Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Drew Brees is Ridiculous Good (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JMJ
- Start date
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I draft on a tiering system and strive to get the last guy in that tier. I have Brees ranked 7th, although I would probably draft him 8th (slotting McNabb over him). I think he will be the least productive of the 6-7 guys taken after Manning. I would probably slot him in the third tier (having Palmer, Brady, and Bulger in the second tier). The reason I would probably take McNabb ahead of Brees is that I think on a PPG basis McNabb will do better (but I don't expect McNabb to play every game). Overall, I don't have Brees in my Top 60, so probably in the 6th round in a 12-team league (which he probably won't last that long). That also explains why he is on none of my 12 teams for this season. And again, it's not that I don't like him, only that someone in all my leagues liked him way better than I did.
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
Apparently I need to use a large sarcasm smiley. No one's forgetting about Deuce and Bush. They're part of the reason that Brees will be so effective. That's what I'm saying.yellowdog said:
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
No, it doesn't. It creates his upside. Defenses keying on the running back means that there will be larger soft spots in zones and chances to get a step on the defender in man. It creates space, and Brees is an accurate passer who spends a lot of time picking apart the interior of a defense. Deuce and Bush are the difference between a 2-foot window and a 3-inch window to fit a football through between the hash marks.kensat30 said:
saintfool
Dead sexy
That HOF game should be totally disregarded. They had been in camp about a week at that point. What has come out since then is that David has been more than capable on this team. He's proven to be a steadying influence, which is what the front office wanted out of him. The defense has an infusion of young talent at CB with the coaches talking alot about Usama Young and David Jones. KK will overtake Bullocks, if not on opening day then shortly afterwards. Bullocks was one of the reasons Fred Thomas looked so bad at times last year, imo. Brees' stats will be comparable. Maybe slightly fewer attempts but with a better % completed. He's got better weapons at TE and WR than lat year. Reggie's got another year (there has been talk about Reggie running more, like a conventional offense, but who knows...) under his belt too. I love him in this offense this year, especially with a real pass catching TE.
newteech
Footballguy
What exactly do you see that will make 2007 different from 2006?I agree you shouldn't draft guys based on last year's performance, but as many people have stated already in this thread, there is nothing here to base a lowered projection on.More time since his injury, 2 sophmore playmakers with a season under their belt, new TE, a year of learning the system, etc. etc. etc
dirtywaters20
Footballguy
Can't the same be said for Bulger? Historically he's been brittle and been a little careless with the ball.
flufhed
Footballguy
My gut tells me to stay away from Bulger this year, at least at his ADP.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
What changed for the Colts or Vikings from 2004 to 2005? Marino from 1984 to 1985? Etc.? Things don't need to change for someone to regress back to a more normal production level. Brees had the 18th best season for passing yards in a season and he's going to match that or do better?That's on par with a WR having 1555 receiving yards or a RB having 1808 rushing yards (both the #18 best at their positions). QBs have been harder pressed to repeat those lofty numbers the year after (for whatever reason).
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Bulger actually did worse than he normally did in terms of Y/A and Completion % last year (in addition to passing yards and passing TD per game).Ignoring two games where he played a handful of plays, he's AVERAGED 280 passing yards and 1.64 passing TD per game over his career. That works out to 4,480 passing yards and 26 passing TD per 16 game season. His 2006 season was BELOW his career averages . . . he just happened to stay healthy for the entire season for once.To the letter of the statistical law, Bulger likely should be expected to fall off for whatever reason. His bugaboo over his career has been his health, so that is probably the most likely culprit if Bulger were to have lower totals this year. But I have little doubt that on a per game basis Bulger will continue to be as productive as he's been the past 5 years on a PPG basis.
hoopvillian
Footballguy
AJ did what he could. If you remember, Brees was ####TY up until the year we drafted Rivers. If Brees had shown the skills he's showing now one year earlier, we would have ended up with Larry Fitzgerald instead of Rivers and the Chargers would probably won the superbowl last year.
Brees didn't start playing well in San Diego until a fire was lit under his ### by the drafting of Rivers.
Brees didn't start playing well in San Diego until a fire was lit under his ### by the drafting of Rivers.
