trade advice

[Maxito]

A trade has been offered to me.

I would send
Steven Jackson

Receive
Willie Parker.

I already have Larry Johnson, and Maroney on my team. I could start all three of my rb at the same time with the wr/r option.

I have been hearing that Jackson might sit out this season, so I am inclined to take this deal. But I don't know how to decide.

thanks

[skinzwiz]

I'm probably by myself here but I'd accept. I just dont trust Jackson. I dont understand how people can continue to rate him high when the OL has not improved and the WR core has taken a step back in losing Isaac Bruce. Even if Jackson were to play, I like Willie Parker's situation in Pittsburgh especially since there's been a little hint that he will get more short yardage carries. That also seems more believable with Najeh Davenport gone.

[CM916]

I'd take it. Parker can be an injury concern but there is no doubt that he is a starting RB in the mean time.

[dfitzo53]

First of all, I'm completely against the trade.

That said, let's look at what you should do if you want to accept. Steven Jackson is in the top 5 RBs on most boards. Willie Parker is more like #20. I don't care what you think Jackson is going to do, that's a silly trade to make. If Brees were holding out would you trade him Jon Kitna?

If you really would rather have Parker than Jackson, you have to come back with a counter offer. If your WRs are weaker than his, hit him up there. This is purely hypothetical since I don't know what players you each have, but maybe you counter with something like this:

You get:
Willie Parker
Andre Johnson

He gets:
Steven Jackson
Dwayne Bowe

As I see it right now he's taking you to the bank. He's trading you a first-round RB for a fourth-rounder.

And skinzwiz, you don't think Orlando Pace being back will help the offensive line?

Now the reasons I think you should keep Jackson:
- RB holdouts rarely amount to much. When was the last time you saw a big name runningback sit out over a contract?
- He's a veteran and he knows the system, so all that's really happening now is he's getting less wear and tear on his body.
- St. Louis can't afford not to have Jackson. Their chances of making the playoffs are slim anyway, but without Jackson they're nonexistent.
- Willie Parker isn't exactly "the man" in Pittsburgh. Mendenhall was taken in the first round for a reason. Parker has looked good in camp, but still will probably end up sharing the job by the end of the season. FWP even said he doesn't mind Mendenhall spelling him, as it might lengthen his career.

[SkinsNut73]

dfitzo53 hit the nail squarely on the head with his advice. There is no need to say or read any more comments....including this one:)

[speardog1]

Don't do it. When it comes down to it Jackson will play.

[Chuong9]

Yeah don't do it.

[skinzwiz]

Don't do it. When it comes down to it Jackson will play.If everybody thinks Jackson is so highly rated than I would try to get an extra player along with Willie Parker in the deal. I just think Jackson is overrated as far as FF goes. It's not about how talented you are, its about how many fantasy points you expect. Jackson's OL is the same as last year and the WR's are more shaky. He has no help. I just cant expect him to get gobbs of points in that situation. Willie Parker is in a much better situation and is also talented. Maybe he isnt as talented as Jackson, but he is in a position to get more fantasy points with a solid OL and WR core.

[SkinsNut73]

...and yet, Willie Parker couldn't find the end zone last year??? I'm willing to bet that 99% of owners who drafted Willie last year will pass on him this year because they are pissed about the lack of TD's.

Jackson's OL is not the same as last year...the Rams line was hit with injuries last year. Not sure if they will fare much better this year, but Jackson is still top 5 regardless.

This owner who is offering the trade is a vulture hovering over Maxito's team. He knows Maxito may be concerned about Jackson not playing, and might be willing to get rid of him at a reduced price.

[skinzwiz]

...and yet, Willie Parker couldn't find the end zone last year??? I'm willing to bet that 99% of owners who drafted Willie last year will pass on him this year because they are pissed about the lack of TD's.

Jackson's OL is not the same as last year...the Rams line was hit with injuries last year. Not sure if they will fare much better this year, but Jackson is still top 5 regardless.

This owner who is offering the trade is a vulture hovering over Maxito's team. He knows Maxito may be concerned about Jackson not playing, and might be willing to get rid of him at a reduced price.I only like Parker because this year the coach said he was considering giving Parker more goaline carries. If that happens then he IS more valuable than Steven Jackson.

[SkinsNut73]

...well then, I wish you were in my league because I love it when owners drafting before me reach for a player based upon something a coach says might happen ;)

Jackson over Parker every day of the week for me...

[dfitzo53]

I only like Parker because this year the coach said he was considering giving Parker more goaline carries. If that happens then he IS more valuable than Steven Jackson.
If that happens then he might be more valuable than Jackson.

I don't think you'll find many knowledgeable fantasy players who will agree that Parker has a higher ceiling than Jackson.

