Drew Brees is Ridiculous Good (1 Viewer)

[Tom Baker]

McNabb, eh. That's odd. As a student of historical trends, you should know that the trend since 2004 has been for McNabb to make a season-ending exit right around Week 10. To paraphrase something you said to me a few posts ago: "It's called history. You can ignore it and get burned trying to chase 2004's numbers." Ah, but maybe there's a trend I'm missing, one that says that QBs who spend the last half of two consecutive years on IR come back to finish in the top two the following year . . .

I don't try to predict injury, I simply recognize the risk and cover myself. But like I've said many times before in other threads, McNabb for 10 weeks plus 6 weeks of another starter (like Pennington or Alex Smith guys you can get in rounds 10+) will outproduce what Drew Brees did in 2006, let alone a 2007 regression season. You see, I'm not really chasing 2004 since McNabb was also pretty good in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2006.

This is the thread that keeps on giving. I love the way the fabricated phrase "regression season" is tossed around as a way of discounting the history of some players, but not others. Even Yudkin has recognized how pathetic his original argument was and has tried to cobble together something that sounds like coherent analysis (albeit while still providing no substantive evidence to support his assertions). It's all quite delightful . . .

 

[Bri]

it's all quite delightful

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

If you're using Yudkin's rankings, you're taking Brady, Palmer, Bulger, Kitna, or Romo before you take Brees, because, well, Brees had such a good year last year . . .

Actually, there are other "reasons" why I don't think Brees will do as well this year, but you won't like those any better than the historical drop-off theory.I personally think the Saints offense played above their head last year in terms of their passing attack and that their receiving corps is young and collectively will not do as well. I also believe that Bush will run the ball a lot more and see fewer passes, thus the team will run the ball more. I also think that the rest of the league will take the Saints for real and that N.O. won't score as many points this year. The impact of Eric Johnson could also be minimal. He had one great season but missed two full years. And in his good season, SF had very few offensive weapons. To expect him to make a major contribution may be more wishful thinking.But feel free to ignore my opinion and my rankings if for whatever reason you don't like how I conclude what they should be.

This I can actually understand. I don't agree, but I can at least respect it when you tell me a series of reasons. Giving me some silly number crunch that has no basis in the situation Brees is actually in doesn't make any sense. But these reasons do. Again, I happen to think that Payton's made it clear that he's not going to back off of the passing game, but the Saints certainly have a huge amount of talent at the RB spot and I can see why many people think he'll end up rushing more regardless. Don't get so huffy. You were called out on a legitimate concern with your reasoning. That doesn't mean people are randomly discounting what you say. What you said in that instance happened to sound pretty ridiculous to some people. In a couple of months when you have some perspective, - as we all will - you'll at least realize what we're saying. And hopefully you'll feel that this last post I just quoted was just a tad over the top.

 

[David Yudkin]

I suspect that Brees will be the classic case of overpaying the year after a season with great production. Basically, people will be drafting his 2006 numbers, not his 2007 numbers.

I know it's only one game, but if nothing else this is why I don't bother looking at preseason numbers (when Brees looking phenomenal). Brees is way better than he was tonight, but as I said a couple of pages ago in this thread, nothing major has to change for a player to perform at a lower level from one year to the next.

 

[Knight who says Ni]

As a Brees owner, I am obviously looking for some positive spin after this game - so here goes: if there is one thing I have learned about FF it is not to panic after the first week. Last year, NO played CLE week 1 and Brees put up a similar stat-line: 170 yards, 1 int, 1TD. Against the Browns, for crying out loud! He went on to have a pretty decent year ... also, as I mentioned in the Oakland defense thread, Indy had the 2nd best pass defense last year, and looked stout last night.

At least this is what I told myself last night to help get sleep

Ni

 

[Fantasy Fix Fred]

Drew Brees looked awful against the colts defense...poor throws and decisions. There is absolutely nothing positive he or the saints did in this game. Brees put up great numbers last year but its 2007 now, could this be a trend...

...worried

 

[BeaverCleaver]

if there is one thing I have learned about FF it is not to panic after the first week.

 

[playin4beer]

As a Brees owner, I am obviously looking for some positive spin after this game - so here goes: if there is one thing I have learned about FF it is not to panic after the first week. Last year, NO played CLE week 1 and Brees put up a similar stat-line: 170 yards, 1 int, 1TD. Against the Browns, for crying out loud! He went on to have a pretty decent year ... also, as I mentioned in the Oakland defense thread, Indy had the 2nd best pass defense last year, and looked stout last night. At least this is what I told myself last night to help get sleepNi

Brees owner here....I'm not worried.I picked him up off waivers last year because the guy that drafted him, dropped him after the first week. I asked that same guy today if I should drop him after last night's game. I honestly didn't expect much last night after all the pre-game hype...the crowd was ROCKIN! I didn't expect him to only get me ONE stinking point, but I'm not too worried either.

