Dear Mr. Fantasy: Owners feeling the pressure

Don't mess with Texas.

You've heard it before but perhaps didn't understand it. Sure, Texas has the most Fortune 500 companies, the second-most people and no fewer than three NBA teams, but why the great call not to disturb it? What gives you any less reason to mess with it than any of the other 49 states in the Union?

Perhaps as you tuned in to some NFL action this past weekend, feet propped and cold beverage in hand, the slogan "Don't mess with Texas" ran through your head. And as you watched the No. 1 tight end hobble off the field and the No. 10 running back trot to the sidelines, leaving the No. 1 quarterback without his usual weapons, you finally understood why.

The very fabric of the Fantasy Football universe hangs in the balance.

Gary Kubiak, what have you done?

I wanted to ask you about Steve Slaton and Tony Romo. I'm sure everyone will rush to the waiver wire to pick up Ryan Moats. I won't. I think Moats' numbers are a one-time thing against a bad run defense and that Slaton will fix his problem (a La Tiki Barber) and get back to scoring double-digit points. That brings me to Romo. I have Matt Schaub, so Owen Daniels' injury worries me going forward. My running backs, aside from Adrian Peterson, are inconsistent at best and include Kevin Smith, Pierre Thomas, Jonathan Stewart, LeSean McCoy and Felix Jones. The same owner in my league has both Slaton and Romo. I would love to shore up both positions for the stretch run, so I'm thinking about trying to acquire both by offering Schaub and maybe two of my backs for Romo and Slaton. What do you think? -- Erik Gamborg

SW: Whew ... long question. Let's see if I can address all those points as efficiently as you did.

I've done plenty of reading on the Slaton dilemma across the Internet, and you'll find people on both ends. Some say he's done, that Moats stole the starting job from him with his big performance at Buffalo. Others say the Texans just wanted to send Slaton a message by benching him after his early fumble. I tend to agree with you, believing not only that Slaton is the superior back and that Moats succeeded because he didn't face the same pressures Slaton did, but that the Texans know it.

Of course, none of us know anything until the Texans take the field at Indianapolis in Week 9, so I wouldn't ignore Moats on the waiver wire. You have to safeguard against the possibility you're wrong, especially when the potential rewards are so big. Does Slaton look like a good buy-low candidate right now? Sure, I can roll with that idea. But you can only take it so far.

As for Schaub, I don't think you should worry so much. Does Daniels have ability? Sure, I won't deny that, but his numbers partially had to do with the fact he played in a pass-heavy offense with a talented quarterback. If Joel Dreessen doesn't pick up the slack (and he probably won't), Kevin Walter will. He became a victim of Daniels' success and will now benefit from his absence. Let's not forget he had 899 yards and eight touchdowns last season.

I could see you getting your trade to work, Erik, but I don't want you to get so gung-ho about it that you end up shooting yourself in the foot. Slaton comes with some obvious risk, so if you acquire him, you need to do so at a discounted rate. Stewart looks like a good bargaining chip, but Smith and Thomas shouldn't enter the discussion. They look like safer options right now.

And I wouldn't let Romo become a deal-breaker. He doesn't seem like a clear upgrade over Schaub to me.

I had the misfortune of drafting Owen Daniels. What do I do? I have Jermichael Finley as my backup tight end, but he seems to be injured as well. I'm trying not to panic. I was thinking of following logic and picking up Joel Dreesen to replace Daniels, but everybody seems to like James Casey better. I have Mark Clayton, Willie Parker, Josh Morgan and Clinton Portis as my only potentials for trading, but I'm hesitant to give up on Portis (because I paid big for him at the beginning of the season) and think the others have little value. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -- Rebecca Slomski, Alexandria, Va.

SW: Yeah, trading probably isn't the answer. With the injury to Daniels on the heels of the injury to Chris Cooley, tight ends have become precious of late. I doubt anyone would want to trade you his.

I don't think you have reason to panic because I still think Finley has a big finish in him. He's a physical freak, and his coaches love him. The last time we saw that combination, we ended up with Miles Austin in Dallas. Finley started to come around just before he sprained his left knee, and though he might not return this week, he will soon enough.

In the meantime, I think Cooley's injury provides you with a better replacement than Daniels' injury does. Casey might have potential, but he has a knee injury of his own, and Dreessen probably won't play the same role as his predecessor. Fred Davis in Washington, though, already has.

People seem to forget because it happened two weeks ago, before the Redskins' bye, but Davis replaced Cooley against the Eagles in Week 7 and had eight catches for 78 yards and a touchdown. You can't ask for much more than that at the tight end position. Jason Campbell, with all his shortcomings, has to lean on his tight end more than most quarterbacks do, so you can expect Davis to play a consistent role on offense for as long as Cooley remains sidelined -- which should last long enough for Finley to make his return.

Davis remains unowned in 76 percent of leagues, but if for some reason somebody grabbed him in yours, you could give Zach Miller, Todd Heap, Benjamin Watson or Tony Scheffler a look. They'll go silent from time to time, but at least they have big-game potential.

