Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Value Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

A few buy highs I like (and Julio):

Darren Waller’s season is on par with any of Kelce’s previous campaigns. He’s 3 years younger than Kelce. If we see him keeping this up he’s a bargain. Even coming off of some huge games, his price is likely lower than what Kelce was going for in the offseason. If I can downgrade from Kelce or Kittle and get something like a late 1st with Waller - I’m in. Anything less than 4th round startup value is a win. 

Miles Sanders is one of the more talented backs in the NFL. For some reason he hasn’t been able to catch footballs this season, so he’s losing out on passing down work, which has destroyed his floor. Last year he only had 2 drops on ~60 targets and his hands were seen as a plus coming out of school. If we think this year is a fluke he’s easy money.

Josh Allen, Stefon Diggs, and the Buffalo Bills are legit. Both players are a tier lower than they should be. Allen should be in the Watson tier, ahead of Wilson and Dak. Diggs should be next to Terry and Ridley, ahead of the Juju and Moore types.

Keenan Allen at 28 should at least be as valuable as Julio was at 30. Like Diggs, it’s worth giving up a few years (Juju and Moore) to get the better player IMO, if you’re competing. Get a piece of the Justin Herbert offense. He could take another step without Lynn holding him back next season. 

Julio Jones is still worth a late 1st round pick to contenders.

Edited by Concept Coop
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Tentative rookie RB/WR tiers after diving into clips and stats this weekend:   RB Josh Jacobs, Raiders - No major weaknesses and walks into a starting role. Power, hands, elusiveness, and e

That is interesting. As a Gordon owner here and there, I think I'd have jumped on that offer in any league I have him, without even looking at my own roster or that of the owner sending me the pick.

At first glance I agree, but then when I think about it I almost think the opposite.  If anything it's ridiculous that RBs are so ridiculously overvalued in 1qb leagues.  I love RBs having lots of val

21 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

I understood you the first time and was slightly miffed people took shots at you for somehow being a backhanded trader or something. Just because you say you like the value on something doesn't mean you're obligated to make a deal. 

I can't even count how many times I've turned down an offer where I've said I think the value is fair but that I'm not interested. 

Anyway the value hell idea made perfect sense the first time.

JUst to be clear it was not my intent to take shots at Zyphros. 

I didn't understand his statement. So my guess about what he meant (which was wrong) was just based on my interpretation of the phrasing, then adding personal experience of trading with people who are inconsistent in their valuation of players depending on whos team those players happen to be on at the time. If the guy is on my team he is worth more reasoning.

I apologize if it seemed like I was taking shots at Zyphros. Not my intent at all. My comment was more of shot at the community as a whole because these inconsistencies happen a lot.

I have misunderstood Zyphros before and I should know better to just wait for further explanation instead of guessing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

JUst to be clear it was not my intent to take shots at Zyphros. 

I didn't understand his statement. So my guess about what he meant (which was wrong) was just based on my interpretation of the phrasing, then adding personal experience of trading with people who are inconsistent in their valuation of players depending on whos team those players happen to be on at the time. If the guy is on my team he is worth more reasoning.

I apologize if it seemed like I was taking shots at Zyphros. Not my intent at all. My comment was more of shot at the community as a whole because these inconsistencies happen a lot.

I have misunderstood Zyphros before and I should know better to just wait for further explanation instead of guessing.

It's all good, not necessary, I probably walked into the middle of something I didn't have the full context on, so I'm sorry too. I'm still not sure I understand the misunderstanding or how his further explanation made a difference, but it's no biggie.

I'm guilty of using the phrase "in a vacuum" all the time, but if I understood the context of this whole thing correctly, then I would prefer Zeke over Golladay and a late 1st, "in a vacuum". But I am simply not moving Golladay and a 1st for him if that's my side of a potential deal. Roster composition and team structure are more important (sometimes) than the simple value comparison. That said if I had Zeke I would likely move him for a late 1st and a WR that I liked over Golladay (for my own reasons that aren't relevant to this - I just don't like him). Sure as hell not targeting Zeke, though.

I disagree with @kutta about the A vs B but not C thing. On a message board or in reference to a calculator, it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to take a stand based on the value "in a vacuum" and to say, no you have to pick A or B. But there is zero obligation to make a deal on that basis. Because deals have never happened in a vacuum in the history of the universe, so C is absolutely relevant. And to me C outweighs the difference between A and B, which is to say I don't like either player, they *are* in value hell, it doesn't help my team in a way to make me want to do it (in either direction), and I think I can do better with either A or B in terms of eventually finding a deal that makes C palatable for me. C could also include, and often does, the analysis of whether swapping a RB for a WR will hurt one's ''compete now'' chances. 