 

[SNK]

The title of this thread should be changed to Indianapolis is ridiculous good. Their D made a team with tons of weapons look downright foolish. Don't fret Brees owners, I would love to have him on my team. He helped me win my league last year, the guy is a stud and I don't care if he sucked it up in one game.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Bump - it's a amazing what a month can do to an outlook and perception.

 

[duaneok66]

agreed . . . the guy is missing Colston and Henderson and it doesnt matter; heck - he's missing his starting LT (he did get sacked twice though) . . .agree with Brees at #2 . . .

what an excellent observation . . .wow, I should ban myself . . .

 

[AnonymousBob]

Another good call by Yudkin.

 

[JMJ]

 

[newteech]

Another good call by Yudkin.

okay, I guess I'm ready to subscribe to the "#### is bound to happen" theory

 

[Snotbubbles]

McNabb, eh. That's odd. As a student of historical trends, you should know that the trend since 2004 has been for McNabb to make a season-ending exit right around Week 10. To paraphrase something you said to me a few posts ago: "It's called history. You can ignore it and get burned trying to chase 2004's numbers." Ah, but maybe there's a trend I'm missing, one that says that QBs who spend the last half of two consecutive years on IR come back to finish in the top two the following year . . .

I don't try to predict injury, I simply recognize the risk and cover myself. But like I've said many times before in other threads, McNabb for 10 weeks plus 6 weeks of another starter (like Pennington or Alex Smith guys you can get in rounds 10+) will outproduce what Drew Brees did in 2006, let alone a 2007 regression season. You see, I'm not really chasing 2004 since McNabb was also pretty good in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2006.

This is the thread that keeps on giving. I love the way the fabricated phrase "regression season" is tossed around as a way of discounting the history of some players, but not others. Even Yudkin has recognized how pathetic his original argument was and has tried to cobble together something that sounds like coherent analysis (albeit while still providing no substantive evidence to support his assertions). It's all quite delightful . . .

Paging Tom Baker...Mr. Tom Baker.I wonder if you're ready to subscribe to the regression season theory yet. Or do you still think Brees is the #2 QB?

 

[Tom Baker]

Not sure what all the buzz is about. My team is 3-0 and leads the league in total points, and I've started Brees all three games. No worries.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

Its becoming more and more apparant that Drew Brees is the #2 QB in fantasy this year. Just yesterday in a different thread I agreed that Carson Palmer was the clear cut #2 but Brees is just lights out both last year and carrying into this year.

Drew Brees' statistics through 3 preseason games thus far:

Game 1

17/19 - 182 yards - 1 TD

Game 2

6/6 - 55 yards

Game 3

12/14 - 118 yards

Let me do the math for you:

35/39 (89.7 completion % ) - 355 yards - 1 TD - 0 INT

That is consistency people. New Orleans' offense shows absolutely no signs of slowing down from where they left off last season. You can currently draft Brees as QB #4 behind Peyton, CP, and Brady ...... I doubt that will last long.

preseason stats love people who follow them. Brees Suks

 

[fsufan]

i am benching brees for anderson. brees is the bust of the year

 

[Tom Baker]

Okay. Let's talk David Yudkin's "Regression" Theory.

Drew Brees 2006:

4456 total yards

26 total TDs

Drew Brees 2007:

4480 total yards

29 total TDs

Go . . .

 

[[scooter]]

Okay. Let's talk David Yudkin's "Regression" Theory.Drew Brees 2006: 4456 total yards26 total TDsDrew Brees 2007:4480 total yards29 total TDsGo . . .

Ummm.....he regressed the first half of the season before coming on strong toward the end?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

he had waaaaaay too many turnovers this year.

 

[David Yudkin]

Okay. Let's talk David Yudkin's "Regression" Theory.Drew Brees 2006: 4456 total yards26 total TDsDrew Brees 2007:4480 total yards29 total TDsGo . . .

You don't think that losing his two starting RBs had anything to do with him having to pass the ball a lot more later in the year? With Bush and Deuce playing: 0.33 TD per gameWith just Bush playing: 2.1 TD per gameWith neither playing: 2.0 TD per game

 

[Tom Baker]

Okay. Let's talk David Yudkin's "Regression" Theory.Drew Brees 2006: 4456 total yards26 total TDsDrew Brees 2007:4480 total yards29 total TDsGo . . .

You don't think that losing his two starting RBs had anything to do with him having to pass the ball a lot more later in the year? With Bush and Deuce playing: 0.33 TD per gameWith just Bush playing: 2.1 TD per gameWith neither playing: 2.0 TD per game

I think that his fantasy totals are virtually identical to, and in some scoring systems even better than, last years totals. I think that this means that, in fantasy terms, Drew Brees did not regress this year. Don't you?