[skinzwiz]

If that happens then he might be more valuable than Jackson.

I don't think you'll find many knowledgeable fantasy players who will agree that Parker has a higher ceiling than Jackson.Okay well can you please tell me what in STL gives Jackson a monster year because RB's cant just tear it up without help.

[skinzwiz]

...well then, I wish you were in my league because I love it when owners drafting before me reach for a player based upon something a coach says might happen ;)

Jackson over Parker every day of the week for me... If you claim Jackson is a top five back and I was in a top five pick situation, I wouldn't pick either. I would pick a guy like Addai, Westbrook, LT, AP or Portis.;)

[dfitzo53]

Okay well can you please tell me what in STL gives Jackson a monster year because RB's cant just tear it up without help.
Actually, talented RBs are one of the positions that can get you points even if the rest of their team is sub-par, as with Corey Dillon on the Bengals. Even though the Dolphins were terrible, Ronnie Brown was the league's leading RB before he went down.

I've already told you.
1) You've exaggerated the offensive line concerns. By your logic the Redskins offensive line is in shambles too because some of our best players were injured last season. Even last year with his patchwork line and his own injury he put up a 1,000 yard season.
2) When Jackson and his line are healthy, he's capable of a 2000-total-yard season. Willie Parker really can't say the same, especially now that he's projected to lose some carries to Mendenhall.

Anyway, what I think or what you think about Steven Jackson really isn't that important. The key is that enough people are high on Jackson to give him an ADP of around 5. Willie Parker's is in the 40s. It's a stupid trade to take if for no other reason than he could get a much better value for Jackson. As SkinsNut73 said, somebody is just trying to take advantage of the fact that Maxito is worried about the holdout situation.

[SkinsNut73]

Once again, dfitzo hit that nail squarely on the head skinzwiz.

RB's with crappy teams who have found success are not that uncommon - dfitz mentioned Brown and Dillon. Go back to Barry Sanders and Walter Payton and see how they fared with mediocre teams.

He's also right in that whether or not Jackson is top 5 talent or not really doesn't matter...Maxito should be getting more value than what is being offered.

[skinzwiz]

Actually, talented RBs are one of the positions that can get you points even if the rest of their team is sub-par, as with Corey Dillon on the Bengals. Even though the Dolphins were terrible, Ronnie Brown was the league's leading RB before he went down.Of course there are exceptions, but I wouldnt put all my money in a situation like this either. Just look at Denver. Their blocking scheme is what made their RB's. Ruben Droughns, Tatum Bell, and Mike Anderson were all good in Denver. Outside of Denver they are garbage. Why? Because the blocking is not as good. To argue that a RB is likely to succeed without support is ridiculous.

I've already told you.
1) You've exaggerated the offensive line concerns. By your logic the Redskins offensive line is in shambles too because some of our best players were injured last season. Even last year with his patchwork line and his own injury he put up a 1,000 yard season.NEWSFLASH!: 1,000yds rushing doesnt mean much anymore. Do you know how many backups and "not-so-great" backs have rushed for over 1,000 yards?! I mean COME ON!! And honestly, Orlando Pace is only OL for the Rams that I think is solid and he is getting old.
2) When Jackson and his line are healthy, he's cable of a 2000-total-yard season. Willie Parker really can't say the same, especially now that he's projected to lose some carries to Mendenhall. I still dont think Jackson's line is good(from what I said above) so when they are healthy, he still wont likely get those 2,000yds.

Anyway, what I think or what you think about Steven Jackson really isn't that important. The key is that enough people are high on Jackson to give him an ADP of around 5. Willie Parker's is in the 40s. It's a stupid trade to take if for no other reason than he could get a much better value for Jackson. As SkinsNut73 said, somebody is just trying to take advantage of the fact that Maxito is worried about the holdout situation.Wow! The experts are high on Jackson. The experts are always right huh?:rolleyes: They were right about not taking Moss last year right?:rolleyes: You know the minute you base your fantasy draft off of exactly what the experts think is what gets people in trouble.:2cents:

[stoshuaj]

where's the beating a dead horse thing.........good God, it's not about how many points he's may or may not score, it's about getting his current value in a trade.


dfitz is spot on

[skinzwiz]

where's the beating a dead horse thing.........good God, it's not about how many points he's may or may not score, it's about getting his current value in a trade.


dfitz is spot onDidnt I say this before in a previous thread:"If everybody thinks Jackson is so highly rated than I would try to get an extra player along with Willie Parker in the deal.":idea:

Hmmm...maybe I'm losing my mind.:rolleyes:

Yes, I think Willie Parker will have better FF value this year, but I also hinted towards a two for one deal...

