Dear Mr. Fantasy: Owners just like to complain

I love it. I love when an early-rounder doesn't live up to his owners' expectations.

I don't mean in the Clinton Portis sort of way, where a once elite player can't coax anything out of his obviously overtaxed body, leaving his owners with no recourse but the waiver wire. No, that's not funny. That's just sad.

I mean when Fantasy owners have such unreasonable expectations for a player that anything short of rewriting the record books leaves them overturning tables and smiting every blunt object in sight.

It makes me laugh -- not because I delight in other people's misery, but because it proves some people will take any opportunity to complain. They don't know how good they have it.

Until you make them a trade offer, that is. Yup, nothing sobers them up faster than a person willing to listen to their complaints.

Should I start Kurt Warner at St. Louis or Drew Brees at Tampa Bay this week? The Saints don't seem to be throwing the ball as much anymore! -- Valerie Weis

SW: Don't get me wrong, Valerie. I don't mean to jump all over what seems like a legitimate concern. I'm just glad someone asked me about Brees because it gives me a chance to explore the misconception held by just about every user willing to comment on the "Player Analysis" section of his player page:

"Thanks for [disappointing] me once again, Drew. Most overrated QB in the game."

"Brees, you're killing me. Your stats are no better than middle of the field ... Gonna trade you for Larry Johnson."

"CBS' analysis is a joke. They continue to predict Brees having huge numbers? C'mon!!! Morons! I have Ben Roethlisberger also, and he's just as inconsistent!!!"

"Brees is a bum ... What a waste of a No. 1 pick. I should've traded him after Week 2."

And those are the ones that required the least editing.

Forget the fact Brees is averaging 275.3 passing yards over his last six games, making him the third-ranked quarterback in Fantasy points during that stretch and the fourth-ranked quarterback for the season. Nope, he hasn't had a six-touchdown game since Week 1. He stinks.

Give me a break.

I don't know what these people expect. So he's one of the best quarterbacks in Fantasy instead of the very best, but I don't see why that makes him a capital B-U-S-T. You'd have to blow up your roster just to trade for a quarterback of equal value, so instead of complaining, consider yourself lucky you don't have to choose between Joe Flacco and Matt Hasselbeck every week.

Brees is still ridiculous -- like, in the good way -- and a must-start to 95 percent of the people who own him. You, Valerie, have a unique dilemma in that you have a backup nearly as studly in Kurt Warner, who ranks fourth among quarterbacks in Fantasy points during that same six-week stretch. Both have equally good matchups, though the Buccaneers' run defense has gotten more of a bad rap than their pass defense. I see myself leaning toward Warner this week because the Cardinals tend to pass even when they have a big lead, though I wouldn't feel comfortable with that decision. How can I feel comfortable putting Brees on the bench?

I would suggest you try trading Brees, but he's apparently not the most desired player right now. Maybe if Warner has a good game ...

I've got big trouble here. I'm 5-5, leading my league in points and battling for a playoff spot. Michael Turner just went down, so I'm left with Brandon Jacobs and Pierre Thomas. My real dilemma is at wide receiver. I have Miles Austin, Steve Breaston, Steve Smith (Giants), Vincent Jackson and Pierre Garcon. I'm thinking Jackson's one-week stinker was a fluke and he's a must-start, but the others have been so inconsistent. It's a points-per-reception league where we start three wide receivers. I'm thinking of going Smith, Jackson and Austin. What do you think? -- Matt Healey

SW: Of course they're inconsistent. They're wide receivers. Why do you think the first round of every draft belongs to running backs, even ones with lesser numbers than some wide receivers? Unless a wide receiver plays on a dominant offensive team with virtually no running game -- which is a pretty hard combination to find, I might add -- he has the potential to disappear any given week, regardless of how much talent he has.

True, scarcity plays a role in that whole running backs-first mantra, but let's not lose sight of the argument here. A running back is usually a team's entire running game, but a wide receiver is rarely a team's entire passing game. Even on a day when everything goes right for an offense, its top wide receiver might not do anything. Pretty discouraging, right? Well, that's the point: You will predict wrong with your wide receivers time and time again because wide receiver is the toughest position to predict. The sooner you accept it, the more sleep you'll get.

Knowing the futility of your decision frees you to make the obvious one instead of second- and third-guessing all the pros and cons for every Jeremy Maclin cluttering your bench. Start your best players -- period. Maybe at running back or quarterback you can occasionally get cute over a particularly favorable or unfavorable matchup, but at a position as unpredictable as wide receiver, what's the point?

Case in point: Just last week, the Lions played the Vikings, and the Saints played the Rams. Calvin Johnson had one of his best games, catching eight passes for 84 yards, and Marques Colston had one of his worst, catching two passes for 17 yards.

