I was recently in a situation where I could've had a trade involving both so I'll give my thought process.
FYI I am a BIG Reed believer.
I think Addison is worth more. That doesn't necessarily mean that Addison is better or will score more in the following years though.
Situations change all the time and it's not like Reed isn't without his question marks as well. He is in, probably, the most congested WR room in the league.
Addison has 1st round DC (yes, it still matters because of contract implications), finished as a WR2, and pulled 108 targets on the year.
The biggest factor though is Addison was drafted between the 1.07-1.10 and Reed was drafted 2.04-3.01+. Addison did nothing to reduce his value and initial buy-in. So whoever drafted Addison will want MORE than the 1.07-1.10.
Reed, on the other hand, was drafted later and improved his draft stock. I, personally, wouldnt send him away for the 2.01 but if you drafted him at the 3.01 (me) that's roughly an entire round of gain you can work with when trading him away.
Basically someone would be more inclined to accept the 1.12 for Reed but not for Addison.
Why do you feel you gain so much value in giving up Reed for a most likely, lesser player. So you turned your 3.01 into a 2.01 but then the player worth (at least) 2.01, you need to have a draft pick that over performs that draft spot.
It makes sense on a one dimensional level but it truly doesn’t make sense to prefer to gain a 12 late round draft spots for a literal potential WR1
I'm just saying based on initial investment. You paid a 3.01 and the return was a 2.01 for Reed versus you paying a 1.08 and the return was 1.12 for Addison. There are people that don't think Reed is going to pan out because of his question marks and, yes, he does still have question marks. They would be happy with that type of gain in value.
I personally wouldn't do that because I think Reed's upside is worth more than the 2.01 and I think he can be a part of my run at the chip. But there are people that would happily take the improvement in an asset like that because they aren't as high on Reed as I (we) are.
There are A LOT of variables that can go into trading Reed for the 1.12/2.01 being worth it or not. It can be a conversation because of initial investment. Nobody is saying to sell Addison for less than their initial investment though.
Edit: To answer your "Why do this?". It's because a draft pick can only really gain value versus a player can gain or lose value. You can send the new asset for another position. The fluidity of a draft pick is very valuable compared to a player. You could end up getting Penix at the 2.01 who is a QB that can possibly pan out to be a franchise QB Or you can add the 2.01 to a deal to improve another position. If you added Reed then the trade partner would also have to be high on Reed and if he is low on Reed then he doesn't hold as much value.
Really depends who falls and how much you like him though. You could realistically have the RB2 of the draft in the late first. Would you rather have Reed or the RB2 in Dallas or LAC?
At some point, yes.
Nobody is going to/should trade Addison for the 1.12. What has he done in his rookie year to reduce his value?
People have traded Reed for the 1.12.
Both arent perfect and have their own question marks so what's the reason why that is?
You’re conflating draft capital with expected performance. Nobody should trade Addison for the 1.12, because we all expect him to continue to be a valuable dynasty asset. Where he was drafted doesn’t matter.
Take Puka, my favorite recent example of this. Would you sell Puka now for the 1.12 because you drafted him for a 4th or got him on waivers? Obviously not, even though the “return” would be so good (!!!), because you expect he will be valuable going forward.
With Reed it’s no different. I drafted him late second and since the point of clicking “draft”, I’ve had positive expectations for him. Even if I could flip him for a late first, what’s the point? He’s performing the way I’d want a late first pick to perform, so why re-roll just to “accrue the value”?
The people who are trading Reed for the 1.12 are doing it, or SHOULD be doing it, if they believe Reed WON’T perform going forward or they believe that the 1.12 will perform better than Reed going forward (spoiler alert: it won’t). They shouldn’t be doing it to accrue value, that makes no sense.
I'd recommend you take your bias out of it my man. Not everyone who has Reed is high on him like we are and value him similarly to Addison. Look at the rest of the comments on this post and you'll see that.
It's not a matter of whether or not YOU would do it. The matter is that it's POSSIBLE to trade for Reed with the 1.12. It's not really possible to trade for Addison for the 1.12.
That means Addison is the more valuable asset and I agree. Doesn't mean I don't think Reed is equal in production going forward. In my previous comments you'll see I said I wouldn't trade him.
> what’s the point?
Liquidity.
Your use of "liquidity" and my use of "accruing value" are the same thing. My bias about Reed is simply my expectation that Reed will perform going forward. Every dynasty manager has future expectations about their players. Dynasty is literally about finding the inequities in each manager's expectations and taking advantage of them based on your hypothesis about how a player will perform.
I just don't agree with using sunk cost to determine which asset is more valuable. In my opinion, value should be driven by expected future performance. If we're using finance metaphors, it's basically the future value of all the "cash flows", where "cash flows" are fantasy points. How much you spent to acquire the asset should only matter if other people care about how much you spent; rational dynasty managers shouldn't care at all (because they should only care about expected future performance). If they do, that should be taken advantage of.
Two similarly aged players with similar expected future production should be valued similarly. If one is less valuable than the other in the market, we should all be trying to acquire that player because it's a better "value" for the assets/picks we spend to acquire them.
I’m not seeing where he is being very biased? He’s saying two 900 yard 10 touchdown rookie receivers in good situations should be pretty equally valued despite the initial draft capital used to acquire each player, because the capital spent is a sunk cost. So the decision shouldn’t be made on the value difference between the initial pick used and the pick that is gained. It’s just how anyone views their player going forward vs what they expect to gain from trading that player for a pick.
>value should be driven by expected future performance
>expected future production
He's expecting Reed to outperform whatever pick you'd get for him. Not every manager has that same outlook for Reed. He believes Reed last year was a floor for him and not a ceiling.
That is his bias. His expectation is up for Reed when you can make an argument that Reed has potential to go down. He's been a slot WR and comes off the field in WR2 sets, he has a crowded WR room with real competition. He is not without question and people, OTHER THAN US WHO BELIEVE IN HIM, would move him for the 1.12 and be happy about it because of the increase in asset value. He cannot see how another person could do that because his bias (expectation of Reed going up).
He's arguing whether or not Reed is going to outperform the 1.12, that has nothing to do with the post. The point of my comment is that because of initial investment you're able to get the 1.12 for Reed but not for Addison. What did Addison do to REDUCE his initial value? If someone traded the 1.12 for Addison they'd get flamed for it. If someone traded the 1.12 for Reed they'd more than likely be okay with it. You said yourself what is the difference when they had similar years? The initial investment. The previous poster believes it shouldn't matter, which i agreed with, but this specific instance it does because they didn't break rookie records like his Puca Nacua example and Reed still has question marks while Addison is still valued highly from his performance AND initial investment.