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
1. Colts:In 2005, the Colts beat the everloving hell out of everyone. They didn't lose until week 15. This happened because the Colts made a complete adjustment to their game plan. They started grinding out the wins instead of scoring quickly. They realized that the Defense needs the rest that comes with long drives. To that effect, the Colts began to utilize shorter, more West-Coast style passing even than they had previously. Additionally, Manning was pulled in the midst of a lot of games that year because of huge leads. In fact, if you add in the extra yardage that Sorgi had over what he'd thrown for in 2004, the final total yardage for Manning would be over 4000 yards.2. Vikings:In 2005, there was a slight turnover in the receiving corps. There was this one guy who played for the Vikings in 2004 who played for Oakland the next year. He made a big difference.3. Marino:1985 was a serious injury year for Miami receivers, as I recall. Duper was out half the year.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
My point was that I could come up with way more examples of guys that did worse that were elite performers one year and not nearly as good the next, for whatever reason. Manning threw for more than 20 fewer TD the next year. I could care less WHY that happened, only that it did happen.As for the Moss-less Vikings, it's funny how in some cases he's the mighty all world Moss, but once he suited up for OAK he became the useless piece of turd Moss. (Not singling you out, only that once he left MIN he suddenly became this major liability well past his prime with a huge decrease in skills and abilities.) And while we're on the subject, Moss was a much smaller part of the MIN offense in 2004 than ever before.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Again, another example of "things happen" that didn't happen the season before. There are any number of reasons why players don't do as well the following year, and it could very well have nothing to do with them directly.This year, maybe some WR or OLmen will get hurt. Maybe Horn was a bigger cog in the offense than we give him credit for. Maybe Colston is not as good as his stats were. Maybe the defense will be better and the team will run way more. Maybe the schedule will be tougher this year. Maybe they won't sneak up on anyone this time around. Maybe the reopening of the Superdome and return to N.O. effect will be minimized. Maybe Brees bangs up his thumb on his throwing hand. Maybe the Saints were a one year wonder.I know that none of this individually had much traction in an argument, but the point is anything can happen that didn't happen last year. That's likely not the explanation you were looking for, but that's just the way things historically have played out.
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
Why even play fantasy football if this is the mindset? You could say this about any player in the league. I know it's a little different cause Brees' yards were astronomical and he is most likely to come down but I just think that's a bad mindset to have about any player.
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
Your point was - and I'm quoting here - "Things don't need to change for someone to regress back to a more normal production level." As your examples of that, you used several situations in which things changed dramatically. That's a little weird. And a lot wrong. I'm not looking for any explanation. I, in fact, gave you one. Which you apparently weren't looking for.
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
You can single me out all you want. He's on my dynasty team. In OAK, he's not a useless piece of turd, he's a guy who works for the most dismal franchise in the league and has no motivation to work. As we'll all see this coming season, that's going to change with a contender.
Last edited by a moderator:
Afro Samurai
Footballguy
Brees does look ridiculously good and it makes you wonder what things would've been like had he been in a West Coast type offense since his career began.
I'm trying to contain my excitement but the Saints offense looks close to unstoppable this year. It doesn't seem to matter who's playing at WR, RB, or OL, they just keep chugging along. Even if Brees experiences a fairly significant drop-off from pre-season to reg season he'll probably still complete 75-78% of his passes.
I'm trying to contain my excitement but the Saints offense looks close to unstoppable this year. It doesn't seem to matter who's playing at WR, RB, or OL, they just keep chugging along. Even if Brees experiences a fairly significant drop-off from pre-season to reg season he'll probably still complete 75-78% of his passes.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Yeah, I was screaming at the TV when they drafted Jamar Fletcher over him and then screaming just as loud when they went with Cpepp over him.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
If you want the numbers crunched, here's what I said earlier this preseason:Brees became only the 20th QB to throw for 4,400 yards in a season. Only two were able to hit that level again and only three others could even get 4,000 passing yards the following year. On five occasions, a QB played stayed healthy and dropped off by over 1,000 passing yards. With only about 25% of those players even able to hit 4,000 yards. He may be in for another solid campaign this year, but ranking in the Top Three again will be extremely tough.
