Thoughts on 2 Blockbusters

[SteelersX6]

Team 2 in signature. Initial build via 2 team dispersal. Made 2 recent trades to personalize my team. Just looking for some feedback.

Trade 1
Gave: Akers, Sutton
Received: Metcalf, 2021 Pick 1.11

Trade 2
Gave: 2021 Pick 1.01, 2021 Pick 1.11, Fournette
Received: Swift, Pick 1.06

In the first trade, giving up Akers crippled an already tenuous RB situation but I am a DK guy and, pairing him with Hill gives me the best 1-2 punch at WR in the league. He's a top 5 WR and only 23 so I felt it was worth it. I also subscribe to the theory of building a dynasty team with stud WRs because they are less volatile and retain value longer.

In the second trade, it was tough parting with the 1.01 but I landed a replacement for Akers (one I have ranked slightly ahead of Akers) and moved up from 1.11 to 1.06. That will still allow me to add a top end rookie QB, or give me the flexibility to add a top rookie RB or Pitts/Chase if one of my guys doesn't fall or something happens to improve my current QB situation (like Jimmy G. getting traded to New England).

It was a big decision allowing Trevor Lawrence to slip away but I have never been a guy to draft a QB high in one QB formats and I don't need a top end QB in superflex. I personally think the QB2 in superflex is the more important QB because that's where you get the advantage in that format. If you don't need a top tier QB in one QB leagues, why do you need one in superflex? I've never understood people in two QB leagues who draft Mahomes or Murray in the 1st round, then wait and draft Lock or Bridgewater in the 6th. I'd rather have 2 above average guys like Stafford and Tannehill.

[BucBuc]

Im not a fan of either trade you did Akers for DK is pretty even and probably leaning Akers side but give me sutton over the 1.11. Swift is nice and all but you gave up T-law when you are looking depleted at qb.. essentially give me

Akers T-law Sutton over
DK Swift

[SteelersX6]

Im not a fan of either trade you did Akers for DK is pretty even and probably leaning Akers side but give me sutton over the 1.11. Swift is nice and all but you gave up T-law when you are looking depleted at qb.. essentially give me

Akers T-law Sutton over
DK Swift

I get where you are coming from but you also have to factor in the player I will get at 1.06. It looks better like this.

Akers/TLaw/Sutton
vs
Swift/DK/Fields, Lance, Wilson (or Harris, Pitts, Chase)

[Gator Sens]

I dont mind trade #1, but I think Metcalf is a great piece long term. I would have held for Lawrence in trade #2 in SF for sure.

[CGW]

Both trades are fine, not great not bad. I do disagree about not needing top end QBs, but everyone has their own strategies. My issue with lower tier QBs is that you will end up constantly having to scramble to find replacements when they inevitably lose their jobs every few years. The Mahommes, Murrays, Allens etc have job security for a decade+ barring weird injuries. That's worth something.

[BucBuc]

Im not a fan of either trade you did Akers for DK is pretty even and probably leaning Akers side but give me sutton over the 1.11. Swift is nice and all but you gave up T-law when you are looking depleted at qb.. essentially give me

Akers T-law Sutton over
DK Swift

I get where you are coming from but you also have to factor in the player I will get at 1.06. It looks better like this.

Akers/TLaw/Sutton
vs
Swift/DK/Fields, Lance, Wilson (or Harris, Pitts, Chase)

I hear ya but I'm not a Swift guy and if you don't land a solid qb at 1.06 your gonna wish you kept T-law. It can work out hopefully a nice qb falls to 1.06

[HughHoney]

I like the first deal a lot. I’m much higher on DK than Akers. I don’t like the second deal. Would have needed quite a bit more to deal the 1.01 in SF.

[SteelersX6]

I dont mind trade #1, but I think Metcalf is a great piece long term. I would have held for Lawrence in trade #2 in SF for sure.

Definitely wasn't an easy decision but getting a second year stud RB and still being in position to get a young QB like Fields, Lance, or Wilson tipped the scales. I get that Lawrence could be the next Mahomes for fantasy in a few years but Lance, Wilson or Fields could be the next Russell Wilson and I'd be okay with that. The way the draft is set, three of the top 5 teams are pretty sound at QB and I know at least two are very needy at RB and will likely not pass on the position. I'm almost certain at least one of those guys will be there.

[abloom]

Trade 1 seems fine, but I think you then overpayed for Swift to make up that RB ground on trade 2.

Maybe trade #2 will work out. But I'm pretty sure you lost value there (as in you could have traded for more).