Gee, saw that one coming.

Jackson is clearly your best receiver, scoring touchdowns in six of his first nine games. It's about time he had a bad game, really. All you can do is shrug your shoulders, count your blessings and keep him active. Likewise, Austin, despite going quiet for a second straight game, has earned enough good graces from his midseason explosion to retain elite status. Roy E. Williams has gotten more open looks recently, but their performances should even out when opposing defenses realize they have to game plan for both.

The only tough decision you have is between Smith and Breaston, who are both good for 60-80 yards each week. But considering Smith has eight catches each of his last two weeks, you really can't complain about his performance in a points-per-reception league. I'd go with him. I realize Breaston faces the Rams, but then again, so did Colston.

I'm fairly weak at the wide receiver position with Steve Breaston, Roy E. Williams, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Hakeem Nicks and Kevin Walter. Although the first three had good weeks, Breaston has been my only consistent receiver. I received a trade offer of Donald Driver for Breaston. Both are consistent receivers, but Driver is playing like the No. 1 in Green Bay. Despite this, Breaston has a favorable schedule in front of him and could become the No. 2 in Arizona with only an injury-plagued Anquan Boldin in the way. Should I accept this trade? -- Greg Senning, Ventura, Calif.

SW: Wait, didn't the last e-mailer just call Breaston inconsistent? Funny how perspective changes everything.

I can't answer this question fairly. I wholeheartedly believe Greg Jennings will come around eventually, and when he does, those looks Driver stole from him will go right back to him. So even though Driver looks like a better Fantasy option than Breaston based on his performance so far, I can't call this trade a no-brainer.

Breaston intrigues me because he has put up consistently serviceable numbers even as the third receiver on his own team. And like you say, he has favorable matchups coming up, which could lead to an uptick in production. (Yes, I just pooh-poohed his matchup against the Rams as a reason to start him this week, but saying a player will improve over the course of several weeks is easier -- and safer -- than guaranteeing a one-week explosion). On the other hand, I don't know that you can count on Boldin riding off into the sunset considering he just had a season-high 105 yards receiving last week, so I'd eliminate that thought from your line of reasoning.

When considering a trade, I want to have complete confidence it will make my team better. If I don't, I usually decline it. I don't have complete confidence this trade will make your team better since Driver and Breaston rank so closely at the same position. Still, I think you have to take it. The assurance Driver will retain at least No. 2 status in Green Bay, if not No. 1, outweighs any what-if scenarios that might play out for Breaston.

Who would you pick up for the injured Michael Turner? Would you grab his backup Jason Snelling or go after Justin Forsett in Seattle? -- Chuck McCafferty, Harriman N.Y.

SW: If you strictly want a replacement for Turner and don't have an opening in your lineup for a new player once Turner returns, I don't see the harm in targeting Snelling. In some ways, he's the safer option of the two since you know he'll get the majority of the carries in Turner's absence, including the ones at the goal line. For all practical purposes, he's now a starting running back, which means you'll need a dang good reason to sit him in Fantasy.

But if you want the potential home run, you'll go for Forsett.

What he did Sunday was unprecedented for a Seattle running back this season. Julius Jones hadn't rushed for 100 yards since the season opener and hadn't rushed for as many as 60 since Week 3. But Forsett came in against one of the higher-ranked run defenses in the league (skewed or not) and did more than Jones ever did, rushing for 123 yards and a touchdown. He also caught five passes out of the backfield.

The Seahawks had used him as a third-down back in the past and might not trust his small build for full-time carries, so his role doesn't appear as clear-cut Snelling's. Plus, he faces the Vikings this week, giving him not the most optimal conditions for a repeat performance. But if everything goes right for him, he showed he has the upside to perform like a poor man's Maurice Jones-Drew or Ray Rice.

It's a long shot, yes, but if I have any shot to get a potential game-changer this late in the season, I take it. For that reason, I'd go with Forsett over Snelling nine times out of 10.

Would you trade Rashard Mendenhall and Beanie Wells for Ray Rice? I also have Adrian Peterson and Pierre Thomas. We start two running backs and one flex. -- Timothy Curtis

SW: Yes, Timothy. Yes. That's exactly the kind of trade I like to make when I find myself with more talent than I need.

Mendenhall isn't a bad Fantasy running back now that he appears to have full-time carries. In fact, he's a good one -- a must-start even. But he's no Ray Rice, who has emerged as one of the elite -- the second coming of Maurice Jones-Drew -- with his explosiveness as both a rusher and a receiver. He is the Ravens offense, and he and Peterson -- your other stud running back -- could potentially finish the season ranked first and second at the position.

