I'm considering trying to block it
Think I pushed my luck.
If that is the case, why have trades at all?
EDIT: Not to mention the guy who was blocked from get Manning because another owner drafted well. I guess he is fooked for no reason of his own.
Prof. Chaos
Footballguy
I just offerd Griese and FWP for Manning and Moulds. Looking at rosters it appeared to be a fair deal.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I just offered Plummer, C. Williams, and M. Anderson for Manning and Witten. I got laughed at he said no chance. The Manning owner is starting Tatum Bell every week at running back to go along K. Jones. We play a WR/RB flex so he could start all 3 running backs. I personally thought the trade offer made sense for both of us. Thoughts?
Bears_Man2
Footballguy
I would not do it if I owned LT2 & Hass.FWP will not have great trade value again until the smoke clears on the Duce/Parker/Bettis situation. I personally believe Parker will get 15 (give or take) carries/game, but not everyone else will see it that way. But he's gonna lose TD's within the 5 & won't have a lot of receptions for PPR leagues.
I like Hass with his easy schedule. Playing STL, Ariz, SF twice is nice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
He has mentioned he wants Westbrook and Chad Johnson for Manning.
I guess I'll give up trying to trade with him and let him continue to lose with only 1 starting running back.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
You've gotta be kidding me. Vick is the #10 QB in my league and Westbrook is the #1 RB AND top scoring player in the league right now (points/rec league).DO it if you're set @ RB. Vick is a HORRIBLE FF QBI approached a Manning owner this week about a trade. He's asking for Vick AND Westbrook.
What scoring system is this?You've gotta be kidding me. Vick is the #10 QB in my league and Westbrook is the #1 RB AND top scoring player in the league right now (points/rec league).DO it if you're set @ RB. Vick is a HORRIBLE FF QBI approached a Manning owner this week about a trade. He's asking for Vick AND Westbrook.
Gamblor
Footballguy
I imagine Vick is top 10 in many leagues right now. He is 10th in ours. 6/TD, 1/30 passing, 1/15 rushingWhat scoring system is this?You've gotta be kidding me. Vick is the #10 QB in my league and Westbrook is the #1 RB AND top scoring player in the league right now (points/rec league).DO it if you're set @ RB. Vick is a HORRIBLE FF QBI approached a Manning owner this week about a trade. He's asking for Vick AND Westbrook.
Similar threads