[SteelersX6]

Both trades are fine, not great not bad. I do disagree about not needing top end QBs, but everyone has their own strategies. My issue with lower tier QBs is that you will end up constantly having to scramble to find replacements when they inevitably lose their jobs every few years. The Mahommes, Murrays, Allens etc have job security for a decade+ barring weird injuries. That's worth something.

Definitely agree that you don't want "lower tier" QBs. Mahommes and Murray have job security for years but so do the Staffords and Wilsons of the NFL. I truly believe Stafford will thrive in LA and will give me a solid option for the next 4 or 5 years. The way the draft order is set up, I am almost certain Wilson, Fields, or Lance will fall. At least 2 teams ahead of me are set at QB (and the third is in pretty good shape) and are very needy at other positions. I wouldn't have made the deal if it was completely sacrificing QB.

[SStory93]

Both trades are fine, not great not bad. I do disagree about not needing top end QBs, but everyone has their own strategies. My issue with lower tier QBs is that you will end up constantly having to scramble to find replacements when they inevitably lose their jobs every few years. The Mahommes, Murrays, Allens etc have job security for a decade+ barring weird injuries. That's worth something.

Definitely agree that you don't want "lower tier" QBs. Mahommes and Murray have job security for years but so do the Staffords and Wilsons of the NFL. I truly believe Stafford will thrive in LA and will give me a solid option for the next 4 or 5 years. The way the draft order is set up, I am almost certain Wilson, Fields, or Lance will fall. At least 2 teams ahead of me are set at QB (and the third is in pretty good shape) and are very needy at other positions. I wouldn't have made the deal if it was completely sacrificing QB.

I think your trades were fair across the board. Just looking at your QB’s Jones could blossom to a top tier QB2 and you have a serviceable backup, at least this year, in Taylor. I don’t see the Watson case clearing up anytime soon. You like DK and was able to pull the trade, good for you. You like Swift more than Akers, which is what most of the “Rankers on DLF” state as well, good for you. Cherry on top you get to select at least one (Fields, Wilson, ETN, Pitts, Chase). You didn’t hit any home runs on these trades. But you got guys you liked and honestly made sound decisions. Also agree with your strategy on WRs being the foundation of your dynasty. Metcalf is def one if not the top WR for that.

[SteelersX6]

Trade 1 seems fine, but I think you then overpayed for Swift to make up that RB ground on trade 2.

Maybe trade #2 will work out. But I'm pretty sure you lost value there (as in you could have traded for more).

Not that I put all my faith in trade calculators but it did say that I won the deal by a small margin (and it was set for a two QB league). I get why some people are gonna say that trade wasn't great because of the Lawrence hype but I will probably be pretty happy with whatever QB I get at 1.06 (two teams almost certain to pass on QB in the top 5 of the draft and very possibly three). I had the 1.01 pick on the block for a month and did not get any "can't pass" offers. I guess only time will tell if I made a good deal!

[Jrblaha]

Trade 1 seems fine, but I think you then overpayed for Swift to make up that RB ground on trade 2.

Maybe trade #2 will work out. But I'm pretty sure you lost value there (as in you could have traded for more).

Not that I put all my faith in trade calculators but it did say that I won the deal by a small margin (and it was set for a two QB league). I get why some people are gonna say that trade wasn't great because of the Lawrence hype but I will probably be pretty happy with whatever QB I get at 1.06 (two teams almost certain to pass on QB in the top 5 of the draft and very possibly three). I had the 1.01 pick on the block for a month and did not get any "can't pass" offers. I guess only time will tell if I made a good deal!

If two teams ahead of you don’t need a QB, they may trade down though to a team that does need a QB.

[Dirty Mike&the Boys]

Trade 1 is fair value, although I personally would of held on to Sutton & Akers.

Trade 2 is brutal imo. 1.1 should of fetched Swift + 1.6 alone, you shouldn't of needed to add to that.

I also would like to play devils advocate regarding your views on QB's in SF. Would you not agree that two stud QB's in SF would be a massive advantage over opponents? I drafted Herbert last year towards the end of round 1, and he ended up taking over Stafford's QB2 job on my team in a matter of weeks. I traded Stafford to a dude who has been in the basement for 2 seasons now, you know who his top QB is now? - Stafford. Stafford was effectively my QB3, and I am always making a deep playoff run. QB production has a direct correlation to team success in both my SF leagues. No one has won a championship with middle of the road QB play such as Stafford & Lock...

Just because owners in your league load up on guys like Mahomes and Murray early on, only to wait a long time to get their QB2 doesn't mean that needs to be your philosphy.

If you're not a fan of Trevor that's one thing, but to not get proper value for 1.1 is a whole other animal.

[jomaed]

Trade 1: Great!
Trade 2: Mehh. 1.01 gets you Corvette's this year and instead you traded it in for an Impala.