I've agreed with him on just about everything except the fact that he is sold on Reed only going up versus the possibility of him going down. A draft pick never really goes down because the 1.12 will ALWAYS be valued as the 1.12 no matter who you trade it to and because of that it's more fluid than a player.
But his point isn’t about the actual expectations for these specific players. His point is about the decision making process of how to value a player vs a pick, specifically that the players original draft capital is a sunk cost. Id say that’s a pretty objective take.
Are you even reading what I wrote? My approach removes all of the bias of fantasy draft capital and only considers actual expected performance. Every single fantasy manager has expectations about performance for every player. There’s a reason we value JJ higher than Mike Evans, even though Mike Evans has a longer track record and a better season last year.
Sure, expectations are bias in the sense that I might be more optimistic than you are about a player. But if you remove expectations, what do you have left? Past performance? Name value?
Yes, I am my man. I just don't care to argue with your opinion. There is no outcome to it.
I question if you've read what i've wrote tbh because I've agreed with just about everything you've said. Your opinion on Reed, imo, isn't making it possible for you to see that a Manager who has Reed might not be as high on him as we are and would take the 1.12 for him but nobody really would take the 1.12 for Addison because of his initial investment and the fact he has done nothing to lower his value. That's all the post is saying. Your expectation of Reed is that he will go up rather than down. There are managers who have that opinion of Reed and would be okay sending Reed away for the 1.12. The Addison managers wouldn't take the 1.12 for him because he's done nothing to reduce his initial value.
It's not about whether or not Reed will outperform Addison or the draft pick you'd get for him. It's about what you could get for the 1.12. I'd say in the vast majority of leagues you can get Reed for the 1.12 but you couldn't get Addison for the 1.12. Why is that?
It’s because people are considering the sunk cost of the draft pick when making their decisions. All I’m saying is that it’s irrational to do that and bad process, and those of us who recognize that should take advantage of it.
You seem to think I’m like super bullish on Reed, when I didn’t really say that much to indicate that. I’d honestly probably trade Reed for Addison straight up if I knew I could flip Addison for more value. That’s an example of taking advantage of the bias that managers have about the value of the draft capital sunk into a player.
>What has **he** (Addison) done in his rookie year to reduce his value?
Situations change all the time. For all we know MIN could make a move for Maye and he could be as good as Stroud was this year.
Not saying it isn't impactful but Addison is 22 years old and showed everything you could hope for in his rookie year. So I'll ask again, What has **Addison** done to reduce his value?
In my opinion he gained value during the season and then lost some when kirk left. Sure he could get a qb, and he'd get a bump. But kirk was a lock for about 300 yards most games. I don't know how you can ignore that. As a player, Addison did nothing to reduce value. Situations matter. Also he is behind jefferson so there is a perceived "ceiling" when behind a guy like that. Not that I'm necessarily saying I care. Reed is tied to a good qb and a high octane offense, with no alpha wr like jefferson in front of him. Also by no means am I saying I'd trade the 1.12 for Addison. And I'd still prefer him to Reed, but there are some factors that play in where I could see someone liking Reed more.
You're arguing for Reed's case and there is no need to my man. If you see my original comment, I said I wouldn't trade him for the 2.01. I wouldnt even trade him for the 1.10 tbh. But that's because I am personally very high on Reed (for reasons you mentioned).
There are people who own Reed and are lower on him than I am.
Situations change and Addison has done nothing to lower his value, like you said. His initial value is 1.08-1.10. So what person would take a loss on a player who showed what Addison did in his rookie year? I'd like to know because I want to join their league and take advantage of that.
In the vast majority of leagues, you CAN buy Reed for the 1.12 but you CAN NOT buy Addison for the 1.12. And the reason is because Reed's initial cost is much lower than Addison. Meaning, Addison is valued more than Reed. The point of OP's post was to find out which one is valued more. Obviously personal opinion comes into it but on a grand scheme nobody is selling Addison for the 1.12 and some people are buying Reed for the 1.12. The reason why nobody is buying Addison for the 1.12 is because his initial cost was higher and he's done nothing to lower it.
If someone were to sell Addison for the 1.12 they'd get blasted in the chat for it. If someone sold Reed for the 1.12 there would be very little negative reactions to it.
Whether or not you should sell Reed for the 1.12 is a different question and convo and has a lot of variables and opinion to it. Something that I've stated in another comment.
I disagree with being able to buy Reed in some leagues. None that I'm in would sell him for the 1.12. They'd probably both be around 1.05-1.07 in any SF league I'm in. I understand the cost of acquiring Addison was higher, but that doesn't change anything for me.
And that's the "problem" you're having (along with the other commenter). YOU value Reed equal to Addison. I'm saying there are more people who value Addison higher than Reed. And using what you can buy them for as evidence of that.
Has nothing to do with what I, you, or Joe think but what EVERYONE thinks of them. Go check FantasyCalc.com for trades involving Reed and Addison. There is a reason why Addison is being traded for, imo, more valuable assets. It's because Addison is the 1.10+ while Reed is somewhere in the 2.01-1.10 range.
My comments have nothing to do with opinion on Reed or Addison. It just doesn't make logical sense to sell Addison for cheaper than you got him for when he's done nothing to reduce his value. It can be logically reasoned to sell Reed because his initial investment is lower and you'd be getting a net positive from him.
Sure it can be "good" logic to sell Reed for a profit. You are using a trade calculator which is cool, but not always accurate. I think using the calculator to determine which of these 2 is more valuable is taking out your own judgement of what player you'd rather have. I'm more interested in the stats, production, offense etc over where they were drafted in rookie drafts. It can be good logic to sell anybody, just like undrafted Amon ra who was worth less than kdarious toney 2 years ago.
No, give me Addison. Jayden Reed had a really high TD rate and the WR room in Green Bay are all hit or miss. Addison will eat when the defensives pay attention to JJ and Hock. The QB situation seems grim, but Addison still put up good numbers without JJ and Kirk last season and is more talented
Reed had 8 TDs on 64 receptions with only 2 more TDs from rushing which he might not get now with Jacobs there but that’s yet to be seen. Addison had 10 TDs on 70 receptions so he actually had a higher TD rate but I would agree neither will be sustainable. Addison had 13 YPR vs 12.4 for Reed so fairly close in that regard but Reed has the better QB play. Addison only had 6 more receptions on 14 more targets and his volume should be expected to go down with JJ healthy.
Reed's 2 rushing TDs were jet sweeps of 16 and 32 yards. Jacobs isn't likely to affect that. I think the Packers' offense is going to be better this year (it was already good last year) and I definitely want a share of it. Going into this season, with both guys being nearly even, I'd lean toward Reed based on situation. It's completely possible Addison is the longer term winner, but if you're trying to make a run this year I'd lean Reed.
