Steve Smith.
If you own him, the name alone makes you cringe.
Jake Delhomme never had the greatest intangibles or skill set, but he knew how to fling the ball to Smith. It didn't take much. Smith did all the work, climbing over people, in between people, seemingly through people to get the ball.
How could such a simple formula go wrong?
What do I do with Steve Smith? Jake Delhomme is killing me. He can't get him the ball! I want to trade him but don't know what kind of value I could get for him. Could you suggest some wide receivers for me? I have Johnny Knox and Anthony Gonzalez on my bench. -- Matt Fisher, Hermosa Beach, Calif.
SW: Here's the thing about Smith: As frustrated as you are with him, what makes you think you can get someone else excited about him? Anyone you approach will know exactly why you want to trade him and look to undercut you in any way possible. By getting rid of him just to get rid of him, you risk walking into a bad deal.
If you still own Smith after this many weeks of futility, you should probably just hold on to him and hope for the best. Trading him now might only net you a borderline waiver guy like Mario Manningham or Torry Holt -- someone you could maybe have for free if you hold out long enough. You could shop Smith around to see if you could get another underachiever like Greg Jennings or Anquan Boldin, but if not, what's the point?
He could still rebound. If the Panthers have any hope of competing, they'll have to develop a passing game, either by replacing Delhomme or figuring out creative ways to get the ball to Smith, who remains their best playmaker. Maybe DeAngelo Williams' and Jonathan Stewart's shredding of the Buccaneers on Sunday will force opposing defenses to respect the run even more than they already do, making life easier for Delhomme and Smith. Hey, it could happen.
But for the sake of pure value, you've made your bed with Smith. If you have no room left for optimism, you should at least wait until he has a 100-yard game, giving people a reason to get excited about him, and then trade him.
He has to have one eventually, even if it's only one.
I know these aren't sexy names, but I need to pick one of the following three wide receivers for Week 7: Antonio Bryant, Jeremy Maclin and Hakeem Nicks. I'm also curious how you would rank their values going forward. I'm getting a little impatient with Antonio Bryant. -- Don Brown, Rochester, N.Y.
SW: I can't blame you. I've reached a breaking point with Bryant myself, opting to release him for Mohamed Massaquoi. For as many problems as the Buccaneers have, they can't seem to decide on a favorite receiver.
Between Maclin and Nicks, I have to admit I don't have a strong preference. Each looks like his team's third receiving option, so starting either is a cross-your-fingers-and-hope situation. Nicks has scored a touchdown in three straight games, and the Giants face the Cardinals this week, presenting the opportunity for a shootout, so I guess I'll go with him. I'm not overflowing with confidence, though.
For the rest of the season, I'll stick with that same order: Nicks, then Maclin, then Bryant. Yeah, the matchups don't influence my opinion much, especially with wide receivers, who have the potential to disappear in blowouts and blow up in shutouts. Let's just say I'm glad I don't have to write Start 'Em and Sit 'Em.
I received a trade offer in my 10-team league. I'd send Peyton Manning in return for Pierre Thomas and Joe Flacco. My other quarterback is Matt Hasselbeck, and my other running backs are Michael Turner, Jonathan Stewart, Donald Brown, Leon Washington and Michael Bush. Should I take it? -- Jeff Rupnick, Milwaukee
SW: I can understand the temptation here. When you have to debate between Stewart and Washington as your second running back -- and you don't have much choice since Brown and Bush look like waiver fodder right now -- you clearly have a need at the position. But I don't know that Thomas really solves your problem, not with the return of Mike Bell.
The two will split carries. They did 50-50 (or 15-15, rather) on Sunday. Granted, Thomas did more with his 15 than Bell did with his, but that didn't stop the Saints from going to Bell over and over again. Even worse, he looks like the favored option at the goal line, which is where the Saints will do most of their running since -- let's face it -- they like to pass.
That's not to say Thomas doesn't deserve to start in Fantasy, but he won't be any more consistent than Stewart and Washington, making me wonder why you would give up your best player for him.
Yeah, I know: Flacco might end up just as good as Manning, or at least close enough to make this trade worthwhile. He trails Manning by only one touchdown and only eight points in standard scoring (though with one extra game to his credit). But I'm not ready to hitch my wagon to him yet, and based on this offer, neither is the guy who owns him in your league.