I forget the details but there was a trade I turned down earlier in the season that seemed to scream value on my side, but it would have torpedoed my RB corp and my then playoff bound team would never have made it. A was greater than B in my favor but C was even greater. Because vacuums don't exist in trades.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 1:55 PM, Biabreakable said:

I could be wrong kutta but I think he is saying that he would want more than that to trade away Elliot but that he wouldn't offer as much for Elliot as the Golladay + 1st round pick.

So a classic example of having a double standard and not treating others the way you would like to be treated. Happens all the time.

The bold is the one that triggered me. The first sentence is absolutely the right read (if I have gotten this right). The bold is absurd (to me) but I think a lot of people would agree with you. What I'm confused about is how his further explanation somehow changed the reading of your first sentence. That *is* the explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

It's all good, not necessary, I probably walked into the middle of something I didn't have the full context on, so I'm sorry too. I'm still not sure I understand the misunderstanding or how his further explanation made a difference, but it's no biggie.

I'm guilty of using the phrase "in a vacuum" all the time, but if I understood the context of this whole thing correctly, then I would prefer Zeke over Golladay and a late 1st, "in a vacuum". But I am simply not moving Golladay and a 1st for him if that's my side of a potential deal. Roster composition and team structure are more important (sometimes) than the simple value comparison. That said if I had Zeke I would likely move him for a late 1st and a WR that I liked over Golladay (for my own reasons that aren't relevant to this - I just don't like him). Sure as hell not targeting Zeke, though.

I disagree with @kutta about the A vs B but not C thing. On a message board or in reference to a calculator, it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to take a stand based on the value "in a vacuum" and to say, no you have to pick A or B. But there is zero obligation to make a deal on that basis. Because deals have never happened in a vacuum in the history of the universe, so C is absolutely relevant. And to me C outweighs the difference between A and B, which is to say I don't like either player, they *are* in value hell, it doesn't help my team in a way to make me want to do it (in either direction), and I think I can do better with either A or B in terms of eventually finding a deal that makes C palatable for me. C could also include, and often does, the analysis of whether swapping a RB for a WR will hurt one's ''compete now'' chances. 

I forget the details but there was a trade I turned down earlier in the season that seemed to scream value on my side, but it would have torpedoed my RB corp and my then playoff bound team would never have made it. A was greater than B in my favor but C was even greater. Because vacuums don't exist in trades.

I totally get the "in a vacuum" thing. But my point is that, the way this thing was phrased, you HAVE to look at at least part of this "in a vacuum." 

He made the point that he had Zeke on a team and was only in the league for one more year so he doesn't want to trade him - he'll just hang onto him. OK. I get that.

But to then also take the other side and say you wouldn't accept Zeke for Golladay and a first IS looking at it in a vacuum, because he doesn't have those guys right now. 

When we are comparing two sides of a trade like this, it feels to me like it should be evaluated more like how we would value these guys in a startup - would you value Zeke more, or Golladay and a first? We all have to make a call there. 

Of course there are always circumstances where you wouldn't take one side or the other on your team (you are RB heavy and weak at WR, then you don't want to give up Golladay and Zeke won't help much). But we can't say that we have BOTH sides the trade on our team. So we are always projecting at least one side.

I know I'm not being clear, and I'm fine dropping this. It's really down to semantics. I get his point, just disagree a bit on the logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

The bold is the one that triggered me. The first sentence is absolutely the right read (if I have gotten this right). The bold is absurd (to me) but I think a lot of people would agree with you. What I'm confused about is how his further explanation somehow changed the reading of your first sentence. That *is* the explanation.

Yeah when I said that I had a feeling it might trigger some people. I almost edited it out in fact but didn't.

What you bolded about my statement which is the Army definition for respect or an example of the golden rule, and that was a shot across the bow to everyone. That we should treat each other with some amount of fairness and respect, and to be consistent with our valuations of things. It wasn't meant to specifically be talking about Zyphros here but I can see how it may have been understood in that way, so thats what I am apologizing for, not waiting for further explanation of what was meant.