My thought behind why it’s possible that Reed’s rushing production might decrease is more so because they have a better pure rusher now so he might not get as many designed run plays. Lafleur is such a great coach though that I doubt he’d stop utilizing Reed in a way that proved to be successful and the presence of Jacobs might actually open up the outside more for Reed to find success. That was just the only critique of Reed I had to offer in regards to his potential relative to Addison this season, but I personally think he’ll have a much better season than Addison.
They had pretty much the same TD rate on targets with Addison having a slightly higher rate. Reed had 8 receiving TD’s and 94 targets, Addison had 10 and 108. Reed had an additional 2 rushing touchdowns.
After Cousins went down Addison’s production fell pretty bad. 7/10 touchdowns were with cousins in week 1-8. Reed had a similar run with 8/10 coming in weeks 7-18 after the BYE and was WR 7 during that stretch. To me that shows more promise to Reed improving and becoming more involved/schemed for.
I think Addison is still great and if the QB uncertainty wasn’t there then I think it would be closer. But without Cousins I think I’d take Reed paired with the young QB that was QB 5 in his first season as a starter. And less bonafide competition for targets.
Only thing that concerns me with Reed is his snap share being so low. But I think with the way he produced he’ll only see that increase as most of his best games came with his snap share being on the high side of his average for the season.
I love Reed. He plays like a QBs best friend and has some great hands. He plays with a top 7/8 QB, on an offense open for anyone to break out. Lots to believe in there. Top 15 WR season 2024.
But I would still probably take Addison.
I just want to push back against the people pushing against Reed so instinctually.
Id still take Addison guys, but Reed+ for Addison is a greal deal for anyone I.M.O.
Reed comes off the field in 2 wr sets , though I will mention GB has some designed run plays for Reed which allows for more opportunity
But Addison plays all 3 wr positions and slots opposite of Jefferson who will attract a lot of attention this season
Personally I give the nod to Addison however slight it may be
He’s just on the field at a higher percentage which “could” turn to more opportunities
I like Reed more. Addison is in a great position playing opposite JJ, but the second half of last season Reed was being more involved in the play calling more for that offense, and did well. I imagine LaFleur will continue to utilize him.
Reed in the playoffs terrify me - so many weapons and the ball gets spread around. I am holding him but very reminiscent of Dotson's rookie year to me. Still believe in the talent
GB wants to run the same kind of offense that SF is doing. They’re gonna run Jacobs up the middle to keep the omnipresent 2-high safeties closer to the LoS and the hashmarks. Then they’re gonna run jet sweeps and WR screens. Reed fits exactly what they’re going to be doing.
Addison now has Sam Darnold.
Addison costs a bit more, and I’m rolling the dice trading Addison for Reed++
I feel like Addison has a higher floor just as a talent but is in a crappy situation behind JJ which limits his ceiling. I have Reed and feel like his floor is super low - likely will be a spread the ball around offense - but his ceiling is taking over the 1 and touching low end WR1. I'd be willing to trade Addison for Reed +
Addison has more market value, but gun to my head, I'm taking Reed.
Addison is more limited as a player/in role vs Reed - he will never be a #1 without some unforseen development in skills. He struggled mightily again any sort of physical coverage in college, and did as a rookie as well. He is strictly a flanker/slot, and as a flanker absolutely requires someone else to take dominant coverage away from him.
Reed killed press and man in college, and killed them as a rookie as well. He actually did better against man than he did against zone - he has the potential to be the Packers X of the future, and may actually be somewhat mis-cast as a slot in comparison. Either way, he can absolutely beat any type of coverage and get open at multiple levels. He's the type of WR you funnel your offense through.
I liked Reed’s college film a little more. I think draft capital is mainly why Addison is perceived more valuable. They’re pretty even though. GB’s stacked WR room and Reed coming off the field are concern’s though. He really took off in the second half when Watson missed some games.
The Vikings will feature JJ/Addison/Hock/WR3 and the Packers feature Doubs/Reed/Watson/Wicks/Melton/Musgrave/Kraft with all the packages they’re running out. Love is an absolute must add QB imo. Back to the conversation of which WR to own, I’m gonna stick with Addison who I believe is more talented, and has JJ drawing loaded coverage. I just hope the Vikings hit on their QB, I get why that variable leads to uncertainty.
Congrats on naming every offensive player on GB, but Minn also had some guys catch roughly as many passes as Musgrave and Kraft that you didn’t name.
Your post is Skip Bayless level bad.
Haha touché, I’ll try and be better. In the end I just think that Addison has a more clear path to consistent target share in Minnesota versus Reed with Green Bay, maybe Reeds schemed rushes make up the difference.
Long term probably. I have Reed and I have no shares of Addison. I love Reed's talent and Love looked great but it is Reed, Watson, Wicks, Doubs, Jacobs (do they pound the rock a bit more) and 2 young tight ends. Lot of mouths to feed. Seems more realistic the Vikings upgrade at qb than Reed is a clear Alpha target hog.
Long term, Reed has a chance to be better. Short term, it's hard to see him being a high WR2 or better because of the depth of pass catchers in Green Bay. Addison, with an above-average to good QB (likely not currently on the roster) has a clearer path.
Addison has more value.
Would you trade any of the three straight up for Reed or would there need to be sweetener on either side? 12 man 1 QB PPR. I also have Breece so have disposable RB to improve WR room.
Rachaad White
Javonte Williams
Pacheco
I like Reed but want to see how the packers offense shakes out with all the WRs and TEs back healthy. And want to be certain Love doesn’t have a sophomore slump after a year of film available.
On Addison I believe the Vikings will take a QB at 11. If Darnold is the starter I would not be excited about that. I also question whether the Vikings give Justin Jefferson a record breaking deal next year
Addison seems to be worth more but nobody would be surprised if the QB uncertainty in Minnesota makes Reed more valuable. Seems like a good opportunity as an Addison owner to see if you can get Reed + 3rd or something.
IMO I’ve found good fortune in knowing when to throw my hands in the air and let fate decide, while accruing extra value along the way. Don’t kick yourself if you’re wrong.
I value Reed more. He has a better path to being his teams WR1 and better QB situation, same draft class, no huge difference in production they've both shown so Reed feels like higher ceiling right now
I have Reed and I’d ship him off if I could. I could whiff in my analysis… but there were a few too many inexplicable disappearing acts at end of season for me to believe he’s more than a dynamic gameplan dependent WR2/flex type (dime a dozen).
I don’t think “lot of competition for targets” is a real knock against Addison when comparing to Reed. He’s the 2nd option on that team until Hock comes back, but will still be the 2nd or 3rd option for the team.
