Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
To be clear, if you prefer Mayfield for any reason, thats cool. Im not going to die on the hill that Watson is elite and mayfield isnt, I just think they are in different tiers personally.
I'll say it again: they weren't being compared. I was saying they are both guys with a lot of "ifs" for their RB1 potential to come true. So their situations were being compared, but I wasn't comping them player-to-player.
Their situations are extremely analogous IMO, replaceable talents benefitting from being in high powered offenses with great offensive lines. They are somewhat insulated from threats due to this being a down RB class though. If one were interested in acquiring them, I would wait until after the draft because even a mid to late round RB taken hurts their perceived value IMO, maybe even to the point of making them worth targeting. Right now owners are high on those late season/ post season performances.
So in terms of rookie picks this year. What would you offer for Mayfield? Maybe that will help me get an idea on his dynasty value.
I just attempted a 1.11 plus Jerrick McKinnon for Mayfield. I'll report back. Start one QB I can't see more than that even though I'm a big booster.
I'm a Baker believer but I am not confident he will ever be more than a midrange QB1. Which is fine, but I just don't like spending (almost anything) for these kind of QBs. I take the McKinnon and 1.11 deal all day here. I still like McKinnons chances to excel in SF. FWIW I own both. I drafted Baker at the end of the 2nd. That's how I prefer to acquire QBs, or as a piece in a bigger deal.
This is non-ppr so it deflates McKinnon's value. And I'm not a believer.
In which case by all means then. Nothing worse than holding someone you don't want simply because they have value. Getting a return you like makes it satisfying to unload them. I was definitely thinking PPR and I like McKinnon so it's a different calculus.Andy Dufresne said:
I get the concern about the draft or FA signing impacting Mack’s touches but...Buckna said:
I didn't quite get those prices but I did just buy him in FFPC for David Njoku. Classic current production vs young guy in a perfect spot but still seemed a little cheap to me so I bought on a team that is competitive now and has Ertz at TEDr. Octopus said:
I would do that very quickly to get Barkley. I would be surprised if the Barkley owner would do it......especially before they know the landing spot for Bell.
I guess my bigger point is that as the holder of the 1.1 my team stinks and has little depth. And I'm still thinking of dumping Bell.
You've pretty well established that there's no trade you'd accept for Barkley. Not that I really blame you.
Yeah, very true. But I think most Barkley owners feel the same way. It’s just really hard to see a trade that makes sense because everything feels like trading two Nissans for a Mercedes.
I get it completely. FF should be fun and there's no player more fun to have on a roster now than Barkley.
Just ignore all news concerning these two players until we know where they land. You'd be doing yourself a massive disservice to sell at that discount. I own both in a couple different places and I've just learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Don't really agree with your points at all. He clearly lost the receiving role to Hines which many of us owners (myself included) were hoping he would get more of after Gore left. Chubb owners are collectively shrugging and not the slightest bit concerned about the Hunt signing as evidenced by the posts in the threads. Had Indy signed Hunt, Mack's value would have been torpedoed. There are way more than a handful of backs I can name that would be immune to losing value if their team spent a 3rd or later on a RB.
I think it was this wicked smart (and good looking guy) that said it:
I agree that his receiving was disappointing. I am not sure how much of that was due to missing time. I will have to look at the production when both players were healthy.
I think the observation about Chubb is hyperbole. Look on Twitter or go to the Dynasty trade thread you will see that the Hunt signing has more than a few owners nervous, right or wrong. LY the Colts drafted two RBs in the 3rd RD or later and Mack still finished as RB21 in ppr format, despite missing 4 games.
My initial post was in response to Mack's general value. Many folks seem to be pretty dismissive of his potential. You touch on it here but Mack seems to get discounted by the fear of competition. My point is the scenario you present unfolded LY when the Colts drafted Hines and Wilkins. Mack still got a majority of the touches when available. If the Colts were to sign L. Bell all bets are off. But short of bringing in a uber talent I think the reason for discounting Mack doesn't hold a lot of water.