Classic case of outsmarting oneself with stats. The reasoning here is quite silly.By the way, I notice that you don't have Bulger sliding down the rankings. Does your drop-off theory apply to QBs who hit 4400 yards, but not to those who hit 4300? If so, I guess it's a good thing for Manning that he finished at 4397 passing yards. Another three yards passing and you'd have had to drop him from the top spot in your rankings . . .
Last edited by a moderator:
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
Okay, cool. Let's crunch the numbers. But just to be fair, let's crunch them with some situations, shall we?1. D Marino 1984 5084 - Discussed above2. K Warner 2001 4830 - Began his run of injuries the next season. He has never started a full season since 2001.3. D Fouts 1981 4802 - Began his injuries the next season. He never started a full season again.4. D Marino 1986 4746 - Duper was healthy again in 1986, proving that this was a big part of the issue in 1985. In 1987, Marino played only 12 games.5. D Culpepper 2004 4717 - Was injured the next season and has not started a full season since6. D Fouts 1980 4715 - threw for more yards the next season than he did in this season7. W Moon 1991 4690 - Drew Hill went to Atlanta the next season. Hill was a 1000-yard receiver for Moon in each of the previous two years8. W Moon 1990 4689 - Think he did okay the next season9. R Gannon 2002 4689 - Never started another full season10. N Lomax 1984 4614 - Well, you got me here. Neil Lomax just sucked for the rest of his career. Of course, it didn't really help that he was playing for the Cardinals. And most of his passes were to the running backs. Frankly, it's a miracle he threw for 4000 yards in 1984. If you look at the stats from that year, it's pretty obvious that this year is a serious anomaly.11. T Green 2004 4591 - He threw for 4000 yards the next season, so not exactly a bust. Still, definitely not as good a year. Of course, he lost his starting job the year after that.12. P Manning 2004 4557 - Discussed above13. D Bledsoe 1994 4555 - Peerless Price caught 94 balls for 1252 yards this year. He was slightly less helpful to Bledsoe the next year in Atlanta.14. L Dickey 1983 4458 - The Packers were very careful to rein in Dickey after this season. It looks like a great season, right? Yeah, not so much. He threw 29 INTs that season, and the Packers missed the post-season.15. D Marino 1994 4453 - didn't play a full schedule the next season, and was still only 350 yards from another 4000 yard season. Obviously nearing the end of an amazing career at this point.16. S Beuerlein 1999 4436 - two words: Patrick Jeffers. The amazing career of a former walk-on ended, for all intents and purposes, after this season. This guy worked harder than anyone I've seen to make it in the NFL. He's currently suing the Panthers' doctors (he withdrew it but plans to refile). He caught a total of fourteen passes after this season. A total of 21 before this season. He caught 63 balls with over a 17-yard per catch average in 1999.17. D Marino 1988 4434 - again, Duper was hurt the next year. And Marino was STILL only 3 yards from 4000.18. D Brees 2006 4418 - We'll see19. P Manning 2000 4413 - He threw for over 4100 yards the next season.20. B Favre 1995 4413 - Robert Brooks, Favre's 1500-yard receiver from 1995 - played in 7 games the next season. No one broke 1000 yards, particularly because a young Antonio Freeman, the leading receiver in 96, caught 56 balls and played only 12 games. When his receivers had matured, Favre was back over 4000 yards in two seasons. He was still only 150 yards or so away in 1996. Even with no real receivers.Which of these is the reason you think Brees will not do well?
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Did you see however many posts above where I showed that Bulger actually did WORSE last year on average than in his other years?
Yes. Your analysis is hardly what one would call consistent. The two QBs were very close statistically (4300 and 24 TDs for Bulger; 4400 and 26 for Brees). Both are healthy and in essentially identical situations to a year ago. Yet you consider past success as an indicator of future success for Bulger ("I have little doubt that on a per game basis Bulger will continue to be as productive as he's been the past 5 years on a PPG basis.") and Manning, while bizarrely citing past success as a predictor of lesser future production for Brees.
Mr. Bill O'Reilly
Footballguy
I don't think so, Rivers is better NOW IMO. Saints have better wide receivers and a more dangerous pass catching RB, not too mention they have a better offensive scheme... Rivers went 14-2 in his first year and looked like Peyton Manning's cousin or something.
gman8343
What would Lemmy do?