I think ranking and valuing these players is difficult. No one has the same opinion about these things. I appreciate Zyphros opinions about things even when we disagree.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kutta said:

When we are comparing two sides of a trade like this, it feels to me like it should be evaluated more like how we would value these guys in a startup - would you value Zeke more, or Golladay and a first? We all have to make a call there. 

It's not a trade discussion, it's a value discussion. Both are in a bad place. Therefore the premise of the trade is what I went off of. The idea of trading a guy who is very suppressed, for another guy likely to be suppressed seems lateral at best. It's not a good idea in my mind to begin trade discussions that way. His exact question was if it was too much to give for Zeke. I answered by saying I wouldn't be looking to buy Zeke, nor looking to give up Golladay and the 1st for someone I viewed as very questionable in his future. 

If the question is purely Zeke or Golladay, then I'll answer I prefer Zeke. That wasn't the question though. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

Yeah when I said that I had a feeling it might trigger some people. I almost edited it out in fact but didn't.

What you bolded about my statement which is the Army definition for respect or an example of the golden rule, and that was a shot across the bow to everyone. That we should treat each other with some amount of fairness and respect, and to be consistent with our valuations of things. It wasn't meant to specifically be talking about Zyphros here but I can see how it may have been understood in that way, so thats what I am apologizing for, not waiting for further explanation of what was meant.

I think ranking and valuing these players is difficult. No one has the same opinion about these things. I appreciate Zyphros opinions about things even when we disagree.

 

I took it as a public shot as well, and others chimed in with agreement. And of course I agree - we should be consistent in our valuation and in our treatment of others. Everyone here is cool on that. I don't want to make this about your comment or about Zyphros specific example, but this concept of wanting more than you would be willing to give if situations were reversed is an interesting one. 

To the point @kuttamade about treating it like a startup, I can't say I have a strong opinion one way or another on that. I'm not a big fan of that but I don't really have an issue either. *For me*, it would be irrelevant and useless because I would *never* take either Golladay or Zeke in a current startup, so it is impossible to apply a startup valuation metric of any kind. 

But ultimately, if an owner is not obligated to make a trade, then why would wanting more than they would be willing to give be considered sketchy or disrespectful? That was what confused me, and I have always been confused by, because I have seen this argument made before. But it makes zero sense *except* in a vacuum where deals aren't made, or in a world where owners are obligated to make trades. 

Maybe this thread needs to be about that vacuum, though, and disregards all those 'C' factors I mentioned like roster needs and so on. Maybe that brings in too much noise. Seems like all it is at that point is a conversational trade calculator, though, and that's going to devolve to my guy vs your guy which in turn negates the quality of the vacuum.

I'm rambling. Didn't mean to hijack. It was never a big deal I just wonder if sometimes people think I am a slimy dealer for this kind of logic. I am pretty sure that's not the case. Anyway carry on.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

I'm rambling. Didn't mean to hijack. It was never a big deal I just wonder if sometimes people think I am a slimy dealer for this kind of logic. I am pretty sure that's not the case. Anyway carry on.

I'm only catching up, but as a Zeke GM, I totally got what Zyphros was saying. I dunno. Maybe there's a logical paradox somewhere looking for a name in the futures markets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Helaire-ious said:

What is the value of CMC in PPR now? The Kelce owner is trying to get him from me straight up for Kelce & I think that would be selling very low for me.

Will keep it general here because I am not a Cmac owner but if I was I would want a solid haul of young assets be it players and/or picks...dealing him is a great way to restock your team...Kelce is a complete stud  but he's 31 and not who I would be targeting if I was dealing Cmac.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2020 at 8:54 AM, Helaire-ious said:

What is the value of CMC in PPR now? The Kelce owner is trying to get him from me straight up for Kelce & I think that would be selling very low for me.

I wouldn’t want the startup 1.01 this offseason, but if I was stuck with it I’d still take CMC. I’d need another big asset in addition to Kelce. Kelce and something like Swift, Taylor or Sanders might do it. But I’m not sure if anyone is buying at those prices anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you rank the rookie RBs today? They’ve been shuffled regularly all season for me. It’s been a fun group to follow. Taylor and Akers finishing strong makes this an incredible class.

I’d be a bit worried if I owned CEH. Akers would be at the head of T3 or end of T2 if LAR targeted their backs like they used to. I thought Moss had some Kareem Hunt potential coming in and don’t see it anymore. But he’s solid in his current role. Dillon hasn’t shown me anything and will plummet if the Packers re-sign Jones or bring in serious competition. Bowden is an obvious buy.

