Fantasy Football Championships are won with trades.
These fantasy football trade value charts are based on The Wolf’s Rest Of Season Rankings, who finished 2nd of 172 experts in FantasyPros’ Multi-Year Draft Rankings. These charts adjust values to account for positional need, assigning values based on a 1QB, 12-team, full PPR league, where quarterbacks are generally harder to trade due to a lack of positional need, unlike in Superflex leagues.
Each week throughout the season, these values will be altered to reflect the player’s value for the rest of the season. Be sure to tune back each week throughout the season. We’ll be adjusting the chart, discussing risers & fallers, and other QBs of interest, and providing a refresher on optimal trade strategy. The trade value chart for each position is linked below.
FANTASY FOOTBALL WEEK 10 TRADE VALUE CHART: QUARTERBACKS
Quarterback Riser – Caleb Williams (20-for-34, 280 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT, 5 carries, 53 yards)
Throw in a couple receptions and a receiving score, and you’ve got a completely different player than we’ve seen the past few weeks.
Elite Throw, Elite Touch, Elite Accuracy
— Chase Daniel (@ChaseDaniel) November 3, 2025
99/100 the Bears of old lose this game….what a gutsy performance by Caleb Williams. These are the new #DaBears pic.twitter.com/5TSZcNVPAW
The Bengals’ defensive scheme appeared to focus on keeping Rome Odunze out of the game, which they did; he went catchless on just three targets. The problem is you have to be able to guard the perceived non-alphas in the room, too, which the Bengals couldn’t do. Williams’ big day was linked to huge games from unlikely names like Olamide Zaccheaus (6/58/1) and Colston Loveland (6/118/2), both of whom had never had a big outing before. It showed Williams’ ability to take what the defense gave him, putting him back on our radar as a QB to watch in 1QB leagues.
Quarterback Faller – Jayden Daniels
With Daniels slated to miss around several weeks with a dislocated elbow, his return may come too late for fantasy managers excited to just have gotten him back. He may not return until the fantasy playoffs, meaning his ROS ranking takes a major hit, and fantasy players who have him may be scrambling to replace him to try to get into their playoffs.
Other Quarterbacks Of Interest – Joe Flacco (31-for-47, 470 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT) / Daniel Jones (31-for-50, 342 yards, 1 TD, 3 INT, 3 carries, 4 yards, 1 TD)
The Bengals offense since Flacco arrived in week 6 pic.twitter.com/H4pyJHQRsa
— Goodberry (@JoeGoodberry) November 3, 2025
Having not finished below QB7 the last three weeks, it’s tough to know exactly where to put Flacco in the Rest Of Season Rankings considering Joe Burrow‘s eventual return. But if he’s going to play at at least a low-end QB1 level, he has to be considered in possible trade talks if you or a league mate has at least a temporary need for a starting fantasy QB.
Could the cinderella story be at the beginning of its end for Jones? There’s a chance his early-season success was due in significant part to a soft schedule, including games against the Dolphins, Raiders, and Titans (twice), whereas a trip to face the Steelers’ beatable defense had him off-balance. He had five total turnovers and was sacked five times, reminiscent of the Daniel Jones we knew in New York. Did the Steelers unlock a blueprint for how to handle the Colts version of Jones?
Trade Strategy Reminders
Aim To Fill Holes On Your Roster, And Your Trade Partner’s
In general, trade offers that clearly benefit both teams’ overall value, not just your own, will make a trade partner more cooperative. However, being mindful of depth concerns with all teams involved in a trade will only increase the chance of that cooperation. Be mindful not just of weak positional depth, but a surplus of positional depth, with all your league’s rosters. You might have a shortlist of players you’d love to be able to trade for, but if what you have to offer isn’t what your trade partner needs, your offers will likely fall on deaf ears. Say you’re weak at RB, and have a surplus at WR. Teams that are strong at RB, but weak at WR, are naturally more eager to haggle.
Never Mention The Words “But The Trade Calculator Says”
Charts and calculators are a reference that can help find ideal trades, but they’re not gospel, and trying to make your potential trade partner think otherwise could shut the door on negotiations real quick. Even if your charts/calculators show the trade offer to be in your league mate’s favor, they probably have tools and references of their own, and the next time “But the trade calculator says” changes someone’s mind, may be the first time.
Be Careful How Low-Ball Your Offers Are
Speaking of bad faith, a trade offer that is too clearly in your favor puts you in danger of potential trade partners shutting you out not just for that particular trade negotiation, but any future ones as well. It’s a great feeling to get those kinds of lopsided trade deals, but the ones that are so bad they only go through 1 percent of the time likely aren’t worth hitting the send button to begin with. At their core, fantasy players aren’t complete masochists; they just want to have fun with it, and somebody sending them insulting offers isn’t fun.
WEEK 10 TRADE VALUE CHART: QUARTERBACKS
| Rank | Player Name | Team | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: Top QBs | |||
| 1 | Josh Allen | BUF | 764 |
| 2 | Lamar Jackson | BAL | 756 |
| 3 | Patrick Mahomes II | KC | 651 |
| 4 | Drake Maye | NE | 644 |
| 5 | Jalen Hurts | PHI | 636 |
| Tier 2: QB1 Options | |||
| 6 | Justin Herbert | LAC | 480 |
| 7 | Baker Mayfield | TB | 474 |
| 8 | Bo Nix | DEN | 403 |
| 9 | Dak Prescott | DAL | 398 |
| Tier 3: Fringe QB1s | |||
| 10 | Daniel Jones | IND | 376 |
| 11 | Jaxson Dart | NYG | 358 |
| 12 | Joe Flacco | CIN | 353 |
| 13 | Caleb Williams | CHI | 298 |
| 14 | Jared Goff | DET | 289 |
| 15 | Matthew Stafford | LAR | 280 |
| Tier 4: Middling Backups | |||
| 16 | Sam Darnold | SEA | 215 |
| 17 | Jordan Love | GB | 204 |
| 18 | Justin Fields | NYJ | 179 |
| 19 | C.J. Stroud | HOU | 177 |
| 20 | Trevor Lawrence | JAC | 159 |






























