Thoughts on 2 Blockbusters

[Jigga94]

Trade 1 is fine.

I would not have given up Lawrence for that alone though. The 1.11 feels wasted 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).

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!

DLF trade analyzer has you losing the trade now (on value), and losing the trade significantly 72 hours ago (on value). Of course it will ultimately depend on who falls to 1.06 and 1.11.

You have no way of knowing if the teams will be passing on QBs (or if they won't trade with someone who is trading up for a QB). If the top 5 QBs go in the first 10 NFL picks, they should be drafted in the top 5 picks in a 12 team SF league unless scoring disadvantages QBs signficantly.

[krtbuckeye]

Trade 1 is a win. Trade 2, I wouldn't have made and I'm a big Swift believer. It would have taken more to pry away the 1.01 here.

[SteveMaddensShoes]

Like trade 1. Trade 2 almost feels like you were drafting for position. You felt like you needed to take care of the RB position and you gave up value to do it. That's pretty much drafting for the position rather than BPA

[SteelersX6]

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.

I respect your opinion and believe you do make some valid points. However, I'm pretty high on Swift and the Lion's GM has been quoted as saying he sees him as a 25 touch per game guy. Whether that actually comes to fruition remains to be seen.

As for the QB discussion, I agree having two studs in superflex is an advantage. However, why is having a top tier QB1 any more important in superflex than in a standard league? Does he score any more points in SF than he would in a standard league in that QB1 slot? People load up at other positions and wait until the 10th round in single QB leagues to draft guys like Stafford and Tannehill. Why would the philosophy change just because you are playing a second QB? The value of the QB1, in a vacuum, is no different.

All I'm suggesting is that the QB2 in a superflex league is the one that matters. He is, after all, the SUPERFLEX. I will still likely be able to draft a top tier rookie at 6 (there are 4, maybe 5, guys projected to be above average starters in the NFL and I'm picking at 6). It is almost a certainty that two teams, and very possibly 3, will not draft a QB in the top 5 because they are set at QB and very needy at other positions. Even if someone trades up to grab a QB, there will still be an option or two for me at the position. And if by some remote chance none of the QBs fall to 6, I'll gladly take a generational TE like Pitts or the top RB in the class to bolster me at another position of need and hope Daniel Jones can take a step forward with a better supporting cast around him.

I haven't completely given up hope that Jones can be a high end QB2 and/or Jimmy G gets traded to the Pats or another team that will start him. IMO, there is no way that the 49ers draft a QB at 3 and keep a 26 million a year QB as a backup. It was a big decision to trade away T-law and I analyzed things very closely to ensure I would still be comfortable at QB.

[murphysxm]

I am not sure I like either trade, but the 2nd looks rough to me. There is no other QB in this class that has a higher floor than Trevor. The pick was worth more value than you received

[abloom]

I respect your opinion and believe you do make some valid points. However, I'm pretty high on Swift and the Lion's GM has been quoted as saying he sees him as a 25 touch per game guy. Whether that actually comes to fruition remains to be seen.

I'd feel a lot better about that if they didn't go an get Williams as their RB2. I do think that swift will benefit from Detroit sucking and needing to play catchup, but its not a great thing to be dependent on.

As for the QB discussion, I agree having two studs in superflex is an advantage. However, why is having a top tier QB1 any more important in superflex than in a standard league? Does he score any more points in SF than he would in a standard league in that QB1 slot? People load up at other positions and wait until the 10th round in single QB leagues to draft guys like Stafford and Tannehill. Why would the philosophy change just because you are playing a second QB? The value of the QB1, in a vacuum, is no different.

The reason QB is devalued in 1QB is because the floor for QBs as a whole is higher. Because you only need to start one, the difference between those later QB1s is not signficant. In SF QBs still maintain their floor, which is why it tends to be better to start a QB in a SF position, but the output at those QB2s are much different than the QB1s. That's what drives QB value in SF. Further the career length of QBs compared to RBs is significantly longer, especially when comparing productive seasons.

All I'm suggesting is that the QB2 in a superflex league is the one that matters. He is, after all, the SUPERFLEX. I will still likely be able to draft a top tier rookie at 6 (there are 4, maybe 5, guys projected to be above average starters in the NFL and I'm picking at 6). It is almost a certainty that two teams, and very possibly 3, will not draft a QB in the top 5 because they are set at QB and very needy at other positions. Even if someone trades up to grab a QB, there will still be an option or two for me at the position. And if by some remote chance none of the QBs fall to 6, I'll gladly take a generational TE like Pitts or the top RB in the class to bolster me at another position of need and hope Daniel Jones can take a step forward with a better supporting cast around him.

Unfortunately, not all QBs are created equal. One or two of the rookie QBs this year is likely to bust if the past teaches us anything, and while one of those QBs could be Lawrence, everything from his career has said that won't be the case. Additionally there are a couple things I'll mention about Pitts. (1) He can also bust. (2) he could be declared a WR and not a TE, which would drastically reduce any positional advantage he could produce. (3) You may still have to wait a few seasons for him to really pay off.

I haven't completely given up hope that Jones can be a high end QB2 and/or Jimmy G gets traded to the Pats or another team that will start him. IMO, there is no way that the 49ers draft a QB at 3 and keep a 26 million a year QB as a backup. It was a big decision to trade away T-law and I analyzed things very closely to ensure I would still be comfortable at QB.

If no one wants to trade for Jimmy G it makes more sense for the 49ers to keep him as a backup than it does to trade him. Especially since they still view themselves as a Superbowl contending team. Simply Jimmy G may be more valuable to the 49ers than any trade they can get for him.

Also as an observation you seem to be really focusing on the next year or two with most of your moves and comments. I think for Dynasty, and especially for SF, you really need to take care of your QBs first and consider the long term, since trading for established QBs with significant career ahead of them is incredibly difficult (ie costly).