Today I have it:

T1 - Swift, Taylor

T2 - Gibson, Robinson

T3* - Dobbins, CEH, Akers

T4 - Moss, Dillon

T5 - Bowden, Ahmed

T3 is closer to T1 than T4

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Concept Coop said:

How do you rank the rookie RBs today? They’ve been shuffled regularly all season for me. It’s been a fun group to follow. Taylor and Akers finishing strong makes this an incredible class.

I’d be a bit worried if I owned CEH. Akers would be at the head of T3 or end of T2 if LAR targeted their backs like they used to. I thought Moss had some Kareem Hunt potential coming in and don’t see it anymore. But he’s solid in his current role. Dillon hasn’t shown me anything and will plummet if the Packers re-sign Jones or bring in serious competition. Bowden is an obvious buy.

Today I have it:

T1 - Swift, Taylor

T2 - Gibson, Robinson

T3* - Dobbins, CEH, Akers

T4 - Moss, Dillon

T5 - Bowden, Ahmed

T3 is closer to T1 than T4

I'd put Gibson & Robinson ahead of Taylor as of now. Akers needs t do more than just a couple good weeks so T4 for now

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 11:43 AM, Concept Coop said:

I can’t decide if Zeke is a buy low or not. I sold him last season and have avoided him since.

He’s not the same guy anymore, but he can still handle all of the touches they can give him and can do everything they ask him to. And while I wouldn’t count on it happening, I think shedding 10 pounds would do wonders for him. So there is some chance he regains a step.

He won’t be cut this offseason and will likely be on the team in 2022 as well, based on his contract. That’s 2 seasons in a high volume role on an offense that is likely to be much better than it is today. The carries, targets, and goal line work will all be there. That’s certainly valuable. 

The kind of deal I could see myself making is downgrading from another 25+ YO back and getting Zeke and a sizable piece in return. Cook or Henry for Zeke and Akers or Dobbins, for example. I’m not sure if that’s doable though. I’m not interested in moving any of the young backs for him. I have him behind Robinson, Gibson and Sanders, for example.

He’s tricky.

They have to keep getting Pollard regular touches, right? Even a 60/40 split is bad news for Zeke. I'll buy if his price drops to a late 1st, which essentially means I'm not buying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Helaire-ious said:

I'd put Gibson & Robinson ahead of Taylor as of now.

There's a good argument for that. I'd say they've had better seasons than Taylor, front to back. But I'm confident I can turn Taylor into Robinson/Gibson+ in the off-season. I tend to view players as stocks. If I had to pick the best career of the 3, that would be a more difficult exercise.

 

22 hours ago, Helaire-ious said:

Akers needs to do more than just a couple good weeks so T4 for now

That's fair. I think LAR thinks they have their guy, and LAR is a better situation than KC and BAL today.  If I owned Akers I wouldn't be in a hurry to swap him for Dobbins or CEH, especially before the injury. Hence his placement.

Edited by Concept Coop
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

They have to keep getting Pollard regular touches, right? Even a 60/40 split is bad news for Zeke. I'll buy if his price drops to a late 1st, which essentially means I'm not buying. 

yeah, I think Zeke as a 'buy low' might be the biggest fools gold of the offseason. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RushHour said:

yeah, I think Zeke as a 'buy low' might be the biggest fools gold of the offseason. 

I refuse to think that he’s regressed at only 25 years old. I think he would be a great addition for a team poised to compete the next 2-3 years if he can be had at reduced prices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boston said:

Clarification...do you mean who you would want or who you think you can buy lowest?

Hmmm good question. These are guys I’ve seen some people in threads mention as guys they may be looking to sell and I’ll be sniffing around trying to buy them in my leagues. Wondering who people like the most going forward. And I suppose who people think costs most is useful as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

As dynasty assets it's Sanders >= Dobbins > Zeke > Mixon. Sanders is the only buy for me.

The way I see it, Mixon can probably be had more cheaply than the others and, in my opinion, has as good a chance to be a solid starter (top 12 or so) as the rest.  He’s a year younger than Zeke, and only 1 year older than Sanders. He’s tied to a young, up and coming QB and WR and just received a long term contract. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RushHour said:

Is Dobbins a buy low? I doubt many owners would be looking to sell. He did about what was expected this year and looked good. 