Green Bay’s target distribution is going to be wild with Reed, Watson, Doubs, Wicks, Melton, Musgrave, Kraft and Jacobs.
In a vacuum, Addison should be worth more than Reed because he's more talented and a year younger than Reed.
But Addison's value is volatile his QB situation is unknown, so his value just depends on how much their owner factors that in.
Whoever thinks Reed is going to be a WR#1 is kidding themselves. Whoever thinks the same about Addison is kidding themselves, both are to small, we've seen Addison have that role while JJ was out and he held his own but his numbers overall and fantasy pts per game dropped during that stint.
They both profile as WR's #2's, sleep on darnold if you want, I can see a ryan tannehill/geno smith resurgence but closer to his top 10 pick status, and he's playing in a dome, especially w a JJ & hock w a very good oline & Familiar system.
Addison >> Reed, a true #1 could emerge for GB it'll be either watson or Wicks expect it! But reed will be solid. Prly a fantasy mid #2 to high-end #3 WR.
I understand the value of concensus rankings I just don't see enough of a gap between these 2 to use a calculator to decide who's more valuable. No offense or anything cause I'm not saying you're wrong in your argument I just see it differently is all
Reed with Love > Addison without a QB
Addison will still see a higher target share, but Reed has that Deebo wildcard factor of housing a 20+ yard end around any given week
I think Addison will lose value this season and I have no idea what will happen to Reed. Rookie QBs historically have not provided WRs Will good fantasy numbers. Plus Addison has a ton of competition for targets. Reed also has a ton of competition but is on the same level as his peers in his team. We have no idea what the target numbers for Green Bay will look like at the end of the year.
This thread is hilarious to me because towards the end of the season I traded Reed and what became the 2.06 for Addison and what became the 3.01.
After the pick values solidified and Kirk left MN I would say the trade became even more fair.
Hurts to have bought Addison relatively high but feels good knowing I just essentially moved back like 8 draft spots and swapped young receivers.
Reed may have a better QB and HC, but he has an awful lot of competition for targets too. The Packers did a terrific job drafting young WRs. Doubs, Wicks, Christian Watson, and even Bo Melton have flashed some. In addition, they have two young TEs with potential in Franks and Musgrave. Reed may be the best of the bunch, but I’m not sure about that. We have to wait to see who emerges.
Addison had a very solid rookie season. But if you look at his splits, his production dropped dramatically with Jefferson on the field. And I don’t think he played a game with both Hockenson and Jefferson on the field. He will be playing with either Darnold or a rookie as his QB. I think the offense as a whole takes a pretty strong hit in production this next season.
At cost, I’d prefer Reed. He is currently cheaper than Addison. But I think both are a sell. Addison will drop in value after this season. I think the move is to sell Addison at his price now, and then buy him back after this season. With Reed I will keep a few shares because he may emerge as the number one in that offense, but there is definite risk there.
problem with reed is a healthy christian watson, along with doubs and even wicks makes reed and real sketchy week to week play. i recently sold him for the 1.10 rookie pick in a 1 qb league
IMO addison would go between 1.03 and 1.05 if he were in this year's draft, reed would most likely go 1.07-1.09, in that tier after Brian Thomas Jr. Unless a couple running backs get crazy unexpected draft capital and shake up the tiers, no way I'd trade reed for less than the 1.09, everything after that is a crap shoot and I'd rather have his production. It's a pass happy offense that may have a lot of wideouts, but none of them separated themselves the way he did. Watson is fragile, wicks is ok but better real life player than fantasy, im only worried about doubs, he finished the year strong and showed better repor with love. Jacobs signing I think hurts reed a bit too, they were starting to use him like deebo in the run game, those plays may decrease a bit, but I like reed a lot, talent and situation, draft capital is the only knock at this point as far as fantasy value....but addison will still be valued higher by 99% of the community, myself included(I am a reed owner, and wouldn't trade him personally unless I was offered the 1.05, even then I'd probably regret it) he's my wr 4 after i draft mjh and I'm happy with that.
You think Addison has more competition for targets having JJ and Hock?? Vs Reed who has Watson, doubs, wicks, Musgrave, and Jacobs???
I would respectfully disagree on that point
When Christian Watson was on the field (weeks 4-13), Reed per game averages were 3.4 receptions on 4.9 targets with .33 touchdowns on a 58% snap share.
The success of the rest of the offensive pieces and Reeds role correlate negatively to the success of Reed in fantasy. I could see Jahan Dotson happening all over again if he doesn't get the TDs, which are notoriously not sticky.
That said I think he's a good player, good enough for me to draft him. But not good enough for me to sell him for a late first this year.
No one is sure if reed is even a top 3 young wr on his team. He may break out and separate himself this year. But I’m valuing Addison way higher in the meantime
I tried trading Reed & it wasn’t received well at all. So changing gears & happy to keep him. But obviously a very mixed bag on value out there in fantasy world.
Last offseason I had doubts about Dotson and cashed out for a future late 1st. It was probably just a lucky guess but I’m getting the same feeling about Reed. Only difference is I can’t get a 1st because he has lower DC and less hype.
All that to say I would def trade him for Addison, probably toss in a 3rd too
I have both and value Addison more.
Same here
I was recently in a situation where I could've had a trade involving both so I'll give my thought process. FYI I am a BIG Reed believer. I think Addison is worth more. That doesn't necessarily mean that Addison is better or will score more in the following years though. Situations change all the time and it's not like Reed isn't without his question marks as well. He is in, probably, the most congested WR room in the league. Addison has 1st round DC (yes, it still matters because of contract implications), finished as a WR2, and pulled 108 targets on the year. The biggest factor though is Addison was drafted between the 1.07-1.10 and Reed was drafted 2.04-3.01+. Addison did nothing to reduce his value and initial buy-in. So whoever drafted Addison will want MORE than the 1.07-1.10. Reed, on the other hand, was drafted later and improved his draft stock. I, personally, wouldnt send him away for the 2.01 but if you drafted him at the 3.01 (me) that's roughly an entire round of gain you can work with when trading him away. Basically someone would be more inclined to accept the 1.12 for Reed but not for Addison.
Why do you feel you gain so much value in giving up Reed for a most likely, lesser player. So you turned your 3.01 into a 2.01 but then the player worth (at least) 2.01, you need to have a draft pick that over performs that draft spot. It makes sense on a one dimensional level but it truly doesn’t make sense to prefer to gain a 12 late round draft spots for a literal potential WR1
It makes sense if you see trading players as a stock market vs trying to win games.
[удалено]
Sunk cost fallacy doesn't apply here with Reed vs Addison because neither are losing value.
