Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron


    
      
        Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
        (https://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi)
      

        the Gridiron >> the Red Zone >>  First Trade for 2003
        
(Message started by: StegRock on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 6:58pm)

Title: First Trade for 2003
Post by StegRock on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 6:58pm

For those who like to analyze everything and anything fantasy football...

I cut the first deal today in the GBRFL for the 2003 season. A few important notes first: 1) tight ends are NOT a separate category; they are just counted as receivers; 2) this is a keeper league in which we protect 12 (from our 21-component rosters); 3) all things roughly equal rushing-wise, running backs who get a lot of receptions are a real bonus given our receiving rules; 4) we start 3 RB's and 3 RC's. Well, without further ado, here's the deal:

I traded: RB Ahman Green and RC Tony Gonzalez
I received: RB Jamal Lewis and RC Darrell Jackson

Each of our rosters, as they were BEFORE the trade, is on the following page (I have not updated the site yet): http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/gbrfl/rosters.htm. On that page, I am "Steve Stegeman". I made the trade with "Joe Parsons".

What do you guys, "the Gridiron" geniuses, think?

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by ugley on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 7:37pm

[smiley=shiteatingrin.gif] Take it to the bank. J.Lew should be much improved in 03 and D.Jax and K.Rob could be the next dynamic duo at wr. [smiley=mickey.gif]

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by StegRock on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 7:41pm

I should also add that...

My rationale is that I needed more solid play out of my third receiver. Jackson, I feel, is an upgrade over Morgan, Glenn, Streets, Wayne, McCardell, and Gonzalez, who I gave up in the trade.

His rationale is that he wanted more of a receiving running back. Rushing-wise, Green and Lewis are about equal. It is the receiving that (potentially) separates them.

Anyway, it's an interesting one. What are your guys' thoughts?

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by BarnabyWilde on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 7:48pm

Good trade.

D Jax should rebound and have a good year. I am a big fan of Lewis and got him before the season started last year.

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by DirkDiggler on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 9:21pm

Interesting trade. And fair trade!!! If you made me choose who had the better deal, I personally think that Joe got the better end of the deal. In the trade you are banking a lot on Darrell Jackson. However, I do not think Darrell Jackson is that great of a receiver. He did finish strong, but I think he is inconsistant.

As far as running backs go, I think Ahman is a much steadier and better player than Lewis. But, only time will tell.

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by StegRock on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 9:50pm

on 01/02/03 at 21:21:23, DirkDiggler wrote:

Eh! You thought Joe got the better of me two years ago when I traded him Lamar Smith and David Boston for PRIEST HOLMES and Tim Brown. ::) ;) [smiley=tonguin.gif]

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by DirkDiggler on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 9:58pm

True.....but you asked for my opinion and I gave it.

I truly need to work some offseason magic to turn my no so good team around!!!

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by StegRock on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 10:05pm

Okay, next time I will remember to preface "intelligent opinions." [smiley=takinyours.gif] [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif]

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by Keyshawn Johnson 76yards on Jan 2^nd, 2003, 10:32pm

I think Darrel Jackson is going to take a backseat role to Koren. I think Koren is going to explode next year:

Koren- 70+ receptions 1,200+ yards 8+ TDs

Darell Jackson - 40+ recpetions 750+ yards 4+ TDs

As a 3rd WR, he's OK. Though, Tony Gonzalez and Ahman Green? TG is going to light it up next year. I like Ahman for Ja though. Ja is becoming a recieving back now, it seems. Atleast he had that big 77 yard TD recpetion the other week.. [smiley=dancin.gif]

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by BarnabyWilde on Jan 3^rd, 2003, 2:02am

I too made my first trade of 2003, and it also involved Ahman. I gave up Green and Rod Smith for Joe Horn and Corey Dillon. The Dillon owner was tired of him and wanted to deal him, so I thought I'd jump on the deal.
Now I'll keep those two along with J-Lew, Moulds and Willie Green and one of my QB's (BJ, Bulger, Warner, or Collins)

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by DOLFAN on Jan 3^rd, 2003, 11:00am

