I come here in a panic.
Do I go with this trade:
Give: Calvin Johnson
Get: Dion Lewis and either Cooks/Jordan Matthews.
I am strong at Wr. Weak at RB
Lewis has been producing. Johnson underperforming.
But those 10 targets a game feel like a turn around is in order?
Help
-
Johnson is still the #1 guy in Detroit and without question one of the Top 5 WRs in the NFL. He's been disappointing but you could say that about a lot of players.
Lewis is volume dependent (basically the new version of Vereen), and neither Cooks or Matthews are consistent week to week.
I think you'd hold off. if a QB change happens in Detroit I think you're looking at Johnson getting force-fed.JimToss likes this. -
I'd strongly consider Lewis & Cooks/Matthews for Calvin if you're strong at WR but weak at RB.
Philly's offense is starting to get going under Bradford; meanwhile Detroit's looks like garbage, averaging 13.7 ppg the past 4 games with opposing defenses calling out their plays before the snap and no semblance of a ground game to keep defenses from keying on the pass. -
- 3 TDs, one in each of the past 3 games.
- 6 touches inside the 10. {3 more than Gronk... and 3 more than Eddie Lacy}
- 11 RZ touches. {7 more than Gronk... and 3 more than Lacy}
- 104.5 yards/game {#5 among all RBs}
- 5.8 catches/game {#2 among all RBs..... and more than Gronk}
- 7.5 targets/game {#1 among all RBs}
- 5.0 yards/carry
Plus the wildcard factor- he plays in an offense that puts up points. It's not a struggle to get him opportunities inside the RZ. -
I'd probably have to agree with todd. In my biggest pay league I had Calvin and to help try and save my season (from 0-3....thanks dez, Andre Johnson and all the other underperformers...) I traded Calvin, Greg Olsen, and Jonathan Stewart for Joseph Randle, Ronnie Hillman and Brandon Cooks. 2-0 since...would have been 0-5 if I'd stayed the course. Sometimes past results are not a predictor of future success. Johnson looked like he's step...still a top 10 option at wr but might not be elite anymore.
ToddPhin likes this.