Julius Jones v John Carlson

[diabloargentino]

12 Man 0.5 PPR.

 

I'm not sure if Julius Jones will finally have a big year, or if he's a once in a while breakout player.

 

I really love J. Carlson as well, and think he's going to be a stud all year long.

 

With that being said, I don't want to start both of them.

 

Would you keep Jones and look to get a good TE now that Carlson's stock is up, or keep Carlson and trade J. Jones?

 

I'm thinking of keeping Julius Jones to go along with my other 2 RBs: Barber & Gore.

 

I'm going to try to trade for a Tony Gonzales or Antonio Gates type TE, by offering Carlson and someone off my bench to fill holes in their lineup.

 

Opinios?

 

Thanks in advance, and I'd be glad to offer my advice in return!

[CardinalEmpire.com]

Sell high on Jones IMO. The guy isn't a viable starting RB over the long haul. I don't think Carlson is going to keep his week 1 pace, either, but I think he WILL be a Top 10 TE (possibly top 5) at year's end.

[diabloargentino]

I only got into FF last year really, so I don't know much about Jones. I do see though that historically he always falls off.

 

I'm trying to get a big name RB for Julius + basically anyone on my bench (Sproles, Mendenhall, A. Gonzo, Burleson to name a few), but it's hard convincing people to give up a big name in return for depth to their line up.

[diabloargentino]

Why? Why not start the players on your team projected to get the most points, regardless of who they are, what team they're on, and whether you have their teammates.

 

Because although projections are often helpful, in reality, I can maximize my chances to score a lot of points by having players who all play on different teams.

 

No matter which way you look at it, everytime Jones gets a TD, he's technically taking one away from Carlson, so by playing them both, I'm limiting 2 slots of possible TDs to only one.

 

It's hard to explain the logic, but ideally, I'd want someone on different teams on every slot getting every possible TD. 2 players from one team limits that.

[CardinalEmpire.com]

Why? Why not start the players on your team projected to get the most points, regardless of who they are, what team they're on, and whether you have their teammates.

 

FTR, I agree with this above all. I am going to try to get Flacco off waivers tonight despite already having Rice. I don't see any reason those guys can't work together... seemed to do just fine in Week 1.

 

Back to your question/observation, though, I think you're going to have a real hard time selling ANYONE on the idea of depth for a big-name upgrade to your roster. Depth only works if you are playing match-ups (read: weak at a position) or you have to worry about your guys being injured (and in that case they should have hand-cuffed someone). Guys like Burleson can be found on the waiver wire without much trouble in most leagues. The other guys you mentioned are back-ups or worse yet injured (Gonzo).

 

But PT Barnum did have a quote about suckers and their birth rates...

[diabloargentino]

With a QB it's different, because a QB's yards won't take away from a RB/WR/TE's yards. They are complementary. Same with their TDs.

 

A TE and RB though, are different. If Carlson gets a 50yd TD, that's a 50 yards and a TD of offense Julius Jones missed out on.

[diabloargentino]

and you also maximize the chances of neither player getting you any significant points that week.

 

By having players on the same team, you smooth out the fluctuations and generate more consistent points from week-to-week.

 

But that is completely based on how well that team plays that week. If in this case, the Seahawks have a bad week, then I still wont get any points.

 

So if both scenarios have a chance to get me little significant points at any given time, I find that statistically, I might as well have players from different teams playing that won't steal points from each other.