Dynasty League Football Forum

Cooks >= 1.01

Dynasty n00b wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:46 am Thanks for all the advice. I was in discussions with a guy who wanted 1.01 and wanted to gauge what i should add to get Cooks.

Just agreed to a deal

Give: 1.01, James Washington, 3.11

Get: Brandin Cooks, 2.11

Stealin'

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:43 am You draft a guy at 1.1 hoping he will be Cooks. So I think that's the answer. I would need 2019 1.01 and a 2020 first.

Completely agree. I'm not moving cooks for Jacobs and a 2nd...that's ridiculous

Looks like its too late but I'd rather have Jacobs over Cooks. I don't think you could go wrong with either side and Cooks is obviously the safest option but I still tend to think Kupp and Woods are ahead of Cooks on that offense so his production could dip with a full season from Kupp and I also think his upside is capped where he finished this season as WR12-15. I like Jacobs personally as a prospect enough to think with his current opportunity in the Raiders offense to become an RB1 is not just possible but likely.

unless I'm rebuilding I tend to prefer RB>WR because they are easier to trade.

smallxl wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:19 pm

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:43 am You draft a guy at 1.1 hoping he will be Cooks. So I think that's the answer. I would need 2019 1.01 and a 2020 first.

Completely agree. I'm not moving cooks for Jacobs and a 2nd...that's ridiculous

It's well within the range where reasonable minds could differ. Not ridiculous.

hoos89 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:44 pm

smallxl wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:19 pm

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:43 am You draft a guy at 1.1 hoping he will be Cooks. So I think that's the answer. I would need 2019 1.01 and a 2020 first.

Completely agree. I'm not moving cooks for Jacobs and a 2nd...that's ridiculous

It's well within the range where reasonable minds could differ. Not ridiculous.

There are different reasons players are worth the 1.01(or whatever their value is). Cooks is worth the 1.01 because he is very reliable and seems to deliver wr12-15 consistently, even when changing teams. Take someone like Gollady. He is worth the 1.01, not because he has performed how Cooks has performed, but because he has the theoretical ceiling of a top 6 wr. Same for Jacobs. He could be the next Kareem Hunt or Melvin Gordon. Harry could be the next Dez Bryant. You pay the premium if the 1.01 for what they could someday deliver. With Cooks you pay what he has always delivered.

hoos89 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:31 pm

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:34 am

hoos89 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:17 am I don't think it's fair to call the 1.01 a total dart throw. Unproven yes, but still a nearly locked-in 3-down starter in a Gruden offense.

wow...

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but Gruden feeds his lead backs.

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:43 am You draft a guy at 1.1 hoping he will be Cooks. So I think that's the answer. I would need 2019 1.01 and a 2020 first.

Eh...I think you hope 1.01 ends up being more valuable than Cooks.

You can hope but how likely is it, but I would be happy with getting Cooks value at 1.1. You are almost as likely to get, T Rich, Sammy Watkins, Todd Gurley (who is already falling apart), Darren McFadden, Ryan Matthews, Leonard Fournette, etc, etc, etc).

I'll take Cooks all day.

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:08 am

hoos89 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:31 pm

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:34 am

wow...

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but Gruden feeds his lead backs.

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:43 am You draft a guy at 1.1 hoping he will be Cooks. So I think that's the answer. I would need 2019 1.01 and a 2020 first.

Eh...I think you hope 1.01 ends up being more valuable than Cooks.

You can hope but how likely is it, but I would be happy with getting Cooks value at 1.1. You are almost as likely to get, T Rich, Sammy Watkins, Todd Gurley (who is already falling apart), Darren McFadden, Ryan Matthews, Leonard Fournette, etc, etc, etc).

I'll take Cooks all day.

Getting Gurley at 1.01 most likely won you at least 1 championship, or got you a ridiculous haul in a trade, more than Cooks ever could. I get the injury concerns now, but making it seem like getting Gurley in his rookie draft is a bad thing isn't a good point to make. He's still worth more than Cooks right now, too, and I love Cooks and always stick up for him around these parts.

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:08 am
You can hope but how likely is it, but I would be happy with getting Cooks value at 1.1. You are almost as likely to get, T Rich, Sammy Watkins, Todd Gurley (who is already falling apart), Darren McFadden, Ryan Matthews, Leonard Fournette, etc, etc, etc).

I'll take Cooks all day.

Sammy Watkins had top 10 startup value at one point. T Rich had top 5 startup value at one point. Fournette had top 15 startup value. It's been a while, but my recollection is that McFadden and Matthews also saw their values increase to higher than Cooks' current value at some point as well. Also...just lol at the suggestion that getting Todd Gurley with 1.01 would be a bad thing. (1) He's still worth way more than Cooks, (2) there's a pretty good chance he won you a title in 2017, and (3) if you weren't contending in 2017 you should have flipped him for 1.01 startup value.

The odds are pretty damned good that Jacobs' value is higher than Cooks' value at this time next season.

Of course all those guys had high startup value at a point in time, that's why they were drafted at 1.1 in their respective rookie drafts. That doesn't mean they turned out to be good draft picks. And of course they could have been flipped for good assets at that time, but that's like timing the market. Good luck with that.

If you weren't contending in 2017 why would someone flip Gurley? He was a young, healthy RB. A perfect piece to build around, or so it seemed. Not anymore.

If you're saying that Watkins, McFadden, Matthews or Richardson turned out to be better investments of draft capital than Cooks then we will just have to agree to disagree. Five years in, Cooks has had a better career than all of them IMO.

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:09 am Of course all those guys had high startup value at a point in time, that's why they were drafted at 1.1 in their respective rookie drafts. That doesn't mean they turned out to be good draft picks. And of course they could have been flipped for good assets at that time, but that's like timing the market. Good luck with that.