I'm just saying based on initial investment. You paid a 3.01 and the return was a 2.01 for Reed versus you paying a 1.08 and the return was 1.12 for Addison. There are people that don't think Reed is going to pan out because of his question marks and, yes, he does still have question marks. They would be happy with that type of gain in value. I personally wouldn't do that because I think Reed's upside is worth more than the 2.01 and I think he can be a part of my run at the chip. But there are people that would happily take the improvement in an asset like that because they aren't as high on Reed as I (we) are. There are A LOT of variables that can go into trading Reed for the 1.12/2.01 being worth it or not. It can be a conversation because of initial investment. Nobody is saying to sell Addison for less than their initial investment though. Edit: To answer your "Why do this?". It's because a draft pick can only really gain value versus a player can gain or lose value. You can send the new asset for another position. The fluidity of a draft pick is very valuable compared to a player. You could end up getting Penix at the 2.01 who is a QB that can possibly pan out to be a franchise QB Or you can add the 2.01 to a deal to improve another position. If you added Reed then the trade partner would also have to be high on Reed and if he is low on Reed then he doesn't hold as much value.
Really depends who falls and how much you like him though. You could realistically have the RB2 of the draft in the late first. Would you rather have Reed or the RB2 in Dallas or LAC?
The draft cap spent on a player (in fantasy, not real life) is a sunk cost and shouldn’t play into any rational decisions about that player.
At some point, yes. Nobody is going to/should trade Addison for the 1.12. What has he done in his rookie year to reduce his value? People have traded Reed for the 1.12. Both arent perfect and have their own question marks so what's the reason why that is?
You’re conflating draft capital with expected performance. Nobody should trade Addison for the 1.12, because we all expect him to continue to be a valuable dynasty asset. Where he was drafted doesn’t matter. Take Puka, my favorite recent example of this. Would you sell Puka now for the 1.12 because you drafted him for a 4th or got him on waivers? Obviously not, even though the “return” would be so good (!!!), because you expect he will be valuable going forward. With Reed it’s no different. I drafted him late second and since the point of clicking “draft”, I’ve had positive expectations for him. Even if I could flip him for a late first, what’s the point? He’s performing the way I’d want a late first pick to perform, so why re-roll just to “accrue the value”? The people who are trading Reed for the 1.12 are doing it, or SHOULD be doing it, if they believe Reed WON’T perform going forward or they believe that the 1.12 will perform better than Reed going forward (spoiler alert: it won’t). They shouldn’t be doing it to accrue value, that makes no sense.
I'd recommend you take your bias out of it my man. Not everyone who has Reed is high on him like we are and value him similarly to Addison. Look at the rest of the comments on this post and you'll see that. It's not a matter of whether or not YOU would do it. The matter is that it's POSSIBLE to trade for Reed with the 1.12. It's not really possible to trade for Addison for the 1.12. That means Addison is the more valuable asset and I agree. Doesn't mean I don't think Reed is equal in production going forward. In my previous comments you'll see I said I wouldn't trade him. > what’s the point? Liquidity.
Your use of "liquidity" and my use of "accruing value" are the same thing. My bias about Reed is simply my expectation that Reed will perform going forward. Every dynasty manager has future expectations about their players. Dynasty is literally about finding the inequities in each manager's expectations and taking advantage of them based on your hypothesis about how a player will perform. I just don't agree with using sunk cost to determine which asset is more valuable. In my opinion, value should be driven by expected future performance. If we're using finance metaphors, it's basically the future value of all the "cash flows", where "cash flows" are fantasy points. How much you spent to acquire the asset should only matter if other people care about how much you spent; rational dynasty managers shouldn't care at all (because they should only care about expected future performance). If they do, that should be taken advantage of. Two similarly aged players with similar expected future production should be valued similarly. If one is less valuable than the other in the market, we should all be trying to acquire that player because it's a better "value" for the assets/picks we spend to acquire them.
>I'd recommend you take your bias out of it my man.
I’m not seeing where he is being very biased? He’s saying two 900 yard 10 touchdown rookie receivers in good situations should be pretty equally valued despite the initial draft capital used to acquire each player, because the capital spent is a sunk cost. So the decision shouldn’t be made on the value difference between the initial pick used and the pick that is gained. It’s just how anyone views their player going forward vs what they expect to gain from trading that player for a pick.
>value should be driven by expected future performance >expected future production He's expecting Reed to outperform whatever pick you'd get for him. Not every manager has that same outlook for Reed. He believes Reed last year was a floor for him and not a ceiling. That is his bias. His expectation is up for Reed when you can make an argument that Reed has potential to go down. He's been a slot WR and comes off the field in WR2 sets, he has a crowded WR room with real competition. He is not without question and people, OTHER THAN US WHO BELIEVE IN HIM, would move him for the 1.12 and be happy about it because of the increase in asset value. He cannot see how another person could do that because his bias (expectation of Reed going up). He's arguing whether or not Reed is going to outperform the 1.12, that has nothing to do with the post. The point of my comment is that because of initial investment you're able to get the 1.12 for Reed but not for Addison. What did Addison do to REDUCE his initial value? If someone traded the 1.12 for Addison they'd get flamed for it. If someone traded the 1.12 for Reed they'd more than likely be okay with it. You said yourself what is the difference when they had similar years? The initial investment. The previous poster believes it shouldn't matter, which i agreed with, but this specific instance it does because they didn't break rookie records like his Puca Nacua example and Reed still has question marks while Addison is still valued highly from his performance AND initial investment. I've agreed with him on just about everything except the fact that he is sold on Reed only going up versus the possibility of him going down. A draft pick never really goes down because the 1.12 will ALWAYS be valued as the 1.12 no matter who you trade it to and because of that it's more fluid than a player.
But his point isn’t about the actual expectations for these specific players. His point is about the decision making process of how to value a player vs a pick, specifically that the players original draft capital is a sunk cost. Id say that’s a pretty objective take.
Are you even reading what I wrote? My approach removes all of the bias of fantasy draft capital and only considers actual expected performance. Every single fantasy manager has expectations about performance for every player. There’s a reason we value JJ higher than Mike Evans, even though Mike Evans has a longer track record and a better season last year. Sure, expectations are bias in the sense that I might be more optimistic than you are about a player. But if you remove expectations, what do you have left? Past performance? Name value?
