‹ Main Site Forums Home My Account

Ingram, lynch for bell


#1

Offered Ingram and Lynch for Lev. Is this too much, too little, wait and see?


#2

It might be to little. I dont like Lynch at all ever since he left the Seahawks, so i would say this trade is Bell for Ingram. If he accepts this is a good trade for you. Ingram is out till week 4 anyways so if bell come back week 2,3 or 4 its an insane trade for you. Even if Bell comes back week 5 thru 7 its still a solid trade on your end.

Cheers


#3

Im a bell owner and I’d shit all over this trade


#4

Honestly, no one can answer this question confidently. No. One. If he plays 12 games, this probably is a bad trade. If he plays 6, it’s probably a home run. It comes down to what you think will happen and what you can live with if you’re wrong.


#5

nope, he has enough worth to wait at least a week before you unload him.


#6

Ingram and Lynch for Bell is robbert. I would make that trade even if you told me Bell isn’t coming back till week 10.

People are all hyped about Ingram but here are the facts, all of his best matchups are during the suspension. After he gets back, probably takes a week to get integrated into the offense, then you get a bye week, and then you get @ baltimore, @ vikings and home vs LA Rams. It could be week 10 before you realistically get any production out of Ingram lol.


#7

Could be, but I think this is discounting Lynch rather severely. He was legitimately good down the stretch last year, and looked good in limited action in the preseason too. If I knew Bell wouldn’t be back until week 10, I’d for sure take this.


#8

I loved lynch, before the Mack trade. Oakland’s defense is easily bottom of the league. The mack trade made cooper stock shoot up and lynch stock shoot down. Especially as a non-pass catching back. It’s a team that’s going to be playing from behind early and often. He’s going to be a TD or bust play.

Like I said, I would take this trade even if Bell held out to week 10, but as it is, he can just as easily show up tomorrow collect his check, and play for 15 weeks. Having that possibility makes this the easiest trade I make in my life. As a Bell owner, if someone offered my lynch/Ingram, I’d laugh in their face. It’s a ridiculous offer.


#9

I don’t agree at all. Their defense was bad last year too (very bad). He was still quite good for fantasy. Drawing straight lines from losing a defensive player to a WR’s stock going up and and RB’s stock going down is dubious at best.

Lynch is an easy RB2, and I think has an outside shot to be an RB1, and more importantly gives you a startable option for those 10 weeks. Ingram obviously has RB1 upside when he plays, though the first 8 weeks do look rough. If you hold bell for 10 weeks, he might help you in the playoffs, but you have to get there, and your chances are diminished badly without your top 3 pick. I think Lynch has a good chance to be better than most replacement options people have on their bench.


#10

All of that said, if that’s my best offer, I would look into buying Connor before I sell Bell.


#11

You can respectfully disagree, but there’s other components to it, I’m not just making a “dubious” straight line comparison as you’ve suggested, I just didn’t feel like writing everything out cause I figured you can probably connect the dots yourself. Their D was already bad last season, which is completely true. But this argument of “it was bad last year so how much worse can it be” is probably the laziest analysis I’ve ever seen from everyone around the NFL/Media world for why trading mack was a good idea. It’s moronic. Mack wasn’t just the premiere edge rusher in the league, he was also a fantastic run stopper because he has the speed to get around the edge quick enough to still wrap around for the RB. Without mack, no more double teams which means numbers advantage on offence opening lanes for either running or passing. And going from below average to literally what I view as the leagues worst defense, is a huge change for a RB who is not involved in the passing game. It’s going to be negative game scripts all year long for Oakland. To simply write off the mack trade as if it has no affect on Lynch’s value is is naive.

And I didn’t say it’s a huge benefit to any WR. I said it was a big up specifically for Amari Cooper. Because Gruden’s offence typically produces a worth WR1 and given how pass heavy this offense will have to be, he is going to see a tonne of targets. I wouldn’t be shocked at all if he saw close to Mike Evans volume (160-170) on the season. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Oakland ended up throwing the ball 600+ times this season. By paying Carr and trading Mack while saving the cap space to likely pay cooper in his upcoming contract, it’s a very clear signal for what this administration wants to do. They’re putting it all on Carr’s shoulders.