If you weren't contending in 2017 why would someone flip Gurley? He was a young, healthy RB. A perfect piece to build around, or so it seemed. Not anymore.

If you're saying that Watkins, McFadden, Matthews or Richardson turned out to be better investments of draft capital than Cooks then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Holding an RB with as much value and production as 2017 Gurley in a rebuild is just poor strategy in my opinion. Yeah we didn't know he was going to have knee issues, but he still plays RB and that is a position with a ton of turnover. That said...he's still got 1st round-ish start-up value, which is higher than Cooks' value has ever been. Anyone should be happy to get rookie Gurley in exchange for 1.01 or Cooks.

And yeah, if you got Watkins or Richardson with 1.01 you very easily could have exited with substantially more value than Cooks has ever held (less certain about McFadden and Matthews because that was so long ago, but my recollection is they both held higher value for periods in their respective careers). Not to mention that Watkins probably won a lot of people championships in 2015, whereas I don't think Cooks has ever really had a "championship winning" season or playoff stretch.

hoos89 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:15 am

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:09 am Of course all those guys had high startup value at a point in time, that's why they were drafted at 1.1 in their respective rookie drafts. That doesn't mean they turned out to be good draft picks. And of course they could have been flipped for good assets at that time, but that's like timing the market. Good luck with that.

If you weren't contending in 2017 why would someone flip Gurley? He was a young, healthy RB. A perfect piece to build around, or so it seemed. Not anymore.

If you're saying that Watkins, McFadden, Matthews or Richardson turned out to be better investments of draft capital than Cooks then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Holding an RB with as much value and production as 2017 Gurley in a rebuild is just poor strategy in my opinion. Yeah we didn't know he was going to have knee issues, but he still plays RB and that is a position with a ton of turnover. That said...he's still got 1st round-ish start-up value, which is higher than Cooks' value has ever been. Anyone should be happy to get rookie Gurley in exchange for 1.01 or Cooks.

And yeah, if you got Watkins or Richardson with 1.01 you very easily could have exited with substantially more value than Cooks has ever held (less certain about McFadden and Matthews because that was so long ago, but my recollection is they both held higher value for periods in their respective careers). Not to mention that Watkins probably won a lot of people championships in 2015, whereas I don't think Cooks has ever really had a "championship winning" season or playoff stretch.

I'm not saying it's a bad strategy (I agree that RB's are mainly short term assets), but practically speaking I doubt many people in a rebuild are selling Barkley right now. Even if they want to are they able to find someone to give them market value? I doubt many can. (i am NOT saying Cooks has more value than Barkely, I'm just extrapolating your point to the current day.)

I think it's a bit much to expect to be able to sell at peak value. I think way more people got burned by TRich, Matthews, Watkins than were able to cash out at the right time. Watkins had a nice 4 game stretch in 2015 that might have helped people win. I don't see this as a strong argument to say he was a better investment than Cooks.

If I'm getting a 1,000 yard WR year after year from my 1.1 I am happy with that. I'll take Cooks over the unknown 2019 1.01.

I was feeling pretty good about my trade but now you guys have me unsure.

Either way i got a consistent low end WR1 whos only in his mid 20's for my rebuild. I still have a few mid first 2 to take some upside receivers and I have 2 1st next year in what looks to be a better running back draft.

At least he's in the discussion of 1.01 finally. I remember him barely being a late 1st last season as he was going to be reduced to a WR3 and not catching passes from a HOF QB

perkinsrooster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:33 am
I'm not saying it's a bad strategy (I agree that RB's are mainly short term assets), but practically speaking I doubt many people in a rebuild are selling Barkley right now. Even if they want to are they able to find someone to give them market value? I doubt many can. (i am NOT saying Cooks has more value than Barkely, I'm just extrapolating your point to the current day.)

I think it's a bit much to expect to be able to sell at peak value. I think way more people got burned by TRich, Matthews, Watkins than were able to cash out at the right time. Watkins had a nice 4 game stretch in 2015 that might have helped people win. I don't see this as a strong argument to say he was a better investment than Cooks.

If I'm getting a 1,000 yard WR year after year from my 1.1 I am happy with that. I'll take Cooks over the unknown 2019 1.01.

You don't need to sell at absolute peak value. Several of these players spent multiple seasons well above Cooks' value. Also for the record, Watkins' 2015 stretch was more like 8 games. And I guess who the better investment is largely depends on your strategy as a dynasty player. If you're someone who tends to cash out when players increase significantly in value then you would rather have taken Watkins. Or if Watkins won you a title but Cooks would not have, then you'd rather have taken Watkins regardless of whether you would have cashed out.

2019 1.01 is not a complete unknown. Assuming you're going with Jacobs, you've got a running back going into backfield with very little competition, who was drafted in the first round, and who is going to play for a head coach known for feeding his lead backs. I think Richardson is actually an example of why Jacobs is a smart investment: just look at what happened to Richardson's value following a high volume but relatively inefficient rookie season. Jacobs doesn't even need to be all that good next seasons for his value to increase into the top 20-range (which is better than where Cooks is likely to be). The biggest risk is that Jacobs gets hurt, but there's risk with every player. Cooks is not guaranteed to continue putting up 1,000+ yard seasons every year, and I suspect the first time he doesn't his value will drop significantly because season-to-season consistency is the main source of his value.

E: And just to be clear - I would personally rather have Cooks than Jacobs straight up right now. I'm just arguing that it's not "ridiculous" to send Cooks for Jacobs + 2nd (and I know there are people who prefer Jacobs over Cooks straight up).