Sign in to follow this  
DJCoop14

Huge Trade: Manning and Tomlinson!

Recommended Posts

Here's the trade (Trad. Scoring), Start 1 qb, 2 rb's, 3 wr's, etc...

 

(My team) Manning, Pittman, and McCardell

 

for

 

Hasselbeck, Tomlinson, and Walker

 

I already have

 

Qb: Brees, Griese

Rb's: McAllister

Wr's: Wayne, Mason, Chambers, Burress

 

I don't think I can trade anyone else to get Tomlinson, and I think he is going to be the best RB for the rest of the season...

 

ANY feedback is greatly appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning could easily carry a team into the playoffs and beyond, and trading him at this point might sound absolutely silly in some cases, but in other cases, maybe not... in your case I think it might be a good deal. You can start Brees from here on out. LT will be a nice addition and Walker is a huge upgrade at WR. I think you can pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be a bad idea, but do you want both LT and Brees? The upgrade at WR and RB are both hugh but look at what you will lose at QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may not be a bad idea, but do you want both LT and Brees? The upgrade at WR and RB are both hugh but look at what you will lose at QB.

 

583433[/snapback]

 

 

 

I feel what you're tryin to say. Usually you don't want a QB and RB on the same team because typically, in a given week, a team puts up either big passing stats or big rushing stats. Rarely do you get both. There are exceptions, however. I wouldn't mind having Manning and Edge at this point. Another exception would be Brees/LT. I am a Brees/LT owner and am 100% confident in starting both of them. Both are going to get 1-2 TDs per week, typically. Brees will usually get his yards, depending on the matchup... and LT is running stronger here at the tail end of the season. You're right that the upgrades at WR and RB are significant, but I disagree with your statement that he's losing alot at QB. Brees won't throw 6 TDs every week... but then again neither will Manning. Say Manning throws 1 TD MORE each week than Brees from here on out. I think that the upgrades at RB and WR balance his team out and those guys will make up for the loss he takes at POTENTIALLY huge numbers at QB. Remember, too, that Manning really isn't putting up monster yardage totals... at least in the past 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LT is one of those RBs that also has great hands and is really another reciever, so when Brees throws to him you get double pts (if you are in a league that gives pts per reception) so having both of them may not be an issue. It's a gutsy trade. I say do it!

Edited by tfoos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to think of, is what will his new team look like. Will it be a power house? who you will have a great deal of beating in the playoffs.

 

What are his players ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the trade (Trad. Scoring), Start 1 qb, 2 rb's, 3 wr's, etc...

 

(My team) Manning, Pittman, and McCardell

 

for

 

Hasselbeck, Tomlinson, and Walker

 

I already have

 

Qb:  Brees, Griese

Rb's: McAllister

Wr's: Wayne, Mason, Chambers, Burress

 

I don't think I can trade anyone else to get Tomlinson, and I think he is going to be the best RB for the rest of the season...

 

ANY feedback is greatly appreciated!

 

583412[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Don't do it.

 

First, Hasselbeck should be benched....you get nothing on that, and you lose your safety net at QB.

 

Second, Tomlinson is great, but I have him and Pittman as 1-2 RB's in one league, and have been watching their performances side-by-side. Pittman is actually outscoring Tomlinson right now (although barely) and has built a great rapport with Griese. It's a modest upgrade for a huge loss at QB.

 

Walker is certainly an upgrade, but I still don't think it's worth it.

 

If this guy needs a QB, he could do a LOT worse than Brees. If he'd do a Brees/McAllister package for LT (which, depending on his team, could be a net improvement) then I'd be more inclined to pull the trigger. But you just can't lose Manning entering the play-offs and fighting for home-field advantage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So maybe I should trade Brees for another QB....maybe Bulger?  Vick?

 

583558[/snapback]

 

 

 

What? NO!!!!!!!!

 

Why would you want to downgrade your QB? Just because LT's on the same team as Brees? No, that makes NO sense. If you're going to do that, don't do the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt do it as Manning is on fire and could carry you to the promised land :D

 

if you deal him it could be a kick in the nutz :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOMETHING TO CLARIFY ABOUT MY LEAGUE and the strategy in the trade:

 

Our league (11 teams) doesn't use win/lose records or have playoffs...we go everyone against everyone every week(high scorer for the week wins about $100), and total points for the year wins at the end (top 3 places pay out, $600, $400, $200)). I am in 5th place, about 50 points out of 3rd place.

 

I would also try to trade Brees for Bulger, Vick, or Carr

 

The team with Tomlinson is in last place.

 

I might try to trade Brees/McAllister/McCardell/Chambers

 

for

 

Hasselbeck/Tomlinson/Walker/Junk WR

 

Thanks for all the opinions!

 

I also looked at the schedule for Manning and Tomlinson, and Manning plays Baltimore and at Denver (with Houston, Tenn. and ???), and LT has an easy rest of the schedule...

Edited by DJCoop14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes HUGE balls to trade manning at this point of the year, but I'd make the deal. You could live with Brees/Griese, and to have Deuce and LT in the backfield, with Walker,Wayne, and Mason as your WRs would make a heck of a team. Sometimes it's gutsy trades like this that win you championships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No dice. Pittman is playing at least as good as Tomlinson right now. You'd be screwing your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My team) Manning, Pittman, and McCardell

 

for

 

Hasselbeck, Tomlinson, and Walker

 

Manning vs Brees - yes you are getting Hass, but you will NEVER use Hass which basically makes this a 3 for 2 trade (you giving 3 to get 2). Manning is the man this year .... but Brees ain't far behind in fantasy terms. Brees has DEN, TBB, CLE, and IND left on their schedule ... Manning has TEN, HOU, BAL, and SD left on their schedule. I don't see that either has a big scheduling advantage over the other. Still you are giving up points when you drop from Manning to Brees.

 

Pittman vs LT - before LT's bye week I don't even consider this as LT wasn't very LT like. But in the 2 weeks since the bye LT has scored very well. LT has DEN, TBB, CLE, and IND left on his schedule while Pittman has ATL, SD, NO and CAR left on his schedule. Looks like both have very favorable matchups weeks 15 and 16. When you remove the names and look at the stats both of these backs are very comparable fantasy wise. I don't see that you are getting an upgrade here. Yes LT is the better player BUT unlike years past he is NOT the only scoring option ... the emergence of Gates has cut into LT's numbers.

 

McCardell vs Walker - an obvious upgrade to Walker. It is this part of the deal that makes me consider doing it.

 

I don't like the thought of giving 3 starters to get 2 ... but I believe I make this trade ... HOWEVER that is contingent on keeping Brees ... no way do I want to drop from Manning to Griese, Vick or Carr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.