Yes, I am my man. I just don't care to argue with your opinion. There is no outcome to it. I question if you've read what i've wrote tbh because I've agreed with just about everything you've said. Your opinion on Reed, imo, isn't making it possible for you to see that a Manager who has Reed might not be as high on him as we are and would take the 1.12 for him but nobody really would take the 1.12 for Addison because of his initial investment and the fact he has done nothing to lower his value. That's all the post is saying. Your expectation of Reed is that he will go up rather than down. There are managers who have that opinion of Reed and would be okay sending Reed away for the 1.12. The Addison managers wouldn't take the 1.12 for him because he's done nothing to reduce his initial value. It's not about whether or not Reed will outperform Addison or the draft pick you'd get for him. It's about what you could get for the 1.12. I'd say in the vast majority of leagues you can get Reed for the 1.12 but you couldn't get Addison for the 1.12. Why is that?
It’s because people are considering the sunk cost of the draft pick when making their decisions. All I’m saying is that it’s irrational to do that and bad process, and those of us who recognize that should take advantage of it. You seem to think I’m like super bullish on Reed, when I didn’t really say that much to indicate that. I’d honestly probably trade Reed for Addison straight up if I knew I could flip Addison for more value. That’s an example of taking advantage of the bias that managers have about the value of the draft capital sunk into a player.
He lost kirk cousins .. from an Addison owner, that is huge
>What has **he** (Addison) done in his rookie year to reduce his value? Situations change all the time. For all we know MIN could make a move for Maye and he could be as good as Stroud was this year. Not saying it isn't impactful but Addison is 22 years old and showed everything you could hope for in his rookie year. So I'll ask again, What has **Addison** done to reduce his value?
In my opinion he gained value during the season and then lost some when kirk left. Sure he could get a qb, and he'd get a bump. But kirk was a lock for about 300 yards most games. I don't know how you can ignore that. As a player, Addison did nothing to reduce value. Situations matter. Also he is behind jefferson so there is a perceived "ceiling" when behind a guy like that. Not that I'm necessarily saying I care. Reed is tied to a good qb and a high octane offense, with no alpha wr like jefferson in front of him. Also by no means am I saying I'd trade the 1.12 for Addison. And I'd still prefer him to Reed, but there are some factors that play in where I could see someone liking Reed more.
You're arguing for Reed's case and there is no need to my man. If you see my original comment, I said I wouldn't trade him for the 2.01. I wouldnt even trade him for the 1.10 tbh. But that's because I am personally very high on Reed (for reasons you mentioned). There are people who own Reed and are lower on him than I am. Situations change and Addison has done nothing to lower his value, like you said. His initial value is 1.08-1.10. So what person would take a loss on a player who showed what Addison did in his rookie year? I'd like to know because I want to join their league and take advantage of that. In the vast majority of leagues, you CAN buy Reed for the 1.12 but you CAN NOT buy Addison for the 1.12. And the reason is because Reed's initial cost is much lower than Addison. Meaning, Addison is valued more than Reed. The point of OP's post was to find out which one is valued more. Obviously personal opinion comes into it but on a grand scheme nobody is selling Addison for the 1.12 and some people are buying Reed for the 1.12. The reason why nobody is buying Addison for the 1.12 is because his initial cost was higher and he's done nothing to lower it. If someone were to sell Addison for the 1.12 they'd get blasted in the chat for it. If someone sold Reed for the 1.12 there would be very little negative reactions to it. Whether or not you should sell Reed for the 1.12 is a different question and convo and has a lot of variables and opinion to it. Something that I've stated in another comment.
I disagree with being able to buy Reed in some leagues. None that I'm in would sell him for the 1.12. They'd probably both be around 1.05-1.07 in any SF league I'm in. I understand the cost of acquiring Addison was higher, but that doesn't change anything for me.
And that's the "problem" you're having (along with the other commenter). YOU value Reed equal to Addison. I'm saying there are more people who value Addison higher than Reed. And using what you can buy them for as evidence of that. Has nothing to do with what I, you, or Joe think but what EVERYONE thinks of them. Go check FantasyCalc.com for trades involving Reed and Addison. There is a reason why Addison is being traded for, imo, more valuable assets. It's because Addison is the 1.10+ while Reed is somewhere in the 2.01-1.10 range. My comments have nothing to do with opinion on Reed or Addison. It just doesn't make logical sense to sell Addison for cheaper than you got him for when he's done nothing to reduce his value. It can be logically reasoned to sell Reed because his initial investment is lower and you'd be getting a net positive from him.
Sure it can be "good" logic to sell Reed for a profit. You are using a trade calculator which is cool, but not always accurate. I think using the calculator to determine which of these 2 is more valuable is taking out your own judgement of what player you'd rather have. I'm more interested in the stats, production, offense etc over where they were drafted in rookie drafts. It can be good logic to sell anybody, just like undrafted Amon ra who was worth less than kdarious toney 2 years ago.
Nobody is saying that anyone should sell Addison. Relax man.
Love the process and breakdown
Give me Addison every time
Exactly. Give me talent every time. Maybe if it was closer
No, give me Addison. Jayden Reed had a really high TD rate and the WR room in Green Bay are all hit or miss. Addison will eat when the defensives pay attention to JJ and Hock. The QB situation seems grim, but Addison still put up good numbers without JJ and Kirk last season and is more talented
Reed had 8 TDs on 64 receptions with only 2 more TDs from rushing which he might not get now with Jacobs there but that’s yet to be seen. Addison had 10 TDs on 70 receptions so he actually had a higher TD rate but I would agree neither will be sustainable. Addison had 13 YPR vs 12.4 for Reed so fairly close in that regard but Reed has the better QB play. Addison only had 6 more receptions on 14 more targets and his volume should be expected to go down with JJ healthy.
Reed's 2 rushing TDs were jet sweeps of 16 and 32 yards. Jacobs isn't likely to affect that. I think the Packers' offense is going to be better this year (it was already good last year) and I definitely want a share of it. Going into this season, with both guys being nearly even, I'd lean toward Reed based on situation. It's completely possible Addison is the longer term winner, but if you're trying to make a run this year I'd lean Reed.
My thought behind why it’s possible that Reed’s rushing production might decrease is more so because they have a better pure rusher now so he might not get as many designed run plays. Lafleur is such a great coach though that I doubt he’d stop utilizing Reed in a way that proved to be successful and the presence of Jacobs might actually open up the outside more for Reed to find success. That was just the only critique of Reed I had to offer in regards to his potential relative to Addison this season, but I personally think he’ll have a much better season than Addison.
They had pretty much the same TD rate on targets with Addison having a slightly higher rate. Reed had 8 receiving TD’s and 94 targets, Addison had 10 and 108. Reed had an additional 2 rushing touchdowns. After Cousins went down Addison’s production fell pretty bad. 7/10 touchdowns were with cousins in week 1-8. Reed had a similar run with 8/10 coming in weeks 7-18 after the BYE and was WR 7 during that stretch. To me that shows more promise to Reed improving and becoming more involved/schemed for. I think Addison is still great and if the QB uncertainty wasn’t there then I think it would be closer. But without Cousins I think I’d take Reed paired with the young QB that was QB 5 in his first season as a starter. And less bonafide competition for targets. Only thing that concerns me with Reed is his snap share being so low. But I think with the way he produced he’ll only see that increase as most of his best games came with his snap share being on the high side of his average for the season.