I have Adrian Peterson and Steven Jackson as my running backs, and they both have byes this week. I've been trying to play the waiver wire in anticipation of this. I have Mike Bell, Jamaal Charles, Beanie Wells, Felix Jones and Donald Brown, assuming he's able to go this week. Which two do you suggest? -- Troy Kasmar, Fort Atkinson, Wis.

SW: None of those running backs stand out as better than the others, so matchups have a big influence here.

Charles has probably the best one at the Jaguars, who just gave up 228 rushing yards to Chris Johnson last week and haven't mustered much defensively all season long. Charles also has a full-time job with Larry Johnson making a fool of himself, giving him another advantage over the other running backs listed here. I don't know if you can normally count on him for big numbers since he plays for the Chiefs, but all signs point to a solid performance this week.

Of the remaining four, Wells is the secondary option in a pass-heavy offense, Jones gets only a handful of carries in the hope he breaks a long one, and Brown might not even play. Bell not only has the best matchup (vs. Carolina) of the bunch, but he has the best chance for touches, averaging 14.7 carries over the last three weeks in a near 50-50 split with Pierre Thomas. The Saints will probably find themselves in a position to run out the clock against a team that struggles against the run, giving Bell a good chance to score his third touchdown of the season.

So that's my answer: Charles and Bell, and I don't see how anyone could make an argument for anyone else.

Scott, I know most Fantasy writers hate commenting on trade disputes, but since you analyze them every week, I was hoping you might not mind. I play in a 14-team league and recently lost my tight end to injury. Another team has Tony Gonzalez and Heath Miller, but is weak at wide receiver. We agreed to an even swap of Roy E. Williams for Tony Gonzalez, but the commissioner vetoed it, stating it was lopsided. I think he vetoed it because I have a strong team this year and the other team is the defending champ. Do you think the trade was relatively fair? -- Jasen Preston

SW: You know me. If I had my way, I'd let every trade pass unless I suspected collusion, apathy or a complete lack of knowledge. Without knowing you, him or the landscape of this league, I'd have to say I don't.

But if I let opinion cloud my objectivity, I can't mount much of a defense for the other guy.

Personally, I think Williams is done as a viable Fantasy option now that Miles Austin has become everything the Cowboys hoped and dreamed he would be. In the three games since he broke out in Week 5, Austin has 21 catches for 482 yards and five touchdowns. Williams has three catches for 35 yards and one touchdown. Granted, he missed one of those games with an injury, which allowed Austin to take off in the first place, but let's get real here. He didn't give the Cowboys what they wanted even before Austin appeared on the scene.

I don't even know that they consider him their No. 2 wide receiver anymore. He and Patrick Crayton both have a claim there, not that they have much to claim after Austin and Jason Witten get their share. Yup, if you expect more than two or three catches per game from Williams going forward, you can expect to get burned.

And your trading partner must. Otherwise, he would have kept shopping. Gonzalez hasn't put up monster numbers, but he's more important to the Falcons' passing game than Williams is to the Cowboys'. In a 14-team league, someone else has to need a tight end and can offer better than Williams for him. Shoot, the waiver wire could -- not much better, but again, how much did Williams offer in the first place?

If I had a vote, I'd let the trade slide just because I think owners have a right to their own destiny, but I don't know what sort of precedent your league has. I will say I don't think your commissioner overturned it just because you have a strong team.

I have Randy Moss, Greg Jennings, DeSean Jackson and Miles Austin as my wide receivers, and I need a running back to go with Joseph Addai. Which wide receiver should I try to trade? -- Brantley Irving

SW: Yeah, you need a running back to go with Addai. Maybe two. Even when that guy gets 20 carries, he can't get 70 yards.

I maintain the belief Jackson is too risky to trust on a week-to-week basis in Fantasy even though he has three touchdowns in his last two games and currently ranks eighth at his position. That doesn't mean I wouldn't start him. It simply means whenever I did, I'd worry.

Why? He has only 31 touches, just three more than Terrell Owens, and that doesn't figure to change with the way the Eagles spread the ball around. I understand some players have more big-play potential than others, but Jackson's big plays have to run out eventually, don't they? Well, don't they?

Nobody else seems to think so, which is why you could probably get a pretty good running back for him. Maybe even a Steven Jackson, who offers you all the consistency DeSean Jackson doesn't (even if he sometimes comes up short of the goal line).

Austin is a monster, so you wouldn't want to trade him. Jennings has struggled, so I don't think you could get the same value for him (and I think he'll come around anyway). Moss has left you hanging sometimes, so he's probably my second choice to trade, but his best is still better than anyone else's. Ultimately, I think you'll end up much happier with him than with Jackson.