No doubt, he has proven something with his start this season. What exactly? I can't say. I'll call him a No. 1 Fantasy quarterback now, but I can't put him in the same class as Manning, who has been throwing for 300 yards every week for the last 10 years. You know you'll always have the numbers with him. Flacco has fallen short of 200 yards twice this year already. Statistics have a way of regressing to the mean, and the Ravens at times would still prefer to win by keeping the ball on the ground and playing defense.
Maybe if you've fallen to 2-4 or 1-5 and see your playoff hopes quickly fading, you can make this sort of desperation move and hope Flacco performs like Manning the rest of the way. But under most circumstances, it doesn't make sense for what might amount to no more than a subtle upgrade at running back.
I'm considering a trade to upgrade my wide receiver spot. Currently, I have Ray Rice and Steve Slaton starting at running back and Randy Moss, Roddy White and Steve Smith (Panthers) starting at wide receiver. Philip Rivers is my quarterback. The trade would have me send Joe Flacco, Smith and either Slaton or Rice for Larry Fitzgerald and one of Matt Forte, Marion Barber, Pierre Thomas, Willie Parker and Rashard Mendenhall. What should I do? -- Bob Gerbert
SW: Sounds good to me, Bob. Really, I don't see much difference between Slaton and Forte, so if you make them your choices, this trade amounts to you upgrading from Smith to Fitzgerald at the cost of your backup quarterback. You gain points for your starting lineup without losing any. That's trading to win.
Of course, to agree with that reasoning, you first have to accept the premise that Forte equals Slaton, but what's wrong with it? Both are first-round picks who have struggled so far but have perfectly competent supporting casts. Forte actually has more rushing yards (294 to 274) and a higher rushing average (3.4 to 3.0) than Slaton. Slaton has more points because he has two more touchdowns, but that's all happenstance and has nothing to do with usage. Forte could conceivably -- and will most likely -- score more touchdowns than Slaton between now and the end of the season.
And yes, despite his problems, I think Forte is clearly the way to go here. Like I said, he has too much talent not to come around, and the Bears have a good enough passing game to keep defenses from stacking against him. Mendenhall and Barber also interest me, but both have timeshare issues. Forte is and always will be the guy for Chicago.
My top two running backs are on bye in Week 7, so I'll have to play Donald Brown and LeSean McCoy if I stand pat. I can pick up Tashard Choice (vs. Atlanta) or Laurence Maroney (at Tampa Bay) on waivers to play for one of those guys. I can drop Kevin Walter to make room for one of them but would have to drop McCoy, Brown, Vernon Davis or Jermichael Finley to make room for the other. What do you recommend? -- Craig Rapp, San Marcos, Calif
SW: Well, you don't want to start two running backs who might not combine for 10 carries, so standing pat isn't an option.
Maroney might have had a breakout performance against the Titans in Week 6, but with the Patriots, you never know. They could go back to Sammy Morris if he returns from his knee injury, or they could turn to BenJarvus Green-Ellis just because they're the Patriots and they can. I don't mind putting in a waiver claim for Maroney in any of my leagues just in case the Patriots stick with him, so in a situation as desperate as yours, why not throw him into your starting lineup right away? He won't do any worse than your alternatives.
As for Choice, the Cowboys found ways to use him even with Marion Barber back, so he deserves a look too. He doesn't have the ceiling of Maroney just because he has to split carries with Barber, but then again, he doesn't have the tendency to disappear the way Maroney does either. For a one-week fill-in, he works better than either Brown or McCoy, which brings me to the question I have for you: Why are you so afraid to get rid of two backup running backs?
They've done nothing to convince me you can trust them as starters this year. McCoy especially looks like nothing more than a backup after the way the Eagles used him in Week 6. Yeah, Brown and McCoy will have value if Joseph Addai and Brian Westbrook get hurt, but unless you own Addai and Westbrook, sticking with their backups doesn't make much sense. Why sit around waiting for them to break out if you can exchange them for players already breaking out?
Would I cut Walter first? Maybe. Probably. But if I had a chance to grab someone who could help me now, I wouldn't hesitate to part with any of them.
