The contenders have separated themselves from the pretenders, and the push for the playoffs has begun, which usually signals one thing:
Trading -- lots of it.
You've already spent weeks assessing your needs and watching your reserves pile up points from your bench. The deadline approaches. Time to make something happen.
Fantasy Football - Dear Mr. Fantasy: Don't give away your depth : FantasyNews.CBSSports.com
It's a good goal to have, improving your team by ridding yourself of excess. But in your enthusiasm to make something happen, remember your goal is to improve your team. You already have a good one. You don't need to act with the same desperation of a 3-5 team, jumping at every possible improvement. If you don't get a definite one, keep looking.
Otherwise, you're just moving parts around -- ones that might potentially help someone else more than you.
SW: For starters, I agree you can't trust Hasselbeck. He's an excellent backup in Fantasy since he has the ability to put up big numbers, but if you rely on him every week, he'll burn you just as often as he helps you.
Palmer looks like the more reliable of the two and the one you should trust if given the choice, but before we get too excited about him, let's not forget he currently ranks 12th among quarterbacks in standard scoring, meaning he's the worst of the No. 1 Fantasy options in standard-sized leagues. Pure logic suggests you could stand to improve. Palmer isn't giving you any sort of advantage over the owners starting the 11 quarterbacks ahead of him.
Of course, it's not as simple as pure logic. Those rankings come from past performance, not future performance, which would be nothing more than a guess anyway. Palmer could finish with more points than many of those 11 quarterbacks in front of him, so I'd aim only for the ones I feel he has no chance of surpassing: Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Tom Brady. And yes, you could also include Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers and Tony Romo in that mix.
Your starting lineup should pretty much always consist of Jones-Drew, Turner, Moss, Johnson and Sims-Walker, so you can afford to trade any of those other players. Try packaging two with Palmer for Manning, Brees or Brady, and if that doesn't work, you could try for one of Rodgers, Rivers and Romo. That's one surefire way to improve your starting lineup without giving up too much depth.
SW: You had me nodding along with you until you mentioned Olsen. That might have taken the approach one step too far.
Or maybe not. Olsen had mediocre numbers before his three-touchdown game Sunday. Who says he'll have a chance to repeat the feat?
Look, I don't mean to sound wishy-washy or to give you anything less than a concrete answer, but whether or not you gave up too much depends on your own aversion to risk. In principle, I like the move. You packaged several lesser players for one greater player in an effort to improve your starting lineup, which I think you accomplished by acquiring Colston. But at what cost? Would you have started Maroney at some point? What about Hasselbeck? By trading Olsen, do you force yourself to scour the waiver wire for a replacement tight end? If upgrading at one position causes you to downgrade at another, what have you really gained?
Of course, based on where you would have drafted those players, I could see you not having to start any of them, which would mean you gave up four bench players for a must-start in Colston. But that's not the only issue here. True, you stand a better chance of building a dominant team if you consolidate depth and sacrifice your bench in the process, but you'll also build a more vulnerable one. And while you could conceivably win a league with a bench of Michael Jenkins, Louis Murphy, Greg Camarillo, Chad Simpson, Lynell Hamilton and Marc Bulger, you have to consider what happens if somebody gets hurt.
That's why even though I constantly look for ways to trade depth for talent, I try not to go overboard with it. I don't like to live so dangerously. Then again, I don't win every league, so what does that tell you?
You, my friend, might have crossed the line of going overboard. Whether or not it pays off for you depends on how well you can cover your tracks if something goes wrong.