I think the concern is the could sign an upgrade in free agency even if they bypass Bell (say Ingram, Coleman or Ajayi) or they could draft a RB in round 1 or 2 since they pick later and may fill other holes in free agency.
I think that's the realistic view to take. Yes, there's a hit to Chubb's value when they are both on the field, but when will that be? Hunt's out at least 6 games, and more likely 12+. He's only on a one-year contract, so it shouldn't affect Chubb at all in 2020.
Yes of course those other backs perceived value would fall in that scenario but then we have to ask ourselves the likelihood of that happening. I guess it comes down to where we (and the respective NFL teams) rank Mack's talent level and the talent level of those other backs.
I don't think there is. If you try and sell guys like Damien Williams, Jerrick McKinnon and Lamar Miller right now you won't get as much as you would in June once we know that they survived free agency and the draft and the same applies to Mack.
you really never know who is safe, I agree with your point but there are for sure some guys whose value will tank, depending where L Bell winds up, Josh Jacobs,etc. The year Gurley came out, Tre Mason was coming off a fairly decent rookie year and nobody forecasted that as Gurley's landing spot. I always try not to buy any of the non super stud rbs until free agency and draft are over
Back at you! I do think if the Colts take a 3rd round or later RB it will hurt Mack's perceived value. I was pretty gung-ho in the Damien Williams thread that he could likely lose his job to any warm body the Chiefs bring in. Then someone pointed out that later round RB's rarely unseat the incumbent in year one. I think that would apply to Mack where he would likely hold off any non-big FA or higher round RB challenger for the balance of the season (assuming good health of course.) However, I do think the certainty of Indy drafting someone would still cause his trade value to take a hit, maybe even to the point where I would be a definite buyer of Mack for the short-term value he's going to have in in 2020. Just look at last year, there were posters saying Wilkins was the best RB on the roster and going to take over and he was a 5th rounder.32 Counter Pass said:
On paper I'd put value on side of 1.3 and 2020 random first.
Completely agreed. The colts really don't need a new back. Mack does the typical RB work, Hynes I think is underrated. It's not exactly the bears backfield, but rather similar.smbkrypt24 said:
Agreed. There's no way I'd trade the 1.03 where I have it along with a 20 1st for the 1 (this one is super flex, so perhaps there's even less reason to move up unless you really like Haskins but nobody else), but I'm probably keeping the 1 in the league I have it until after the draft. Then we'll see.
Hold the pick. As we get closer to the draft there will be either a player that emerges from the pool and/or a team in your league that has a desire to get to the top. You can move then. Selling and/or offering the pick now diminishes the value. The worst outcome is that you hold the pick and still have the right to pick your guy.
Maybe but if you look at the Barkley and Elliot drafts as examples we already knew they were 1.1 and not a thing materialized during the course of the actual NFL drafts that added any value to pick 2 vs say pick 4. This year it's like those drafts, only it's like we are starting the draft on pick 2.
Let's say the best news comes out, and kc trades a first and this year's second to draft a pass catching stud rb. How much more than 1.3 and a 2020 first would you need to make that deal?
Love Woods game but that’s a touch too steep for me. I’d pay either mid-first or 2020 first but not both. I’d say mid-first and 2020 second. As a contender, I’m gonna resist all offers to sell 2020 firsts, even if the piece can help me.
This seems to be the prevailing thought based on offers I've made. Feels like taking a mid 1st is just hoping you'll draft someone as good, with slim odds of actually doing so. And no one wants to pay 2 firsts.JackReacher said:
The problem is Kupp will most likely go back to playing the slot next year and Woods will go back outside. There’s 3 good WR’s there, and half of Woods year was only with two. Things could change a little next year.skinfanjon said:
This is the line of thinking I don't understand. Woods was the WR 11 when Kupp went down, and finished as the WR 11. He was the same guy with or without him.
I bought Woods toward the end of this past year for the playoff push. I paid my 2019 1st. It ended up being 1.11 in a 12 team league. I’m happy to have him for that price going into next year. The best I’d have hoped for would have been to get someone like Woods with that pick.skinfanjon said:
