EWBFF Mike Brown League

[livid]

3 hours ago, DMN said:

It should go without saying, but Patrick Mahomes is not available.

was worth a shot lol

[Your Mom]

You guys vetoed my trade?  I thought it was fair. Anyone want to offer me a different trade for Russ then? My team needs a spark or else the season is over

[HC]

1 hour ago, Your Mom said:

You guys vetoed my trade?  I thought it was fair. Anyone want to offer me a different trade for Russ then? My team needs a spark or else the season is over

If they vetoed a high end WR1 for Russ I pretty much take that as Russ being untradeable. 

[gunnar hendershow]

One-for-one trades are very hard to pull off. Especially when one of the players hasn't played in a month and the other is a top 3 QB. This had a good chance of making your team worse, because Wilson's future points projections are a whole lot higher than Tannehill's and Adams probably doesn't offset that gap.

[Lowerdeck]

Had I known that was definitely getting shot down, I would have sat Fulgham this week.  Now I have to sit Chark.

[HC]

Davante looking like a monster today fwiw

[Lineker]

Trading for him would have been a really good idea.

[LL!]

He didn't have to go off while playing against me. 😕

[HC]

13 receptions, 2 TDs and almost 200 yards

 

Thankfully no one traded for this scrub!

[Lineker]

Your comeback is on, @Your Mom!

[Maxx]

I will entertain offers for one Lamar Jackson.

[Your Mom]

VETOED!  

[Maxx]

I spoke in favor of your trade!  It's not my fault you couldn't make it appeal to other demographics.

[Your Mom]

I'm just bitter because Adams literally got career highs yesterday  

[LL!]

I stand by my veto. One week doesn't mean shit. If Davante consistently puts a stat line like this out every week then I'll eat crow, but he won't. Though, he's obviously pretty reliable. You know who will perform consistently though? Russell Wilson. You know, the guy that has given you 4 games of 35+ points and 2 of them over 42 points. 😉

[Maxx]

Yeah scoring is tilted to favor QBs. 

[LL!]

Just now, Maxx said:

Yeah scoring is tilted to favor QBs. 

It sure is. But who else is putting up those numbers? Patrick Mahomes? Close but no (2 game in the 30s and 1 in the 40s). Kyler Murray? No. (same as Mahomes) Lamar? No. Deshaun? No. Dak? (No. :() 

Why are we going to undervalue a QB that is having an MVP year both in real life and in Fantasy? We both know QBs are game changers in Fantasy. 

[Your Mom]

Nah I'm cool with it as long as this next trade goes through  

[Maxx]

Because you can only play one of them and Wilson's play isn't translating into wins for her.  I'd say that's plenty of reason and justification to seek out a trade.  It's impossible to get true value for a top 5 QB in this league unless you are trading for another top 5 QB, so top 5 player at another position is pretty fair.  Tannehill and Adams may end up being more successful combination than Russell + whatever receivers she is left with.  He's her most valuable asset and she was trying to use that to improve at other positions because Tannehill isn't a huge drop off from Wilson in terms of points scored.  If you aren't winning, then the best use of your most valuable asset might be in a trade to get talent at other positions where you are lacking.  Made a lot of sense for her at the time. 

Would you have felt better if she was trading Russel Wilson for highest scoring receiver in the league currently Adam Thielen? ()   Again, what value does it take to make a trade for Wilson fair, and what use to MVP caliber Wilson have to a team that isn't winning because of other weaknesses?  I'd argue Tannehill+Adams is going to be better than Russell + JuJu, but now it's the guy with the better record in Lowerdeck that gets to use that combination instead of Srar.   Seems like this thought process is just dooming unsuccessful teams to remain unsuccessful.
 

44 minutes ago, LL. said:

One week doesn't mean shit. If Davante consistently puts a stat line like this out every week then I'll eat crow, but he won't.

He's played 4 games, one of which he left early due to injury.  He scored 36 and 39.5 in two of those other games.  There's only one other WR in the top 25 that has two 30+ point games this season.  If Adams didn't get hurt he would almost certainly be the highest scoring WR right now. 

[LL!]

6 minutes ago, Maxx said:

Because you can only play one of them and Wilson's play isn't translating into wins for her.  I'd say that's plenty of reason and justification to seek out a trade.  It's impossible to get true value for a top 5 QB in this league unless you are trading for another top 5 QB, so top 5 player at another position is pretty fair.  Tannehill and Adams may end up being more successful combination than Russell + whatever receivers she is left with.  He's her most valuable asset and she was trying to use that to improve at other positions because Tannehill isn't a huge drop off from Wilson in terms of points scored.  If you aren't winning, then the best use of your most valuable asset might be in a trade to get talent at other positions where you are lacking.  Made a lot of sense for her at the time. 

Would you have felt better if she was trading Russel Wilson for highest scoring receiver in the league currently Adam Thielen? ()   Again, what value does it take to make a trade for Wilson fair, and what use to MVP caliber Wilson have to a team that isn't winning because of other weaknesses?  I'd argue Tannehill+Adams is going to be better than Russell + JuJu, but now it's the guy with the better record in Lowerdeck that gets to use that combination instead of Srar.   Seems like this thought process is just dooming unsuccessful teams to remain unsuccessful. 

 

 

He's played 4 games, one of which he left early due to injury.  He scored 36 and 39.5 in two of those other games.  If he hadn't gotten injured he would very likely be the top WR right now. 

Sure, I can see your point when it comes to a Top 5 position trading for another Top 5 position, but let's not pretend that Davante Adams wasn't injured coming into the week of the trade and had only produced the one 36 point game before that. You can't start including the 39.5 game in the discussion because it didn't exist at the time. But as I stated, if Davante puts up these numbers moving forward, I'll happily eat crow. And I apologize in advance.

As far as the comparison between Tannehill and Wilson? Let's talk schedule because that matters just as much. These next few weeks are going to be essential for srar to get back into the thick of it. Underperform now and you can basically kiss the playoffs good bye. So, for the next 6 games, Tannehill has the Bengals (ranked 21st), Chicago (ranked 32nd), Indianapolis (ranked 31st), Baltimore (ranked 17th), Indianapolis (again), and Cleveland (ranked 16th). That is the toughest defense against the QB (Chicago), the second toughest TWICE (Indy), and Baltimore that can terrorize a QB at any point and have accumulated 13 sacks, 1 interception, and 3 fumble recoveries in just the last 2 games leading up to the bye. Let's look at Wilson's next 6: San Francisco (ranked 19th), Buffalo (ranked 5th), Rams (ranked 22nd), Arizona (ranked 24th), Philadelphia (ranked 14th), and Giants (ranked 27th). There is just... no comparison when it comes to schedule here. Their toughest games will be against the Rams and Cardinals. A Cardinals team they already almost beat, but, most importantly, would have yielded Wilson's highest scoring game had it not been for the 3 INTs (which we both know will likely not repeat in their next encounter.)

Moving forward, Russell Wilson is going to be a much better prospect than Ryan Tannehill (based on what we know, which is all that we can go off of.) So, I'd say it's smarter to get rid of Ryan Tannehill than it is to get rid of Russell Wilson especially given that you yourself note that it's not even much of a drop off from Wilson. Yes, his schedule is tougher, but he's capable and will be a nice middle ground.

Also, yeah. how the fuck is Adam Thielen the highest scoring receiver right now?