There was some venting in his thread about lack of receptions, splitting with Gus, and Lamar stealing carries as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RushHour said:

Is Dobbins a buy low? I doubt many owners would be looking to sell. He did about what was expected this year and looked good. 

Agreed...also, while very talented his upside is tough to nail down...between Lamar's legs (i.e. vulturing TDs), the probability of Harbaugh using other quality backs and his lack of targets he has some roadblocks to really blow up...would like to see more targets/receptions before I gave up the assets necessary to acquire him but on the flipside if he starts getting those targets/receptions next year the price goes up even more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blick said:

The way I see it, Mixon can probably be had more cheaply than the others and, in my opinion, has as good a chance to be a solid starter (top 12 or so) as the rest.  He’s a year younger than Zeke, and only 1 year older than Sanders. He’s tied to a young, up and coming QB and WR and just received a long term contract. 

Yeah I chose these guys because there’s a ton to sort out in their value and I think lots of people will see it differently. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Cobbler1 said:

Rank as buy-lows:

 

Mixon

Dobbins

Zeke

Sanders

It's a really interesting value set of RB's.  I think the values can vary drastically and all could be RB1's next year given the right things falling.  Because of that I think you will have a hard time getting too big of a discount on all of them because most owners probably see the upside and that is the biggest hurdle to being able to buy them at a lower cost.  I see owners wanting close to RB1 returns because there is a decent to good chance all of these guys return RB1-ish value next year.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Boston said:

Missed this...I just wrote the exact same thing.

Those issues are legit for JK and certainly not most but some owners may see it as a reason to sell. Same with Mixon’s injuries and lack of usage as a receiver, Zeke’s down year, Sanders’s down year. I’ll fish for all and see if anyone’s selling. Zeke I think is now the cheapest.

Edited by Cobbler1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cobbler1 said:

Those issues are legit for JK and certainly not most but some owners may see it as a reason to sell. Same with Mixon’s injuries and lack of usage as a receiver, Zeke’s down year, Sanders’s down year. I’ll fish for all and see if anyone’s selling. Zeke I think is now the cheapest.

My guess is a Dobbins owner worried about those issues would deal him but I don't think they will sell low because they know he's just too young and talented (any those issues are not concrete yet as well) to make a panic move...Zeke is probably your best bet for a nervous Owner, especially after Pollard had a big week and looks legit...if you have enough young talent on your team so he is an addition and not a centerpiece in case the window is indeed starting to shut he could be a nice addition...I don't own Zeke but would love to hear what Zeke Owners would move him for.

Edited by Boston
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Boston said:

My guess is a Dobbins owner worried about those issues would deal him but I don't think they will sell low because they know he's just too young and talented (any those issues are not concrete yet as well) to make a panic move...Zeke is probably your best bet for a nervous Owner, especially after Pollard had a big week and looks legit...if you have enough young talent on your team so he is an addition and not a centerpiece in case the window is indeed starting to shut he could be a nice addition...I don't own Zeke but would love to hear what Zeke Owners would move him for.

Probably right about JK. I’m coming into a great stretch in my 16 team ppr league. Finished 5th without Saquon most of the year. Young ish wr corps of AJB Amari Diontae Boyd and Saquon CEH at Rb. If I can add Zeke with picks and get a couple years of Rb 10-12 ish production and then a couple years of 18-20 ish production I’m a strong contender for 4 years. Getting the feeling that Zeke may be the only one attainable.

 

My order of who has the most value is leaning towards: Sanders, Mixon, JK, Zeke. But it’s very close between the first 3.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeke owner here and I’m in win now mode (won it all last year and in the finals this year, with or without him). Im just going to hold and see if I can buy low on Pollard this off-season. It’s FFPC format so can only keep 14 skill position players, so Pollard isn’t a slam dunk keeper depending on the rest of the team's roster. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joey said:

Zeke owner here and I’m in win now mode (won it all last year and in the finals this year, with or without him). Im just going to hold and see if I can buy low on Pollard this off-season. It’s FFPC format so can only keep 14 skill position players, so Pollard isn’t a slam dunk keeper depending on the rest of the team's roster. 

Def changes the selling equation if you’re in win now mode. Good luck buying Pollard though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2020 at 6:06 PM, Twenty-Four Eighty-Four said:

Dobbins owner and one guy for Gibson wanted Dobbins, Ruggs and an early 1st. He made the same claims as above. Easy pass there.

I would happily* give up Dobbins and Ruggs for Gibson.  If I had to add a future 2nd to do it, so be it.  A 1st is far too much unless he's sending something else your way.