Maybe it's cause Manning & Bulger have been very good fantasy producers for more than one year. Brees had a couple of solid years in SD, but nothing like last season. When healthy, Bulger has been consistantly very good. Just a thought...
If that's the argument, then you say, "Brees had a nice year, but it was an aberration and won't be repeated for the following reasons . . ." That's not the argument Yudkin is making.
newteech
Footballguy
You're contradicting yourself Mr. Yudkin.First you say you shouldn't entirely base a player's projection on his prior year results. ( I most definitely agree)Then you give us examples where QBs (when they are examined by their prior year results) in this situation performed poorly.You can't have it both ways.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Look, all I'm saying is that history has been unkind in QB repeating elite level performances from one year to the next. There could be a million reasons WHY that happened, but the fact of the matter is that that's how things turned out.In Bulger's case, all I'm saying is his production level last year was on par with what he's done every other season with the exception that he played the entire year which he had not done before. I expect Bulger will continue to do what he's done for 5 years now. However, in his case surviving the entire season has been a challenge, so it's very possible that he could continue to do well on a per game basis yet not play in enough games to have the same year end totals. In Bulger's case, I think his health directly will be the biggest question on whether he can have a similar output.Did Brees have a great year last year? Of course he did. Could he do as well as he did last year? Of course he could. But a lot went right for him to produce those numbers including health of himself and his surrounding cast. Can I point to any one reason why he would do worse? No. Is there anything scientific to suggest that he will do worse? No. But the math and the history seem to show that the likelihood of a repeat are not that high.Just like Peyton Manning after 2004. I said if I were to set an over/under line for his passing TD total the following year I would have set it at 35 and that would be a sucker bet because everyone would take the over. I also said that I felt the REAL over/under should have been 30 TD and to take the under. The planets had aligned in such a way that IMO it was unlikely that Manning would repeat his 2004 performance. Was there anything to point to as a reason? No.Who knows. Maybe the Saints will actually turn out to be as prolific a passing team as the Rams have been for almost 10 years and maybe Brees will turn out to be able to sustain a pace of 290+ passing yards a game this season. He certainly didn't come close to that in SD but I'm not sure that we can compare the two. By the way, that would be 30 yards a game better than Peyton Manning has averaged over his career.You're contradicting yourself Mr. Yudkin.First you say you shouldn't entirely base a player's projection on his prior year results. ( I most definitely agree)Then you give us examples where QBs (when they are examined by their prior year results) in this situation performed poorly.You can't have it both ways.
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
My point is, I'm not going to pass on Brees based on the assumption that he or his WRs will get hurt. That's just bad Fantasy Football in my opinion. So I go down the checklist of reasons that others failed in the past.1. Did they trade his go-to guy? Nope. Colston and Bush were his go-to guys.2. Does he play for the Cardinals? Does he traditionally suck like Neil Lomax? Is he in the position where he'll be losing his job soon due to age like Trent Green? Nope.3. Are they changing his gameplan because the reasons he threw for a bunch of yards are the same reasons that the team ultimately failed that season? Nope.Well, then what's the reason? Why will he fail? Really, it's most likely to be injury if it doesn't happen. Either to him or to his receivers. And as I said, that's not how I play FF.David Yudkin said:Look, all I'm saying is that history has been unkind in QB repeating elite level performances from one year to the next. There could be a million reasons WHY that happened, but the fact of the matter is that that's how things turned out.In Bulger's case, all I'm saying is his production level last year was on par with what he's done every other season with the exception that he played the entire year which he had not done before. I expect Bulger will continue to do what he's done for 5 years now. However, in his case surviving the entire season has been a challenge, so it's very possible that he could continue to do well on a per game basis yet not play in enough games to have the same year end totals. In Bulger's case, I think his health directly will be the biggest question on whether he can have a similar output.Did Brees have a great year last year? Of course he did. Could he do as well as he did last year? Of course he could. But a lot went right for him to produce those numbers including health of himself and his surrounding cast. Can I point to any one reason why he would do worse? No. Is there anything scientific to suggest that he will do worse? No. But the math and the history seem to show that the likelihood of a repeat are not that high.Just like Peyton Manning after 2004. I said if I were to set an over/under line for his passing TD total the following year I would have set it at 35 and that would be a sucker bet because everyone would take the over. I also said that I felt the REAL over/under should have been 30 TD and to take the under. The planets had aligned in such a way that IMO it was unlikely that Manning would repeat his 2004 performance. Was there anything to point to as a reason? No.Who knows. Maybe the Saints will actually turn out to be as prolific a passing team as the Rams have been for almost 10 years and maybe Brees will turn out to be able to sustain a pace of 290+ passing yards a game this season. He certainly didn't come close to that in SD but I'm not sure that we can compare the two. By the way, that would be 30 yards a game better than Peyton Manning has averaged over his career.newteech said:Tom Baker said:You're contradicting yourself Mr. Yudkin.First you say you shouldn't entirely base a player's projection on his prior year results. ( I most definitely agree)Then you give us examples where QBs (when they are examined by their prior year results) in this situation performed poorly.You can't have it both ways.
