Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron


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

        the Gridiron >> the Red Zone >>  S. Davis for Hasselbeck
        
(Message started by: DC_Disaster on Sep 26^th, 2003, 7:16am)

Title: S. Davis for Hasselbeck
Post by DC_Disaster on Sep 26^th, 2003, 7:16am

Would this trade be worth it?

I give M. Harrison and S. Davis
for
Jamal Lewis, Bryant Johnson, Drew Bennett and Thomas Jones

Or would you do this?

I give Stephen Davis and Doug Johnson
for
Matt Hasselbeck and Plaxico Burress or Duce McAllister
(Hasselbeck and Burress give me alittle more than 2 times the pts that Davis and Johnson do)

Title: Re: Trade Help
Post by Philly on Sep 26^th, 2003, 9:12am

If you could post your current roster, brief explanation of scoring system, and # of starters each week it would help... :)

Title: Re: Trade Help
Post by DC_Disaster on Sep 26^th, 2003, 10:04am

14 teams - 18 "players"
QB - Tom Brady WR - M. Harrison
Doug Johnson A. Toomer
Kurt Warner   E. Kennison
Chris Simms(keeper) M. Hatchette
RB - S. Davis TE - J. Kleinsasser
M. Pittman   K - M. Gramatica
A. Cason   D - Denver
Q. Griffin Minnesota
L. Toefield
We play QB, K, D, 2 RB, 2 WR and 2 others(RB, WR or TE)
TD=6, length of TD adds pts, passing 1pt =25yards
rushing 1pt=10yards plus K and Def.
Thanks for the help

Title: Re: Trade Help
Post by Philly on Sep 26^th, 2003, 1:18pm

I'd definitely do the second deal.

I think Davis and McAllister are almost even.
Hasselbeck is much better than Johnson.

You've already got two solid starters at WR (Harrison and Toomer), so you don't have to get Burress.

-----------

The first trade is no good. You're giving two #1 starters (yes, Harrison is still a #1 despite his stats) for a #1 RB and a bunch of junk.

Title: Re: Trade Help
Post by Razzak on Sep 27^th, 2003, 5:38pm

Davis and Johnson for McAllister and Hasselbeck is a friggin steal. Heck, if that goes through I wouldn't be surprised if many of the other owners in the league are pissed.

I mean, Davis, who is good but probably won't break the top 5, and Johnson, a guy who won't be playing in 3 weeks...

for...

McAllister, top 10 easy at the end of the year, and Hasselbeck, a guy who is putting up top 3 numbers.

Title: Re: S. Davis for Hasselbeck
Post by Noey21 on Sep 29^th, 2003, 11:44am

I am going to take a different stance here.

Yes it would be great to unload Johnson since his days are numbered.
However, S. Davis is way better than McCallister not as a running back but in position of teams.

Let me explain before people get bent.
1. S. Davis is a work horse...he breaks you down and gets stronger as the game goes (i.e. Ricky Williams). Just with Spurrier he couldn't show it.

2. The Saints as much as I pull for them are Always going to be playing from behind. (thie defense is dreadful....the late 80's and 90's are over). They are terrible on d and will be forced to pass more.

3. S. Davis is on a team with a strong defense don't beleive all the numbers ( they have been ahead most the season forcing teams to pass) that beleive in ball control. So it is possible that S. Davis could get 30+ carries a game for the season. So even if he only averages 3 yards a carry he will still get 100 yards not including receptions. Also don't let the fact that he had no touchdowns in week 1 or 2 fool you. He is a strong back and will get in the end zone (as proved last night.

So in closing I guess only do it if you are Deperate need of a QB. Isn't there someone you could pick up. Or make sure you are first on the phone when the next starte goes down.

Title: Re: S. Davis for Hasselbeck
Post by StegRock on Sep 30^th, 2003, 9:30pm

First deal stinks!

Second deal with McAllister would be great. For me, in simple terms, Hasselbeck for D. Johnson is a STEAL and McAllister for Davis is at least even. Davis may have gotten a great start, but when it all comes out in the wash, those two will at least be close in the rankings, which means a strong showing for McAllister sooner than later.