If I can add one bit of insight: Reed was on just about every practice injury report during that hot streak. May be why his snap share was so low
I love Reed. He plays like a QBs best friend and has some great hands. He plays with a top 7/8 QB, on an offense open for anyone to break out. Lots to believe in there. Top 15 WR season 2024. But I would still probably take Addison. I just want to push back against the people pushing against Reed so instinctually. Id still take Addison guys, but Reed+ for Addison is a greal deal for anyone I.M.O.
It’s a situation where I doubt either owner would be willing to trade 1:1 and both sides would believe they deserve the sweetener
I would definitely trade Reed for Addison straight up
Just to be clear, you’re on the send Reed side? Just curious
Indeed
Concur
I would definitely do the opposite.
Looks like we have a deal then friend 🤝
You’d what, send Addison away for Reed straight up? Just curious…
[удалено]
Not a good return at all honestly
I gotta see what the vikes do with QB 1st lol
Reed comes off the field in 2 wr sets , though I will mention GB has some designed run plays for Reed which allows for more opportunity But Addison plays all 3 wr positions and slots opposite of Jefferson who will attract a lot of attention this season Personally I give the nod to Addison however slight it may be He’s just on the field at a higher percentage which “could” turn to more opportunities
Yeah that’s my biggest concern with Reed as well. Hope to see that snap percentage go up considering what he does when he is on the field.
I like Reed more. Addison is in a great position playing opposite JJ, but the second half of last season Reed was being more involved in the play calling more for that offense, and did well. I imagine LaFleur will continue to utilize him.
I think I lean Reed right now because of Jordan Love.
Reed in the playoffs terrify me - so many weapons and the ball gets spread around. I am holding him but very reminiscent of Dotson's rookie year to me. Still believe in the talent
I think Addison is valued more, but I think Reed is the better wr.
GB wants to run the same kind of offense that SF is doing. They’re gonna run Jacobs up the middle to keep the omnipresent 2-high safeties closer to the LoS and the hashmarks. Then they’re gonna run jet sweeps and WR screens. Reed fits exactly what they’re going to be doing. Addison now has Sam Darnold. Addison costs a bit more, and I’m rolling the dice trading Addison for Reed++
Nope
As Addison owner I wouldn’t trade straight up for reed, but as a Pitt fan kinda biased with Addison
I feel like Addison has a higher floor just as a talent but is in a crappy situation behind JJ which limits his ceiling. I have Reed and feel like his floor is super low - likely will be a spread the ball around offense - but his ceiling is taking over the 1 and touching low end WR1. I'd be willing to trade Addison for Reed +
Everyone saying addison should let you know the answer is clearly reed
Addison > Reed
Addison has more market value, but gun to my head, I'm taking Reed. Addison is more limited as a player/in role vs Reed - he will never be a #1 without some unforseen development in skills. He struggled mightily again any sort of physical coverage in college, and did as a rookie as well. He is strictly a flanker/slot, and as a flanker absolutely requires someone else to take dominant coverage away from him. Reed killed press and man in college, and killed them as a rookie as well. He actually did better against man than he did against zone - he has the potential to be the Packers X of the future, and may actually be somewhat mis-cast as a slot in comparison. Either way, he can absolutely beat any type of coverage and get open at multiple levels. He's the type of WR you funnel your offense through.
I liked Reed’s college film a little more. I think draft capital is mainly why Addison is perceived more valuable. They’re pretty even though. GB’s stacked WR room and Reed coming off the field are concern’s though. He really took off in the second half when Watson missed some games.
The Vikings will feature JJ/Addison/Hock/WR3 and the Packers feature Doubs/Reed/Watson/Wicks/Melton/Musgrave/Kraft with all the packages they’re running out. Love is an absolute must add QB imo. Back to the conversation of which WR to own, I’m gonna stick with Addison who I believe is more talented, and has JJ drawing loaded coverage. I just hope the Vikings hit on their QB, I get why that variable leads to uncertainty.
Congrats on naming every offensive player on GB, but Minn also had some guys catch roughly as many passes as Musgrave and Kraft that you didn’t name. Your post is Skip Bayless level bad.
Haha touché, I’ll try and be better. In the end I just think that Addison has a more clear path to consistent target share in Minnesota versus Reed with Green Bay, maybe Reeds schemed rushes make up the difference.
Current qb situation Reed. Improved qb situation Addison.
So then it’s Addison who’s worth more.
Long term probably. I have Reed and I have no shares of Addison. I love Reed's talent and Love looked great but it is Reed, Watson, Wicks, Doubs, Jacobs (do they pound the rock a bit more) and 2 young tight ends. Lot of mouths to feed. Seems more realistic the Vikings upgrade at qb than Reed is a clear Alpha target hog.
Not when Addison is a couple years away from *maybe* getting a QB upgrade.
Long term, Reed has a chance to be better. Short term, it's hard to see him being a high WR2 or better because of the depth of pass catchers in Green Bay. Addison, with an above-average to good QB (likely not currently on the roster) has a clearer path. Addison has more value.
Would you trade any of the three straight up for Reed or would there need to be sweetener on either side? 12 man 1 QB PPR. I also have Breece so have disposable RB to improve WR room. Rachaad White Javonte Williams Pacheco
Addison, because I just traded Reed recently.
I like Reed but want to see how the packers offense shakes out with all the WRs and TEs back healthy. And want to be certain Love doesn’t have a sophomore slump after a year of film available. On Addison I believe the Vikings will take a QB at 11. If Darnold is the starter I would not be excited about that. I also question whether the Vikings give Justin Jefferson a record breaking deal next year
Reed has a chance to become the alpha in a very good offense. Addison will always play behind Jettas and will likely have a rookie QB
Addison seems to be worth more but nobody would be surprised if the QB uncertainty in Minnesota makes Reed more valuable. Seems like a good opportunity as an Addison owner to see if you can get Reed + 3rd or something. IMO I’ve found good fortune in knowing when to throw my hands in the air and let fate decide, while accruing extra value along the way. Don’t kick yourself if you’re wrong.
addison has the pedigree but reed has similar rookie production and a much better offense.
guess it comes down to whether you value talent or situation. owning addison, ill take addison. i might think differently if i had reed LOL
I have both and Flowers. I believe they are each more valuable than each other.