dirtywaters20
Footballguy
That would be a legitimate argument if Brees was still in San Diego playing under Marty Schottenheimer. I would also venture that his numbers would equal or exceed Bulger's if he'd been running Martz' offense.gman8343 said:
The Man with the Plan
Footballguy
I can understand both sides of the argument.
David Yudkin is saying that history has shown that things happen and players who put up historically immense seasons tend to fall off the next season and as a result people are overpaying for Drew Brees based on last season.
Others such as Newteech and Pygmy Marmoset are saying that there have been legitimate reasons why a player hasn't played as well from a career year the next season. And seeing as how none of these factors as of yet have affected Drew Brees he should be expected to have another great season. I'm not sure on their thoughts on when he should be drafted so I won't assume for them.
Drew Brees could have a great year (I think he can be the #1 qb) but for me I think that for what you have to pay he's not worth the risk that he could have a down season or bust altogether. Quarterback is not that important a position to me where I'd use that high of a pick (3rd round) on a player.
As much as I respect players like Manning, Palmer, Brady, and Brees, honestly they're barely on my draft board. If they fall to some ridiculous round (like Manning in the 3rd which I know won't happen) then I'll take a look. Other than that it's just not worth it. History has shown that you can find equal if not better qbs in later rounds.
David Yudkin is saying that history has shown that things happen and players who put up historically immense seasons tend to fall off the next season and as a result people are overpaying for Drew Brees based on last season.
Others such as Newteech and Pygmy Marmoset are saying that there have been legitimate reasons why a player hasn't played as well from a career year the next season. And seeing as how none of these factors as of yet have affected Drew Brees he should be expected to have another great season. I'm not sure on their thoughts on when he should be drafted so I won't assume for them.
Drew Brees could have a great year (I think he can be the #1 qb) but for me I think that for what you have to pay he's not worth the risk that he could have a down season or bust altogether. Quarterback is not that important a position to me where I'd use that high of a pick (3rd round) on a player.
As much as I respect players like Manning, Palmer, Brady, and Brees, honestly they're barely on my draft board. If they fall to some ridiculous round (like Manning in the 3rd which I know won't happen) then I'll take a look. Other than that it's just not worth it. History has shown that you can find equal if not better qbs in later rounds.
az_prof
Footballguy
I really appreciate Yudkin's analyses and find them worth reading even when I disagree; much of the time I agree with him. But this criticism is straight on: this is not logically consistent.The bottom line is that while historical statistics can be suggestive, you always have to look at the specific situation. In Brees case, this was not his first good year, although it was his best. But all the other variables are the same or better: adding Eric Johnson, Meachem, other young WRs like Colston, Henderson, Copper, and Moore all more experienced; Bush not a rookie anymore; another year in the offense. I haven't looked at his schedule but that would be another variable to consider whether he will regress or not. Now, if Colston or Bush or Brees himself get injured, all bets are off. And the risk of injury is itself one of the main reasons people don't often repeat these kinds of monster seasons.newteech said:Tom Baker said:You're contradicting yourself Mr. Yudkin.First you say you shouldn't entirely base a player's projection on his prior year results. ( I most definitely agree)Then you give us examples where QBs (when they are examined by their prior year results) in this situation performed poorly.You can't have it both ways.
