Higgins for Akers?

[Yarnith]

You have Boyd and Higgins so yes totally trade Higgins for Akers. We can debate value but literally you turn a wasted roster spot into a starting RB. The Burrow argument doesn't work while sitting on Boyd too. Sell either get Akers net win for you.

[dvpkwys]

You have Boyd and Higgins so yes totally trade Higgins for Akers. We can debate value but literally you turn a wasted roster spot into a starting RB. The Burrow argument doesn't work while sitting on Boyd too. Sell either get Akers net win for you.

Not sure Higgins is a wasted roster spot...

[Paul717]

You have Boyd and Higgins so yes totally trade Higgins for Akers. We can debate value but literally you turn a wasted roster spot into a starting RB. The Burrow argument doesn't work while sitting on Boyd too. Sell either get Akers net win for you.

Not sure Higgins is a wasted roster spot...

I'm guessing here...but I think he meant "would you really ever start both Higgins and Boyd in a given week given they are on the same team?" Apologies if my guess is way off.
It's a legit question, and spreading across multiple good offenses is a good idea. But of the WR duos in the NFL that I WOULD want to start every week, these guys would be pretty high when Burrow is healthy.
As to the OP...this is a tough one. Good RBs are scarce but FOUR WRs is a lot to start.

[Yarnith]

You have Boyd and Higgins so yes totally trade Higgins for Akers. We can debate value but literally you turn a wasted roster spot into a starting RB. The Burrow argument doesn't work while sitting on Boyd too. Sell either get Akers net win for you.

Not sure Higgins is a wasted roster spot...

Not a player rating its roster management. You never want to start Boyd and Higgins regularly so you should pick one and get a player you will start at the same time. Akers is a great cash in for you.

[Mtt33]

You have Boyd and Higgins so yes totally trade Higgins for Akers. We can debate value but literally you turn a wasted roster spot into a starting RB. The Burrow argument doesn't work while sitting on Boyd too. Sell either get Akers net win for you.

Not sure Higgins is a wasted roster spot...

Not a player rating its roster management. You never want to start Boyd and Higgins regularly so you should pick one and get a player you will start at the same time. Akers is a great cash in for you.

Why wouldn’t you ever want to start 2 wr from 1 team? In dfs where you’re trying to hit max potential the negative correlation would generally = not wanting to play both but in head to head fantasy there also a negative floor correlation (unlikely both fall flat the same week in a ppr) so if you have 2 very good WRs I don’t see an issue starting both. Sure if the team doesn’t move the ball it could lead to lower lows (also higher highs on team boom weeks) but I wouldn’t go forcing trades to spread my players out.

For the record I WOULD make the trade in genera just not for that particular reason.

[crip7300]

Get Akers for either of those deals, it's super cheap for a young bell cow RB, especially in non ppr. In my non ppr leagues ppl would expect Higgins and the 1.12 for a RB like Akers.

[Yarnith]

Why wouldn’t you ever want to start 2 wr from 1 team? In dfs where you’re trying to hit max potential the negative correlation would generally = not wanting to play both but in head to head fantasy there also a negative floor correlation (unlikely both fall flat the same week in a ppr) so if you have 2 very good WRs I don’t see an issue starting both. Sure if the team doesn’t move the ball it could lead to lower lows (also higher highs on team boom weeks) but I wouldn’t go forcing trades to spread my players out.

For the record I WOULD make the trade in genera just not for that particular reason.

Because Fantasy success is managing risk. Starting a pair of WR's on the same team means if that team has a bad day you throw your game. Splitting to the primary WR on 2 separate teams spreads that risk making your weekly H2H avg score more consistent, which should increase your wins and ultimately wins the championship. All players/teams have down weeks or even years no reason to guarantee when they do your fantasy team does too.

[dvpkwys]

You have Boyd and Higgins so yes totally trade Higgins for Akers. We can debate value but literally you turn a wasted roster spot into a starting RB. The Burrow argument doesn't work while sitting on Boyd too. Sell either get Akers net win for you.

Not sure Higgins is a wasted roster spot...

I'm guessing here...but I think he meant "would you really ever start both Higgins and Boyd in a given week given they are on the same team?" Apologies if my guess is way off.
It's a legit question, and spreading across multiple good offenses is a good idea. But of the WR duos in the NFL that I WOULD want to start every week, these guys would be pretty high when Burrow is healthy.
As to the OP...this is a tough one. Good RBs are scarce but FOUR WRs is a lot to start.

