Brian Quick v Beanie Wells *EDIT* Trade Completed

[tmaleman]

who would you rather have, for team in sig?


*edit* Trade Done

I get

Beanie Wells (and Louis Murphy)


I give

Brian Quick (and Tim Hightower)

[Pullo Vision]

I presume that's Tampa Mike Williams?

Given the starting requirements and status of your RB depth, I reluctantly say Wells. It's a win-now move, and I despise those types because you're usually giving away youth for vets that have warts, either hitting the cliff soon or with injury issues like Wells. But, he can help keep you in contention passed this year, and can pick up for Gore's and Turner's slack.

After that, though, this team would crash and burn without a major overhaul.

[tmaleman]

yep, tampa mike

[thriftyrocker]

I would hold Quick until you know you need to sell him. You have 3 starting RBs at the moment.

[Warren]

Alot of it depends on your plans for this year. If you are going to make some more moves in order to make a run for it, I'd trade Quick for Wells.

[CokeAndBacardi]

Wells has not been great, nor does he offer much in PPR, but I would much rather have him than Quick. There are a million Brian Quick's out there while Wells is truly the #1 back in Arizona. I own William and hope for the best but my expectations for him are realistic coming off such a terrible injury. At worst you have a 15-20 carry per game guy who should take the goal line carries. RB2 > project WR imo.

[thriftyrocker]

Wells has not been great, nor does he offer much in PPR, but I would much rather have him than Quick. There are a million Brian Quick's out there while Wells is truly the #1 back in Arizona. I own William and hope for the best but my expectations for him are realistic coming off such a terrible injury. At worst you have a 15-20 carry per game guy who should take the goal line carries. RB2 > project WR imo.

I disagree.

In Wells, at worst you have a guy who's not fully healthy all year, gets displaced by Williams or a draft pick next year, and carries RB5 value in 2013 (less than what Blount is now). At best, he repeats or slightly betters last year, and he is valuable depth if Gore or Turner goes down.

In quick, at worst you have a guy with high upside who only delivers in spurts and will be worth the same as Jon Baldwin is now. At best, he gets consistent targets and looks like a future top 10 dynasty WR.

Quick is a safer asset and a higher upside asset. I would hold him until you need to spend him. I would use him to buy a RB who is producing down the stretch, not to buy one who you will be worried about from the day you hit accept.

If it's Nov 1st, your team is in one of the last wild cards, and Wells will help you down the stretch, then you make the deal. If it's Jun 1st, you have a full starting lineup, and the news on Quick is "future stud" and the news on Wells is "will never be healthy again", you hold.

[Chandler Bing]

I know I wouldnt want Wells, so I would keep Quick

[cha]

I am high on Quick and would keep him.

[tmaleman]

well, this has confirmed my gut reaction - this is very close. I feel like I need an injection of youth at RB, and regardless of how we see Wells, he is a 23 year old RB1 on his team.

My other issue, however, is that I have a strong need for a true WR1, which I'm hoping Maclin turns into (or Floyd down the road)

I guess I'm just as torn as the rest of you guys

[MR ROURKE]

I'm not as high as many on Quick. I think Quick is about the 15th or 16th overall pick in a rookie draft. I think if Wells was available in a rookie free agent draft, Wells gets picked before Quick. At least I would take Wells before Quick, so I favor Wells... but I'm not overly excited about that.

[CokeAndBacardi]

Wells has not been great, nor does he offer much in PPR, but I would much rather have him than Quick. There are a million Brian Quick's out there while Wells is truly the #1 back in Arizona. I own William and hope for the best but my expectations for him are realistic coming off such a terrible injury. At worst you have a 15-20 carry per game guy who should take the goal line carries. RB2 > project WR imo.

I disagree.

In Wells, at worst you have a guy who's not fully healthy all year, gets displaced by Williams or a draft pick next year, and carries RB5 value in 2013 (less than what Blount is now). At best, he repeats or slightly betters last year, and he is valuable depth if Gore or Turner goes down.

In quick, at worst you have a guy with high upside who only delivers in spurts and will be worth the same as Jon Baldwin is now. At best, he gets consistent targets and looks like a future top 10 dynasty WR.

Quick is a safer asset and a higher upside asset. I would hold him until you need to spend him. I would use him to buy a RB who is producing down the stretch, not to buy one who you will be worried about from the day you hit accept.