I am the 2nd party of the above deal. I too think AG is an upgrade over Lewis. I traded DJ because i too feel that Koren will be the #1 guy there and DJ will put up 800-900 and 6-7 TDs, not bad for a #3WR. I wanted more touches overall and Green will give me that over Lewis. I drafted Lewis 3 yrs ago and always worry about players with rebuilt knees. He has 2 of them . He will play through small dings, unlike Green, But Green has had no MAJOR injuries...yet.
I also like Tony G. He is a steady #3 guy if i need him to be. My other Wrs are Booker, Boston, Taylor, Josh Reed, Tim Brown and Pinkston. I felt i had too many of the same caliber #3 wrs and need to shake up my roster. It was a fair deal, nut only time will tell who it will help more.

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by StegRock on Jan 3^rd, 2003, 12:29pm

on 01/02/03 at 22:32:35, Keyshawn Johnson 76yards wrote:

Overreaction, KJ 76! There is "NO WAY"... I repeat, [smiley=coach.gif] "NO WAY" Jackson goes from 70 for 1081 and 8 in 2001 and then 62 for 877 and 4 in 2002, a season in which he missed FOUR AND A HALF GAMES and ALMOST DIED, to 40-ish for 750-ish and 4-ish in 2003. The guy is in his prime and will grow with Robinson nicely. Remember this is the offense that produced the likes of Freeman and Brooks at the same time. It is not AT ALL unheard of for two receivers on one team to put up VERY good numbers. Think Smith-McCardell when they were both in Jacksonville; Burress-Ward in Pittsburgh, an offense much less inclined to produce two 1,000-yard, significant-touchdown receivers; Moss-Carter back in the day in Minnesota; Smith-McCaffery in Denver; the list goes on. Robinson will be the "#1" go-to guy, no arguments there, but it will NOT be at the expense of Jackson's continued growth. Jackson will remain more like a "1b" option; he will not be relegated to just a role-playing "#2" possession receiver.

One final note on Gonzalez, the value of tight ends in this type of league, is definitely VERY reduced. Spot duty is one thing, but if you are using any tight end, outside of Sharpe's one or two big seasons and Gonzalez 2000, on a regular basis, you are probably not winning many games. Will Gonzalez be usable on a regular basis in the GBRFL next year? Perhaps... BUT, the odds are against it!

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by Jetdoc on Jan 6^th, 2003, 7:43pm

Come on, Steg...all of the WR combos you mentioned had pretty darn good QB's throwing to them. Is Hasselbeck a Tommy Maddox in disguise? How about Dilfer?

I think the Seahawks overplayed their offensive potential this year, and predict a good dropoff in WR production next year. Jackson will probably have similar numbers and I expect Robinson to come back to Earth.

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by FourTwoOh on Jan 6^th, 2003, 8:37pm

Noticed a few of you used this designation in my contest as well.

RC = Rice Catcher
RC = Route Coach
RC = wRetch & Catch
RC= :totally confused:

Title: Re: First Trade for 2003
Post by StegRock on Jan 6^th, 2003, 10:13pm

First, Jetdoc, who the hell was Tommy Maddox just 14 weeks ago? Yes, Hasselbeck might just be coming into his own! Why not him? Moving right along, Smith-McCaffery have had nothing but inconsistency from their quarterback, and as for Smith-McCardell, Brunell is okay, BUT hardly a statistical wonderboy. Has he ever thrown for more than 3,200 yards and 18 touchdowns? Yet, Smith and McCardell had 2,400 and 12 to 16 of them.

Now for you, FourTwoOh! RC = ReCeiver! Subgroups of receivers: WR = Wide Reciever (covering Split Ends and Flankers and I suppose whatever receivers are split out in three-, four- or five-receiver sets); TE = Tight End! In your game, like the GBRFL, wide receivers and tight ends are not in a separate grouping. THUS, the designation "RC", meaning receiver, is actually much more accurate and appropriate. What is it? WR Jeremy Shockey! Nope! The "RC" designation indicating all "receivers," both wide receivers and tight ends, dates way back, actually. It is the designation the Armchair Sports Group (ASG), the company that used to run the GBRFL from 1989 to 1997, used from its establishment in the early 80's.

Sheesh! ::) [smiley=annoyed.gif]