I have relatively strong running backs and wide receivers. I've been getting by with Matt Ryan at quarterback, but this week I started Alex Smith, who doubled Ryan's points. I'm thinking of picking up Vince Young, figuring he should give me around 11-12 points a game. Given his schedule, do you think he can accomplish this? I don't want to trade any of my receivers to package Ryan for a better quarterback. -- Esteban Rodriguez
SW: Clearly, Young can do it. He has each of the last two weeks. But I don't think you can trust him to do it every week. He'll have some games where he throws some interceptions. He'll have some games where he doesn't score touchdowns. And he'll throw for less than 200 yards in just about all of them. The most intriguing part about him is his running ability since rushing yards count for twice as many points as passing yards, but since he hasn't made the most of it, rushing for only 44 yards in his two starts, I can't trust him for much in Fantasy.
In the end, I think Ryan will come around to give you an acceptable starting quarterback. He shredded the Panthers for three touchdowns in Week 2 and gets to face them again this week. He still gets to play the Buccaneers twice. Even during this rough four-game stretch, he has six touchdown passes, which is enough to give you those 11-12 points per game you hope to get from Young. Just imagine what he'll do when he gets back to playing the way he did over his first four games.
Let's not get too creative here, Esteban. If you want to find a quarterback more consistent than Ryan, you pretty much have to resort to trading. You won't find any solutions among the scrubs on the waiver wire.
SW: Well, since you already have two clear starters and a clear backup in Mendenhall (or Thomas, depending on just how many points those receptions give you), none of these running backs figures to crack your starting lineup anyway. So forget safety. Forget consistency. You want the one with the most upside, the one who stands the best chance of outscoring Gore, Thomas and Mendenhall if given enough touches. You want McCoy.
He might already have those touches if Brian Westbrook's concussion sidelines him for an extended period of time. McCoy has essentially taken over Westbrook's role in the offense, getting almost all the touches out of Eagles' backfield. And that means, as it always has since Andy Reid took over, lots and lots of receptions. He led the team with five Sunday night.
So not only does McCoy have the ability and the opportunity to succeed, but he plays in the best offensive scheme for your particular scoring format. All those receptions might vault him ahead of Thomas and Mendenhall as long as he remains the starter.
Of those other four, Betts and Charles have poor supporting casts, and even if Wells somehow overtakes Tim Hightower in Arizona, he won't get many touches in the Cardinals' pass-happy scheme.
If Westbrook returns, those other three might get a few more touches than McCoy, but who cares? With your depth, you didn't plan on starting him anyway.
I have the misfortune of having to choose between T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Steve Smith (Panthers) as my No. 2 wide receiver every week. I can't get anything for them in a trade right now, so I'm pretty much stuck with them. Which of these former studs but current busts would you start in Week 10, and who do you like (or dislike the least) for the rest of the season? -- Don Brown, Rochester, N.Y.
SW: I had to make this same decision in one of my leagues this week, only mine was more permanent. I was choosing which one to release.
I opted for Houshmandzadeh, thinking Smith has the better chance of living up to his previous numbers. My reasoning might seem backward since Houshmandzadeh at least has adequate quarterback play while Smith has some of the worst in Jake Delhomme, but hear me out.
Smith is the only -- I repeat: only -- viable receiving option for the Panthers. Jeff King won't get it done. Neither will Muhsin Muhammad or Dwayne Jarrett. Every time the ball goes airborne, the Panthers want it to land in the arms of Smith, and that won't change no matter how much Delhomme struggles. So unless the Panthers give up passing completely, throwing for only 50 yards or so per game, Smith has a chance to put up big numbers. He did last year, and Delhomme wasn't exactly Dan Marino then.
Houshmandzadeh, on the other hand, has struggled even though Matt Hasselbeck has had a fair amount of success. How? The Seahawks have other options. They can go to Nate Burleson or John Carlson or Deion Branch instead, leaving Houshmandzadeh to play the role of decoy. He has less than 50 receiving yards in five of his first eight games, including ones against the Rams and the Lions. With all the options the Seahawks have, a good matchup doesn't even guarantee big numbers for him.
Houshmandzadeh has found a way to disappear in a perfectly legitimate passing scheme, and I don't know what he needs to reappear. But I do know he isn't as important to his team as Smith is to his. For that reason, I wouldn't put as much confidence in him.
