for a team thats desparate at qb in a super flex ...is trading amon ra for herbert and 2.12 a good return? herbert would be my qb1

Does he have an earlier 2nd?

I’d just look to get a lesser name, personally. Unless you’re talking about the top guys, it’s less about quality than it is about quantity

im trying..lol.. hes that guy in sf leagues that has a terrible team but takes all qbs..lol

Scratch what I said…avoid the bottom heap too. Darnold will be fine, Fields I’m less sure on, Rodgers is anyone’s guess.

Id wait it out, you have all offseason to clean it up, you’ll also get perspective on what you have and have more options (plus you have more options to trade for as a lot of the question marks clean up)

I think it is fine. if you look at when LAC started to go more pass heavy post bye week 5, Herbert was QB9 from that point on and I would expect his ceiling to be a lot more higher if they can add more competent WRs and sure up the RB room.

It makes sense

This is so weird because you're not in my league, but this is exactly the same teams I'm holding and you have the exact same players you're talking about trading and the QBs. And sitting on the Herbert with those same WRs this team has. I'm not doing this trade you're talking about, I'm not giving up a top 10 QB who's been QB1 before and a 1st for Brown. Brown hit his peak this season, and you are over value him. You're in a really bad way and that offer doesn't do enough to make my team better to convince me to pull that trigger. If I'm sitting in your shoes, I'm taking that trade if it's being offered but I don't know if it would be enough sitting with Herbert and those WRs.

The only reason I bring it up is, by and large, Herbert isn’t much of a difference maker comparatively. Meanwhile, you’re trading away a player for him that IS a difference maker at a position with larger deltas

The reason QB values escalate in SF is because you introduce a FLEX position where you can start any position. QBs by and large score the most points, and they do so consistently, so people want to put a QB in that slot. But they nearly ALL score those points and nearly all of them do it consistently. This, teams need/want at least two QBs for that advantage over non-QB flex starts (which doesn’t mean you can’t put a non-QB in there if you have a comparable option…not likely, but possible). With supply and demand, the price goes up for all. But paying a premium for a non premium QB is done at the cost of resources for other positions. It’s a mistake

team is deep ...

wr ... jamar , st brown, mclaurin , doubs, hollywood, jennings, cooper..

rbs .. jacobs , taylor , cook, brian rob jr, etienne, swift, gureendo

you have options there if you're honestly not looking to trade away Brown.

The only place where I agree with paying ridiculous high prices for a QB is if I’m reasonably sure they will be a difference maker (much the same way the prices for JJ/Chase/Bijan/Gibbs/Bowers/etc are). Not just that they have a chance, but that I’m reasonably sure.

The only place where QBs deserve any level of the cost they demand in the top ten is longevity. They typically last longer than any other position. Which means I’m not paying premiums for a middish QB in the middle of his career

Not saying that means it would actually happen, I’m talking about relative values here. 1.01 is a nameless commodity as an asset.