Wells' recent play makes this trade viable for the other team since he just scored two touchdowns last week and has at least 70 yards rushing each of the last two. He's becoming a more important part of the Cardinals offense, which might excite you as his Fantasy owner if you actually had an opportunity to play him. But between Peterson, Mendenhall and Thomas, you don't. If he breaks out, it'll happen from your bench.

So why waste that potential? Package him and Mendenhall for a running back better than Mendenhall, which Rice clearly is, and improve your team's bottom line. You'll have a hard time losing with both Peterson and Rice in your starting lineup.

Someone offered me Knowshon Moreno for Sidney Rice. My first thought was to turn it down, but with Michael Turner hurt, I'm suddenly hurting at running back. My running backs are Ryan Grant, Jonathan Stewart and Shonn Greene. My other wide receivers are Vincent Jackson, Reggie Wayne and Mike Wallace. Should I accept this trade or get Justin Forsett or Jason Snelling off waivers and ride it out? -- Paul Cameron, Athens, Ga.

SW: Well, I can't turn down a question from Athens, Ga., not after I spent four of the best years of my life there.

Of course, I didn't get to see Moreno during those four years, which might explain why I'd decline this trade in your situation. Moreno did look good at Washington last week and has some nice matchups to close out the season, but I still don't trust him with Correll Buckhalter in the picture. I don't trust the Broncos offense in general. Sometimes they run. Sometimes they pass. Sometimes they throw to Brandon Marshall, sometimes Jabar Gaffney, sometimes Eddie Royal. They seem to lack identity, which makes all of their players risky Fantasy options in my eyes.

I do trust Rice, however. Coming off his 201-yard performance against the Lions, he now has at least 135 receiving yards in three of his last four games, averaging 138.3 receiving yards during that stretch. That's beyond ridiculous and probably would have gotten just as much attention as Miles Austin's breakout if he had a few touchdowns to go along with it.

He's a must-start while Moreno, though intriguing, is no sure bet to outscore Forsett and Snelling over the next few weeks.

Hey, if push comes to shove, Stewart is a perfectly acceptable No. 2 running back in Fantasy, especially with that trio of wide receivers you have.

To all those people whining about Maurice Jones-Drew, all I have to say is get a life. This is only Fantasy, and that's the way it goes sometimes. Move on. -- Jon McComb, Denver

SW: Not exactly a question, Jon, but I couldn't miss this opportunity to weigh in on one of the most controversial moments in Fantasy since ... well, since Brian Westbrook did about the same thing in 2007.

I can't help but laugh at how radically a person's opinion can change to suit his immediate needs. One of the more common complaints all of us writers get here comes with the familiar refrain of "do you even watch football?" as if in all of our pouring over box scores and breaking down numbers we take something away from the pure mechanics of the game.

It's actually not the worst argument in the world even though it runs counter to what we're trying to do here.

But some Jones-Drew owners -- no doubt some of the same ones singing that refrain -- screamed the loudest when he took a knee at the 1 yard line, willing to sacrifice the sanctity of a real NFL game as soon as it conflicted with their own ambitions.

Look, either Fantasy is a supplemental hobby to help you enjoy the NFL or it's your passion in and of itself and takes priority over the NFL. Know your side.

Then again, I suppose some people just want a reason to complain.

I feel uneasy about my options at wide receiver. I have Miles Austin, Roy E. Williams, DeSean Jackson, Michael Crabtree, Lance Moore and Sammie Stroughter. I seem to be loaded at running back, with three of my bench options scoring at least 20 points last week (LaDainian Tomlinson, Reggie Bush and Beanie Wells). My starters were Chris Johnson and Laurence Maroney, but after Maroney's performance Sunday night, I might replace him. Should I package a couple of my running backs to get a top wide receiver, or should I just stand pat? -- Benjie Haynie, Charlotte, Mich.

SW: If packaging two of those running backs for a top wide receiver really was an option, I'd tell you to do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, it seems a bit unrealistic to me.

Yeah, those running backs all performed well last week, but Bush still got only eight touches and Wells still splits carries with Tim Hightower in a pass-heavy offense. You can write both of their performances off as flukes, and I have a feeling any potential trade partner would, if for no other reason than to force you to pay more. As for Tomlinson, you need to hang on to him yourself since Maroney looks like a risky option the rest of the way.

Austin and Jackson, despite their inconsistencies, still qualify as must-start wide receivers, so if you start only two in your league, you shouldn't worry so much. If you start three, you can try packaging two of Bush, Wells and Maroney for a Mike Sims-Walker or Sidney Rice type -- somebody good, but who doesn't have name value yet. It's still a long shot, but it's more likely than swinging a deal for an elite wide receiver using only that marginal collection of talent.

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.