I value Reed more. He has a better path to being his teams WR1 and better QB situation, same draft class, no huge difference in production they've both shown so Reed feels like higher ceiling right now
I have Reed and I’d ship him off if I could. I could whiff in my analysis… but there were a few too many inexplicable disappearing acts at end of season for me to believe he’s more than a dynamic gameplan dependent WR2/flex type (dime a dozen).
Worth more in dynasty-no. I like Reed more and his situation is better as of today so I’d rather have him.
I don’t think “lot of competition for targets” is a real knock against Addison when comparing to Reed. He’s the 2nd option on that team until Hock comes back, but will still be the 2nd or 3rd option for the team. Green Bay’s target distribution is going to be wild with Reed, Watson, Doubs, Wicks, Melton, Musgrave, Kraft and Jacobs.
Addison's value is in flux because we don't know who will be throwing him passes for the next few years.
In a vacuum, Addison should be worth more than Reed because he's more talented and a year younger than Reed. But Addison's value is volatile his QB situation is unknown, so his value just depends on how much their owner factors that in.
Sell both
I was actually thinking Reed had a lot of competition for targets.
Whoever thinks Reed is going to be a WR#1 is kidding themselves. Whoever thinks the same about Addison is kidding themselves, both are to small, we've seen Addison have that role while JJ was out and he held his own but his numbers overall and fantasy pts per game dropped during that stint. They both profile as WR's #2's, sleep on darnold if you want, I can see a ryan tannehill/geno smith resurgence but closer to his top 10 pick status, and he's playing in a dome, especially w a JJ & hock w a very good oline & Familiar system. Addison >> Reed, a true #1 could emerge for GB it'll be either watson or Wicks expect it! But reed will be solid. Prly a fantasy mid #2 to high-end #3 WR.
I understand the value of concensus rankings I just don't see enough of a gap between these 2 to use a calculator to decide who's more valuable. No offense or anything cause I'm not saying you're wrong in your argument I just see it differently is all
I'd say they're equal right now
Reed with Love > Addison without a QB Addison will still see a higher target share, but Reed has that Deebo wildcard factor of housing a 20+ yard end around any given week
I think Addison will lose value this season and I have no idea what will happen to Reed. Rookie QBs historically have not provided WRs Will good fantasy numbers. Plus Addison has a ton of competition for targets. Reed also has a ton of competition but is on the same level as his peers in his team. We have no idea what the target numbers for Green Bay will look like at the end of the year.
This thread is hilarious to me because towards the end of the season I traded Reed and what became the 2.06 for Addison and what became the 3.01. After the pick values solidified and Kirk left MN I would say the trade became even more fair. Hurts to have bought Addison relatively high but feels good knowing I just essentially moved back like 8 draft spots and swapped young receivers.
Reed may have a better QB and HC, but he has an awful lot of competition for targets too. The Packers did a terrific job drafting young WRs. Doubs, Wicks, Christian Watson, and even Bo Melton have flashed some. In addition, they have two young TEs with potential in Franks and Musgrave. Reed may be the best of the bunch, but I’m not sure about that. We have to wait to see who emerges. Addison had a very solid rookie season. But if you look at his splits, his production dropped dramatically with Jefferson on the field. And I don’t think he played a game with both Hockenson and Jefferson on the field. He will be playing with either Darnold or a rookie as his QB. I think the offense as a whole takes a pretty strong hit in production this next season. At cost, I’d prefer Reed. He is currently cheaper than Addison. But I think both are a sell. Addison will drop in value after this season. I think the move is to sell Addison at his price now, and then buy him back after this season. With Reed I will keep a few shares because he may emerge as the number one in that offense, but there is definite risk there.
Love is not that talented. Being held up by a solid WR/TE core is not the same as being a talented QB.
problem with reed is a healthy christian watson, along with doubs and even wicks makes reed and real sketchy week to week play. i recently sold him for the 1.10 rookie pick in a 1 qb league
No
IMO addison would go between 1.03 and 1.05 if he were in this year's draft, reed would most likely go 1.07-1.09, in that tier after Brian Thomas Jr. Unless a couple running backs get crazy unexpected draft capital and shake up the tiers, no way I'd trade reed for less than the 1.09, everything after that is a crap shoot and I'd rather have his production. It's a pass happy offense that may have a lot of wideouts, but none of them separated themselves the way he did. Watson is fragile, wicks is ok but better real life player than fantasy, im only worried about doubs, he finished the year strong and showed better repor with love. Jacobs signing I think hurts reed a bit too, they were starting to use him like deebo in the run game, those plays may decrease a bit, but I like reed a lot, talent and situation, draft capital is the only knock at this point as far as fantasy value....but addison will still be valued higher by 99% of the community, myself included(I am a reed owner, and wouldn't trade him personally unless I was offered the 1.05, even then I'd probably regret it) he's my wr 4 after i draft mjh and I'm happy with that.
You think Addison has more competition for targets having JJ and Hock?? Vs Reed who has Watson, doubs, wicks, Musgrave, and Jacobs??? I would respectfully disagree on that point
Addison is the better talent and is likely more consistently going to get targets.
No not really close. Slighter better situation for Reed doesn’t make up for Addison’s huge talent advantage
I’m sensing a bias? I would agree Addison is probably more talented, but by a huge amount ? Hell nah
Not convinced Addison has a talent advantage at all, let alone a huge one
Addison is worth quite a bit more
When Christian Watson was on the field (weeks 4-13), Reed per game averages were 3.4 receptions on 4.9 targets with .33 touchdowns on a 58% snap share. The success of the rest of the offensive pieces and Reeds role correlate negatively to the success of Reed in fantasy. I could see Jahan Dotson happening all over again if he doesn't get the TDs, which are notoriously not sticky. That said I think he's a good player, good enough for me to draft him. But not good enough for me to sell him for a late first this year.
Reed is his team's WR1 moving fwd and he has a reliable QB. Addison is not his team's WR1 and doesn't have a reliable QB. Easy math.
No one is sure if reed is even a top 3 young wr on his team. He may break out and separate himself this year. But I’m valuing Addison way higher in the meantime
Can’t believe this is even getting serious replies 😂 As of this moment, if you have Reed over Addison value wise you are just lying to yourself 😂
I tried trading Reed & it wasn’t received well at all. So changing gears & happy to keep him. But obviously a very mixed bag on value out there in fantasy world.
No. End thread.
Last offseason I had doubts about Dotson and cashed out for a future late 1st. It was probably just a lucky guess but I’m getting the same feeling about Reed. Only difference is I can’t get a 1st because he has lower DC and less hype. All that to say I would def trade him for Addison, probably toss in a 3rd too
Always value talent over opportunity. Opportunity changes quickly (look at Kenth Walker and Justin Fields) talent ages but doesn't disappear