Fair point - I feel I have good WR depth if one is moved, and starting 4 (Adams, Godwin, Allen, Terry, DJM, Boyd/Higgins, David, Gallup), but poor RB depth. I think rolling out 4 of those WR's and Cook, Taylor and Akers would be pretty good. I guess the next question is am I sold 100% on Akers?

[Mtt33]

Why wouldn’t you ever want to start 2 wr from 1 team? In dfs where you’re trying to hit max potential the negative correlation would generally = not wanting to play both but in head to head fantasy there also a negative floor correlation (unlikely both fall flat the same week in a ppr) so if you have 2 very good WRs I don’t see an issue starting both. Sure if the team doesn’t move the ball it could lead to lower lows (also higher highs on team boom weeks) but I wouldn’t go forcing trades to spread my players out.

For the record I WOULD make the trade in genera just not for that particular reason.

Because Fantasy success is managing risk. Starting a pair of WR's on the same team means if that team has a bad day you throw your game. Splitting to the primary WR on 2 separate teams spreads that risk making your weekly H2H avg score more consistent, which should increase your wins and ultimately wins the championship. All players/teams have down weeks or even years no reason to guarantee when they do your fantasy team does too.

The counter to this is when one has a bad week the other is actually less likely to have a bad week and vica versa. You could be managing risk by starting both, WRs typically have a negative correlation. If you want to manage the risk you’re referring to you don’t want to start a qb and wr on the same team, because they have more positive correlation.

I’m fine spreading assets around teams but I certainly wouldn’t force trades because of it if you like both those WRs.

[Yarnith]

Because Fantasy success is managing risk. Starting a pair of WR's on the same team means if that team has a bad day you throw your game. Splitting to the primary WR on 2 separate teams spreads that risk making your weekly H2H avg score more consistent, which should increase your wins and ultimately wins the championship. All players/teams have down weeks or even years no reason to guarantee when they do your fantasy team does too.

The counter to this is when one has a bad week the other is actually less likely to have a bad week and vica versa. You could be managing risk by starting both, WRs typically have a negative correlation. If you want to manage the risk you’re referring to you don’t want to start a qb and wr on the same team, because they have more positive correlation.

I’m fine spreading assets around teams but I certainly wouldn’t force trades because of it if you like both those WRs.

So your saying youd rather guarantee one poor performance to guarantee 1 good one rather than having a high chance of 2 good ones? Honestly it doesn't track. Better to have a pair of WR1's on 2 teams than the WR1 and 2 on the same. It's just true.

So he has Burrow, Boyd and Higgins. Akers and Higgins in most opinions I see including my own are pretty close to a push. Knowing his roster says again it is an easy choice to move the player. You speak of forcing a trade like he is trading Higgins for Duke Johnson. Easy slam dunk trade.

[Mtt33]

Because Fantasy success is managing risk. Starting a pair of WR's on the same team means if that team has a bad day you throw your game. Splitting to the primary WR on 2 separate teams spreads that risk making your weekly H2H avg score more consistent, which should increase your wins and ultimately wins the championship. All players/teams have down weeks or even years no reason to guarantee when they do your fantasy team does too.

The counter to this is when one has a bad week the other is actually less likely to have a bad week and vica versa. You could be managing risk by starting both, WRs typically have a negative correlation. If you want to manage the risk you’re referring to you don’t want to start a qb and wr on the same team, because they have more positive correlation.

I’m fine spreading assets around teams but I certainly wouldn’t force trades because of it if you like both those WRs.

So your saying youd rather guarantee one poor performance to guarantee 1 good one rather than having a high chance of 2 good ones? Honestly it doesn't track. Better to have a pair of WR1's on 2 teams than the WR1 and 2 on the same. It's just true.

So he has Burrow, Boyd and Higgins. Akers and Higgins in most opinions I see including my own are pretty close to a push. Knowing his roster says again it is an easy choice to move the player. You speak of forcing a trade like he is trading Higgins for Duke Johnson. Easy slam dunk trade.

No no I’m not saying I’d rather have that. I’m saying I wouldn’t force sell a guy for that reason. I just don’t think there’s much data that suggests not to have 2 good WRs just because they’re on the same team other than the same bye week.

Either way we agree to make this particular trade so I’m Happy to move on if you’d like, enjoyed the back and forth!

[snaps06]

Akers > Higgins, especially with your roster construction. I like that offer as a starting point and it might get the job done. Don't be surprised if the other owner wants more because solid RBs are much harder to find than a solid WR.

The 12 and Davis is way too light, but if you can make it happen that would be fantastic.