SW: Minnesota might seem like a scary matchup, especially for a player on an awful team like the Lions, but I think Smith is the easy call here.
He might not have any huge performances this season, but the Lions give him the ball 15-20 times every week, with a handful of receptions thrown in (puns galore there), and he puts up the same useful numbers every time, regardless of matchup. He had one of his better games -- at least in terms of yardage -- against the Vikings earlier this year, carrying a season-high 24 times for 83 yards. As long as you don't expect him to single-handedly win you the game, he won't disappoint.
Williams and Jones just so happen to face two of the better run defenses in the league, making your decision easier, but even if they didn't, I'd still go with Smith. Williams disappears too often in that mess of an offense in Tampa Bay, and Jones couldn't muster more than 36 rushing yards against the lowly Lions last week. Sure, he redeemed himself with six receptions, but he usually doesn't play that type of role on offense.
This isn't one of those "Who should I pick up because my player is on bye?" questions. This is me wondering why people ask them so often. I feel like I'm the only person in the world who drafted two quarterbacks who have different bye weeks and am completely prepared to play one over the other. Are there people who really only drafted one quarterback and then rely on the kindness of their opponents to let a good reserve sit on waivers? -- David Bedno, San Jose, Calif.
SW: All right, Jerry Seinfeld -- er, David. At least I know you've been paying attention.
You do bring up a point for people to consider next year. A second quarterback for that all-important bye week is a nice luxury to have. I know I've enjoyed the security of Matt Schaub and Kurt Warner in the one league I own both. Actually, I'm 2-7, which in and of itself says something about the merits of that strategy.
The truth is there's no right answer here. It's a matter of preference, a matter of value, a matter of the way the draft happens to shake out. You have your golden rule, but I've heard other people suggest you should never, ever draft a third quarterback. Well, why the heck not? Value is value. If I had subscribed to that reasoning in my auction league, I would have let Schaub go to someone else for a $2 bid, leaving me with only Matt Cassel and Kyle Orton (that team is 8-1, by the way).
A bye lasts only one week. If someone wants to take his chances with an Alex Smith or Matthew Stafford for just that week, I don't think it's the worst strategy ever, especially if he would have had to reach on Draft Day to ensure his second quarterback had a different bye week from his first. Too much changes between then and now to do something so dramatic.
Which brings me to my next point: How do you know all these people didn't draft second quarterbacks? Maybe they drafted Chad Pennington, Trent Edwards or Shaun Hill and didn't see the point of adding a replacement like Stafford until the one week they needed him.
So let's not get all high and mighty here. You found an approach you like and have gotten the luck you needed to make it work, but other people win in other ways. Some work better than others, but none work every time.
I'm thinking of trading Matt Forte for Dallas Clark. I currently rotate Forte and Anquan Boldin in my flex spot. Dustin Keller is my current tight end. Would any other tight ends excite you enough to give up Forte? -- Craig Middleton
SW: For Clark, I'd probably do it. Probably. But I'd like to have a better replacement in place than Boldin, who has an ankle injury, a grudge against the coaching staff and only one Fantasy-relevant performance all season. Safe to say I have my concerns about him going forward.
Which is why I wouldn't trade Forte for any tight end other than Clark. Some people might place Vernon Davis and Antonio Gates in the same category, but not me. Clark clearly distinguished himself as the one tight end who plays like a wide receiver with his 14 receptions against the Texans in Week 9. He now has 16 more receptions and 113 more receiving yards than any other tight end, and while he might not have the touchdowns of Davis, those suggest more about past circumstances than future opportunities.
Keller started to look like himself in his last game, catching eight passes for 76 yards and a touchdown against the Dolphins, and he has the potential to finish just as strong as any tight end not named Clark. I wouldn't sacrifice the week-to-week upside of Forte unless I knew I was getting a definite improvement at another position.
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.