If it's Nov 1st, your team is in one of the last wild cards, and Wells will help you down the stretch, then you make the deal. If it's Jun 1st, you have a full starting lineup, and the news on Quick is "future stud" and the news on Wells is "will never be healthy again", you hold.

I think your best-case/worst-cases are obviously through a high on quick/low on wells lens, but you're right; the value of these two can go anywhere at this point. However, your worst-case for Wells can be said about any player in the NFL. Worst case for Jamaal Charles in 2011 - he slips on a first down marker out of bounds on his 12th carry of the year and misses the rest of the season. Wells has the injury-prone tag but has missed far fewer games than most backs since he was drafted.

We can project all we want but the fact of the matter is Beanie is going a full two rounds ahead of Quick in startups today. That is a solid value difference right now. Wells has three years of NFL experience and isn't even a year older than Quick, a WR with zero years of even FBS-level experience. I know there are plenty of success stories out of D-I AA and the FCS, but is Quick special enough to be the next? I went to a SoCon school and saw a lot of WRs do much more than Quick in conference and go on to do very little in the NFL. The 6-5, 220 lbs measurables are nice but I feel like they alone should not propel a player past an established RB. Even one with an injury history.

What is it about Quick's game that people like? Size and presumed "#1" status are not enough for me. The VT tape is the best we have to go off and I wasn't impressed. He makes a nice move on that one defender after a casino-like blitz and gets to about the 5. The TD was pretty nice but the two defenders didn't exactly try to wrap him up.

[CokeAndBacardi]

I should add that, while I don't think Quick is anything special or worth the #33 overall pick, I do want to see him succeed. To me Bradford is not receiver-proof and Quick is not QB-proof. That means Bradford is not good enough to pull a Rivers and turn walk-ons into studly receivers. I also don't believe Quick is or will be good enough to go through QB troubles like a Larry Fitzgerald without much issue. First and foremost I am a fan of good football. We have not seen much of that in St. Louis recently and that franchise needs these two to get on the same page. I am 100% for both turning into solid players so we have an even better passing league before we lose the Mannings, Bradys and Brees' of the world in a few years.

[thriftyrocker]

However, your worst-case for Wells can be said about any player in the NFL. Worst case for Jamaal Charles in 2011 - he slips on a first down marker out of bounds on his 12th carry of the year and misses the rest of the season. Wells has the injury-prone tag but has missed far fewer games than most backs since he was drafted.

I didn't say worst case he gets hit by lightning. I said worst case his knee that has been subject to a lot of rumor this offseason including a possible microfracture surgery won't be healthy enough for him to be effective in 2012. That's a big difference. I think situation plays a big part here. He has 3 solid starters at RB, some with very small shelf life. I would treat Wells like another short shelf life RB. You don't want most of your team value in short shelf life players. In a startup the strategy might be totally different. If go WR early, I would pick up Wells to get short term RB production.

I should add that, while I don't think Quick is anything special or worth the #33 overall pick, I do want to see him succeed. To me Bradford is not receiver-proof and Quick is not QB-proof. That means Bradford is not good enough to pull a Rivers and turn walk-ons into studly receivers.

That's a good debate. 2010 Bradford looked like he could do some of that. Mark Clayton came in, bam, stud WR. Danario Alexander came in, bam. (Is there any situation more resembling a walk-on than that? I mean Ajirotutu aside.) 2011 Bradford regressed, and I guess smart money is he stays regressed.

[CokeAndBacardi]

I should add that, while I don't think Quick is anything special or worth the #33 overall pick, I do want to see him succeed. To me Bradford is not receiver-proof and Quick is not QB-proof. That means Bradford is not good enough to pull a Rivers and turn walk-ons into studly receivers.

That's a good debate. 2010 Bradford looked like he could do some of that. Mark Clayton came in, bam, stud WR. Danario Alexander came in, bam. (Is there any situation more resembling a walk-on than that? I mean Ajirotutu aside.) 2011 Bradford regressed, and I guess smart money is he stays regressed.

Clayton and Alexander had a game or two but neither strung together anything reliable or meaningful. If anything I see Quick as an Alexander-type, minus the knees of course. 6-5. 215-220. Not a burner. Solid hands in college. Developmental stash at best. A top-10 rookie pick worth more than Wells? No thanks.