 

*I have never owned a single share of Ruggs, but I would be looking to move him to any team that was interested for anything I could get.  N'Keal Harry 2.0 - complete waste of a 1st round pick, so get out in any way possible to minimize your loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Dobbins ends next year with better numbers than Gibson if both have a full, healthy season. I understand his lack of pass catching caps his value but I wouldn’t move a talent like Ruggs , who hasn’t gotten a chance to show himself this season, AND Dobbins for Gibson. Dobbins pops when I watch him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Price check on Gaskin ? Picked him up for free this year and I’m stacked at RB so interested in selling. Coming off a big week, but could continue to do more in the playoffs. 
 

I'm just not a believer long term, not with the low draft capital and the average athletic traits and size. Got to think theres a good chance Dolphins use a draft pick on a new RB given their D looks great and the fact they have multiple 3rd round picks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rig24 said:

After this weeks game, getting a lot of interest in AJ Dillon....where does he slot now and where if Jones leaves via FA in the off-season?  

That’s the crux of it. If Jones leaves he’s probably worth a mid-late first. If Jones signs an extension he’s a late 2 early 3. Right now I’d say worth an early 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TartanLion said:

Price check on Gaskin ? Picked him up for free this year and I’m stacked at RB so interested in selling. Coming off a big week, but could continue to do more in the playoffs. 
 

I'm just not a believer long term, not with the low draft capital and the average athletic traits and size. Got to think theres a good chance Dolphins use a draft pick on a new RB given their D looks great and the fact they have multiple 3rd round picks 

Gaskin owner as well here. Very much expecting the Phins to replace him with one of their premium picks. 

Unless there's an oblivious owner in your league, it seems like the best bet is to HOLD right now and pray. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TartanLion said:

Price check on Gaskin ? Picked him up for free this year and I’m stacked at RB so interested in selling. Coming off a big week, but could continue to do more in the playoffs. 
 

I'm just not a believer long term, not with the low draft capital and the average athletic traits and size. Got to think theres a good chance Dolphins use a draft pick on a new RB given their D looks great and the fact they have multiple 3rd round picks 

If you can get a 2nd take it

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TartanLion said:

Price check on Gaskin ? Picked him up for free this year and I’m stacked at RB so interested in selling. Coming off a big week, but could continue to do more in the playoffs. 
 

I'm just not a believer long term, not with the low draft capital and the average athletic traits and size. Got to think theres a good chance Dolphins use a draft pick on a new RB given their D looks great and the fact they have multiple 3rd round picks 

I think Gaskin is going to be underrated because the consensus is Miami will add another quality RB (and I agree with that)...that being said I don't think he's going to be relegated to the bench because he is proving he can play...I think he will be part of a RBBC and if the new RB (which is probably a rookie) isn't legit he could sneak in another year of heavy usage although I would not count on that...overall I think he's a good guy to target because the fear of who Miami is bringing in will probably scare his current owners and you can probably get him without giving up a lot...I think he is a nice guy to add to the depth of your RB unit because as those RB injuries pile up you can never have enough good backs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TartanLion said:

Price check on Gaskin ? Picked him up for free this year and I’m stacked at RB so interested in selling. Coming off a big week, but could continue to do more in the playoffs. 
 

I'm just not a believer long term, not with the low draft capital and the average athletic traits and size. Got to think theres a good chance Dolphins use a draft pick on a new RB given their D looks great and the fact they have multiple 3rd round picks 

Listened to the latest Locked On Dynasty podcast and the thought is that Miami may not do much to address their RB position due to the success of  Gaskin and Ahmed and the other needs  miami has. They are thinking that analytics will dictate that it is not wise to invest in positions like RB & LB and focus on drafting and spending on Corner, WR, OL and DL. 
 

Personally I think Gaskin becomes another Philip Lindsey so he’ll have some value to the current owner but not much value in a trade. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 4:52 PM, BigAl21 said:

I believe Dobbins ends next year with better numbers than Gibson if both have a full, healthy season. I understand his lack of pass catching caps his value but I wouldn’t move a talent like Ruggs , who hasn’t gotten a chance to show himself this season, AND Dobbins for Gibson. Dobbins pops when I watch him.

Agreed.  I wouldn’t even entertain the thought of trading Dobbins straight up for Gibson.  I feel like Dobbins ceiling is much higher.

Edited by Pipes
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...