I play in a 12-team points-per-reception league where everyone starts one quarterback, one running back, two wide receivers and one tight end. We also have two flex positions. Right now, my running backs are Matt Forte, Steve Slaton and Cedric Benson, and my wide receivers are Reggie Wayne, Larry Fitzgerald and Brandon Marshall. Someone offered me Calvin Johnson, Chris Chambers and Tashard Choice for Ted Ginn, Jr., Kenny Britt and Slaton. I think in our format, wide receivers are more reliable and consistent than running backs. I'm inclined to pull the trigger. What do you think? -- Clay Fees, Glenpool, Okla.
SW: The fact wide receivers score more points than running backs in points-per-reception leagues is no secret since they get all the receptions, but the most valuable players are still the receiving running backs. When the difference between 40 receptions and 10 receptions is the same as five touchdowns, those non-receiving backs get left in the dust.
For that reason, I originally thought I'd tell you to forget about the trade. You already have two of the better receiving backs in Forte and Slaton. Benson, with only 10 catches on the year, should fall behind them pretty quickly. But then I took a second look at your scoring format and realized you only have to start one running back.
Four wide receivers and one running back is definitely the way to go in this format, and a foursome of Wayne, Fitzgerald, Johnson and Marshall would be nearly unstoppable. Losing Slaton doesn't matter much since you have Forte, and though Forte could still get hurt, Benson is a perfectly acceptable backup even if not quite as exciting as Slaton in this format.
You have the right idea here, Clay. Make the move.
Do I need to upgrade? I'm 3-3, sixth of 12, and feeling pretty good about my team except at running back. I have Maurice Jones-Drew, Willie Parker, Jonathan Stewart, Julius Jones and Tashard Choice. I'm stacked at wide receiver with Reggie Wayne, Roddy White, Donald Driver, Mike Sims-Walker and Miles Austin. We play two running backs and three wide recievers each week. I'd like to dangle a wide receiver and maybe a running back to get an upgrade at running back. I'm targeting Ricky Williams since the person who owns him has depth at running back. Who should I offer in exchange? --- Jennifer Fernandez, Chicago
SW: Ricky Williams? Really, that's the best you can do?
I don't mean to shoot down your idea, Jennifer, but I don't see how it's in your best interests. As the lesser half of a platoon with Ronnie Brown, Williams stands to get no more than 15 touches per game, and sometimes fewer than 10. He can only do so much damage in that situation. It's almost a touchdown-or-bust scenario, at least in the sense you can't expect any 100-yard games.
No, Williams isn't a bad Fantasy option, but how is his situation any different from Stewart's or Choice's? Shoot, by next week, we might find out Parker is in the same situation in Pittsburgh. You don't have much to gain here, so why sacrifice your depth in a league that requires three wide receivers? One injury could make your seemingly cozy situation a scary one.
If you still feel uncomfortable with your depth at running back, I suppose you could offer one of your lesser receivers, maybe Driver, for Williams. That's a fair deal. But I'd prefer to keep the depth at wide receiver, especially since we don't yet know how Austin will pan out.
I'm a commissioner in a 12-team points-per-reception league and have to rule on a trade that would send Calvin Johnson and DeAngelo Williams from the last-place team to the first-place team for Steve Smith, Pierre Garcon and Felix Jones. I personally think the trade is too lopsided, but is my opinion biased since I'm competing for first place. What do you think? -- Jeff Dahlin Oregon City, Ore.
SW: Anyone who has ever read any of my columns in any sport knows I can always, always make an argument for the supposed "lesser" half of the deal, and I fully believe if you can make an argument for both sides, you have to let the trade stand.
But I can't defend this one.
Maybe if Johnson's injury threatened the rest of his season, maybe if Garcon hadn't conceded to Austin Collie in the Colts offense, I could see the upside for the last-place team. But as those situations currently stand, the last-place team has nothing to gain in this deal but an extra player that rightfully belongs on the waiver wire.
Johnson is clearly better than Smith. Williams is clearly better than Jones. Garcon has by far the most unique name of the bunch, but it does nothing to improve his value. The first-place team might as well have included Eric Metcalf.
I never feel comfortable with a commissioner overturning a trade, but in this case, you at least have justification to do so. Does that mean you should? I don't know. You know the layout of the league and the mindset of the two individuals better than I do. I'll let you assess their motives.
You can e-mail your Fantasy Football questions to DMFantasyFootball@cbs.com. Be sure to put Attn: Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Please include your full name, hometown and state and we'll get to as many as we can.