Great debate, guys. I've started to come around on the Saints offense; I had them pegged for a big decline, for the same reasons Yudkin outlined, but you've convinced me that this may not be the case. You can't expect an increase, of course, but the decline may be pretty mild -- just 5-10% off last year's numbers and Brees & co are still worth the high picks.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Isn't that the point Yudkin's trying to make. He doesn't know the reason why Brees won't do better but it could be any number of factors. Injury (both to Brees or to another important player). Playcalling changes (going from passing more to running more). Loss of veteran player (Joe Horn) and the inability of of the younger players to step up. Going 13-1 and locking up the the #1 seed and not playing weeks 16 and 17. Who knows?Really the point isn't will Drew Brees throw for 4000 yards. If Brees has 4000 yards and 28 TDs that's still a good season, but is that worth taking as the 2nd QB off the board and in the 3rd round? The only way he justifies being selected as the #2 QB is if he at least matches last years numbers and when 17 of the 19 previous players failed to do that, for whatever reason you have to play the odds.
Pygmy Marmoset
Footballguy
Again, that's a point someone could make, and it looks like that's the point he's trying to make now. But when this conversation started, his point was "Things don't need to change for someone to regress back to a more normal production level." And I call BS on that. Injuries are a change. Trading your best receiver is a change. Getting old enough that you should be thinking about retirement is a change. Now, being Neil Lomax isn't a change, but it's a damned unfortunate situation.Also, don't get me wrong, I loved having Joe Horn, but he wasn't exactly a force to be reckoned with last season after his injury. He was fourth on the team in receiving yards and third in catches and receiving TDs. He had exactly one more TD than Mike Karney. He would not have been a starter this year.
And this is what makes his "analysis" laughable.
So playing the odds means taking someone else as the #2 QB? Someone who is coming off a less productive year than Brees had? And the reason for doing so is simply that Brees was too good last year, and therefore some unidentifiable bad thing has to occur and limit his success this year? Oh, and this bizarre theory only applies to Brees, and not to Bulger and Manning. That is some ####ed up logic . . .
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
It's called history and regression to the norm. You can ignore it or get burned trying to chase last years numbers. The year Manning threw 49 TDs did you peg him as the #1 QB the next year. Or how about Daunte Culpepper that same year. Both put up numbers that were outside their norms. Both regressed. Point of this is don't take Brees as the #2 QB. History says there's an 89% chance of him regressing. And it will be much more damaging to take him as the #2 QB in the third round and have him regress than it would be to not take him and grab a Bulger, Hasselbeck, McNabb, Kitna or whoever, have him match his numbers from last season.ETA: Taking Bulger, Hasselbeck, McNabb or Kitna in a later round, say 4-6.
Last edited by a moderator:
So let's say your pick comes up in the fourth round of your draft. The only QB taken so far is Manning, and you've decided you're taking a QB here. Who do you take?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 . . .
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
No. I take either my second RB or my second WR here and wait until round 5 for my QB.
Your evasion is telling.So let's say your pick comes up in the fifth round of your draft. The only QB taken so far is Manning, and you've decided you're taking a QB here. Who do you take?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 . . .
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
We can do this all day. I won't take my first QB until there are probably 3 or 4 off the board maybe more depending on which 3 or 4 are taken. If you're asking me who I have ranked ahead of Brees I can tell you without a doubt I take McNabb, but since McNabb is generally being taken as QB 5-7 I'll wait until 3 or 4 of Manning, Brees, Bulger, Brady and Palmer are taken. If someone takes McNabb as the #2, 3 or 4 QB or he happens to go before my turn again (meaning I waited too long), I'll just wait a bit longer and go after the Kitna's, Hasselbeck's or Rivers of the world. I'd also put Tom Brady ahead of Brees.I'd say Carson Palmer and Brees are probably interchangeable at 4 or 5.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
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.
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 . . .
Afro Samurai
Footballguy
So your reasoning in a nutshell is that the Saints "aren't for real", and that the reason they performed well last year is because nobody ever really took them seriously. Let me guess, you probably also think they were getting calls from the refs because of Katrina sympathy, too.I thought this board was above such schlock.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
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.