I'm in a 12-team league with standard scoring. I just traded Matt Forte and Donald Driver for Vincent Jackson. How would you evaluate this trade? -- Nick Vitale, Chicago

SW: Strictly speaking, I think you overpaid for Jackson, but I don't have a problem with it if you have adequate depth. Jackson, who currently ranks second among all wide receivers, is a clear upgrade over Driver, so as long as you have a replacement running back just as good as Forte, your starting lineup only stands to improve. Sometimes overpaying makes sense if it improves your bottom line.

If, however, you now have to replace Forte with someone like Julius Jones, Mike Bell or Cadillac Williams, you probably hurt your team's bottom line. Jackson isn't enough of an upgrade over Driver to justify that downgrade at running back.

I realize Forte has gotten a lot of bad press lately because the Bears have a rough schedule to close out the season, making now a good time to trade him. I won't deny it: He might struggle, especially since he has struggled much of the season already. So if you can find someone willing to pay full price for him, you want to capitalize now, before his numbers go south.

But the key is you have to find someone willing to pay full price for him. You shouldn't feel like you have to trade him just to trade him. In fact, all that negative press can have the opposite effect if it becomes too prevalent, pitching Forte so fervently as a sell-high candidate that he becomes a buy-low candidate. Believe it or not, he will still score points this season. He still gets all the touches out of the backfield for an above-average offense. It's inevitable, really.

So again, Nick, you didn't necessarily make the wrong move here, but I want to caution everyone against selling low on Forte. Doing so defeats the purpose of selling him at all.

I'm 4-4, and I don't feel like my team is strong enough to make the playoffs. So I did something drastic. I offered Randy Moss for Ben Roethlisberger and T.J. Houshmandzadeh, hoping to upgrade from Jay Cutler. Do you think I'm asking for too much, or do you think I hurt myself by getting rid of Moss? I have DeSean Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, Michael Crabtree and Dwayne Bowe as well. -- Tara Freeman

SW: Well, you definitely didn't ask for too much. I consider Moss the best player in this deal, and I usually like to get the best player since it improves my team's upside from week to week. Still, you didn't necessarily hurt yourself with the deal.

Do you start two wide receivers or three? If you start two, you can get by with Jackson and Bowe well enough, mixing in Crabtree if he proves legitimate and Houshmandzadeh if he comes around. See all those ifs? That's kind of the problem. You introduced uncertainty to a position where you already had a proven commodity in Moss.

I could defend the trade better from your end if you had a nobody at quarterback, but I don't understand why you felt the need to upgrade from Jay Cutler. Well, I sort of understand. Everyone talks about the tough schedule Matt Forte faces, but Cutler faces the same one, so his future looks somewhat cloudy. Still, he had one of his better games this year against the Steelers. The Bears have to get their yards somehow; opposing defenses can't shut down both him and Forte. In the end, I think Cutler ends up with enough yards and touchdowns to make him a worthwhile starter in Fantasy, even if he throws a few more interceptions than you'd like.

Will Roethlisberger do better? Probably, but not by enough that I'd want to sacrifice my best wide receiver. That's more of a personal preference than anything else, though. I don't think you killed your team, especially if you only have to start two wide receivers.

I need to start three wide receivers from these four this week: Nate Burleson (vs. Detroit), Roddy White (vs. Washington), Mike Sims-Walker (vs. Kansas City) and Hakeem Nicks (vs. San Diego). White is a no-brainer, but which other two would you start? I was thinking of going with Burleson, White and Nicks because Sims-Walker only had 9 receiving yards last week. Then again, the Kansas City pass defense is bad. What do you think? -- Jure Krapic, Croatia

SW: Croatia, huh? That's a new one. Love the international e-mails, though. Thanks for reading, Jure.

No need to get cute here. I think you can stick with the same three wide receivers virtually every week: White, Sims-Walker and Burleson, in that order.

Why not Nicks, you ask? Look, he has potential, but he's the No. 3 receiving option on a team that prefers to run the ball anyway. If Mario Manningham hadn't missed Week 8 at Philadelphia with a shoulder injury, Nicks probably wouldn't have gotten the few catches he did. If his role changes on offense, we can revisit this question, but until then, he's the clear fourth of these four.

I think you write off Sims-Walker way too fast. Yes, he had only 9 yards receiving last week. Yes, it was bad. But it doesn't erase all the good he accomplished earlier in the year, when he emerged as Jacksonville's go-to receiver with an average of 99.5 receiving yards over his previous four games. The Jaguars didn't offer much of a passing game in Week 8, so you can almost throw Sims-Walker's poor performance out the window. Considering his role on offense, he doesn't rank as far behind White as you think. And of course, he has that great matchup against the Chiefs this week.

Speaking of great matchups, Burleson has one of his own against the Lions, making him a slam-dunk starter as well. He's the only one you could debate sitting in favor of Nicks since you could argue T.J. Houshmandzadeh is the Seahawks' go-to guy, but Burleson actually has better numbers than Houshmandzadeh so far. He has at least 70 receiving yards four times this season and should make it five if the Seahawks blow out the Lions as expected.

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.