[dfitzo53]

Of course there are exceptions, but I wouldnt put all my money in a situation like this either. Just look at Denver. Their blocking scheme is what made their RB's. Ruben Droughns, Tatum Bell, and Mike Anderson were all good in Denver. Outside of Denver they are garbage. Why? Because the blocking is not as good. To argue that a RB is likely to succeed without support is ridiculous.
Denver hasn't had a back of Jackson's caliber since Clinton Portis. The issue with Denver is that they don't tend to sign elite backs because they feel they can block well enough for decent backs. Denver's also a pretty good team all around. Really the wrong example to try to prove your point.

NEWSFLASH!: 1,000yds rushing doesnt mean much anymore. Do you know how many backups and "not-so-great" backs have rushed for over 1,000 yards?! I mean COME ON!! And honestly, Orlando Pace is only OL for the Rams that I think is solid and he is getting old.
I still dont think Jackson's line is good(from what I said above) so when they are healthy, he still wont likely get those 2,000yds.
Rushing for 1,000 yards is one thing. Rushing for 1,000 yards in 12 games on a team with a banged up offensive line is another. As far as 2,000 total yards, that was his production in 2006 when he played the full season behind a healthy line.

[skinzwiz]

Denver hasn't had a back of Jackson's caliber since Clinton Portis. The issue with Denver is that they don't tend to sign elite backs because they feel they can block well enough for decent backs. Denver's also a pretty good team all around. Really the wrong example to try to prove your point.


Rushing for 1,000 yards is one thing. Rushing for 1,000 yards in 12 games on a team with a banged up offensive line is another. As far as 2,000 total yards, that was his production in 2006 when he played the full season behind a healthy line.Jackson had more like 1500yds in 2006...anyway. The Denver thing was an example to show that support around RB's DO matter. Come on you know that that. Dont try to dismiss it because it's true. I can not believe you would actually try to srgue the RB doesnt need help. That's like saying a good WR doesnt need a good QB...WTF!

And Ryan Grant rushed for over 1,000 yds in less than ten games starting so why isnt he rated as good as Jackson? Green Bay's OL isnt exactly the best either...obviously this wont end so how about we just agree to disagree.

[SkinsNut73]

Of course offensive lines make a difference if they are good.

They are the reason Denver backs have had success. They are the reason the Vikings had a great running game even though defenses never respected Tavaris Jackson. They are the reason Timmy Smith (or you...or me for that matter) could run for 204 yds in his first start in Super Bowl 22.

I think what we're saying though is Jackson is one of those backs who can survive in a less than desireable situation. He has the ability to produce even though those around him may not be that good. Other backs may not be able to say that....take Joseph Addai out of Indy and put him in St. Louis and he may drop from a top 5 pick to a top 20 pick. But you can plug Jackson in anywhere in the league and he's still top 5...if you ask me.

Good debate skinzwiz...may not agree with your position, but you are bringing facts to the table and backing up your stance on the issue.

[dfitzo53]

When I said 2,000 yard season that was total yards from scrimmage, which I mentioned earlier. That's about 1,500 rushing to go along with around 800 receiving.

That's another reason that Jackson is more valuable than someone like Ryan Grant or Willie Parker - he has the talent to tack 500-800 receiving yards onto his rushing total.

By the way, if you don't want Jackson on your team, that's totally cool. We all build the team we want to build (well sort of, anyway) in fantasy football and that's part of the fun. I just don't consider Willie Parker on the same level.

[skinzwiz]

Of course offensive lines make a difference if they are good.

They are the reason Denver backs have had success. They are the reason the Vikings had a great running game even though defenses never respected Tavaris Jackson. They are the reason Timmy Smith (or you...or me for that matter) could run for 204 yds in his first start in Super Bowl 22.

I think what we're saying though is Jackson is one of those backs who can survive in a less than desireable situation. He has the ability to produce even though those around him may not be that good. Other backs may not be able to say that....take Joseph Addai out of Indy and put him in St. Louis and he may drop from a top 5 pick to a top 20 pick. But you can plug Jackson in anywhere in the league and he's still top 5...if you ask me.

Good debate skinzwiz...may not agree with your position, but you are bringing facts to the table and backing up your stance on the issue.I'm just glad that people can discuss things without being *****. It's aaallll good!;)

[JKonaP]

I traded for Steven Jackson because his owner was getting too skiddish because of his holdout.

My team is now better.

[SkinsNut73]

Good move.

In the end, I think Jackson shows up in time for the start of the season.

[skinzwiz]

Good move.

In the end, I think Jackson shows up in time for the start of the season.Oh, he should show up because he most likely wont be getting paid if he doesnt.