When I try and assess which RBs I like for fantasy purposes, I try to find guys who satisfy as many of the following criteria as possible:

  1. High Scoring Offense
  2. Pass catcher / 3 down capabilities
  3. Positive game script
  4. Good defence

Lynch satisfies none of the above. Will he be an RB2? I do believe he will be. But not a high end one. And I think his chances of being an RB1 on the season is slim to none in any PPR formats.

Also, by saying Lynch will give you 10 weeks in Bell’s absence, you are assuming Lynch is an every week starter. I think that is FAR from the truth. In no world do I feel comfortable putting lynch in there as an every down back. Here is his schedule through 10 weeks with their Rushing Rankings from 2017. I know you don’t like relying on those or line rankings fully but I think it’s actually a pretty good sense for how good a teams rushing D as there weren’t too many major D line moves this offseason, with the exception of Khalil Mack.

Rams (21 - added suh), @Denver (3), @MIA (15 - lost suh), CLE (4), @LAC (25), SEA(14), Bye, IND (10), @SF (17), LAC (25)

I don’t know about you, but I’m looking for other starting options for when they play vs Rams/Den/cleveland for sure. And although chargers run D kinda sucks, I don’t even know how comfortable I feel starting Lynch against that game script. Point is, Lynch isn’t even an every week locked and loaded starter as is so I don’t view his value the same as you do.

On top of that, hes old AF. Already having injury issues week 1. Pretty sure oakland isn’t dumb enough to run him into the ground cause they know he’s not that durable. As much as I hate doug martin, him being involved is a very realistic outcome.

There are just so many question marks and risk factors involved with Lynch , the biggest one being that defense. They were the 22nd ranked D WITH khalil mack and an average rushing D. Without Khalil mack, teams can just rush it down their throats when they are up and totally control the game and OAK doesn’t have the talent on DEF to get off the field. I don’t think you’re fully respecting the impact of the Mack trade and what it will do to OAK’s offense and specifically, the impact it will have on their running game, or more specifically, their opportunity in the running game.

And with Ingram, like I said, could be week 10 before you get production out of him anyway. Beyond that, there’s other questions about his usage which was already severly declining late last season. Kamara out touched him by a wide margin down the stretch in both carries, targets and red zone looks.


#12

We can agree to disagree on this one, but I have to take issue with the bad defense argument as a whole. Here’s the problem with the argument: I can use that as evidence for literally opposite conclusions. You’ve made the first one nicely, so I won’t waste my time summarizing it.

Here’s it’s opposite: a coach knows his defense is weak and decides he needs to limit possessions to protect them. Therefore he runs the ball a ton. This benefits the rushing game and hurts the passing game. This is just as logically valid as the opposite argument you made and either could be true. You don’t know which, and neither do I.


#13

I can see what you’re trying to get at, would be a smart decision to hold, but that also assumes your ground game is good enough to score and if not, that your defence is good enough to hold. Basically assumes you’re exchanging equivalent blows and swapping TDs for TDs and holding them to FGs when you’re kicking FGs. I don’t think that is feasible with what is arguably, a bottom 5 defense. Especially in matchups where they are going up against some of the more potent offences in the league.

I think that strategy probably works for matchups like Miami, SEA, SF. But vs Rams/LAC, they’re not going to be in a position to control anything if they actually want to win games, cause those teams will basically score at will. And then in matchups like Denver/Cle where the offenses aren’t as good and you would ideally like to employ your strategy, their run D is so good the rushing efficiency just won’t be there for good fantasy production. You’re pretty much praying for a TD or else you’re getting 6 points or less.

It’s going to be a rough season for raiders nation. And unless Carr goes out there and has an MVP season at QB, I don’t see this team finishing above 500.

EDIT: The one exception to this rule is if you have a bad defense that gives up a tonne of yards, but holds opponents to FGs. I.e. what the patriots have done for the better part of a decade. Unfortunately, that is not oakland. Their Red zone defense, like their defense everywhere else, will be awful. That accompanied by their terrible red zone efficiency on the offensive side of the ball, makes what you’re alluding to above, a very optimistic / dream scenario.