Has Tom Brady been downgraded since last offseason? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

this has got to be the most hypersensitive humorless board I have ever seen in my internet life.you're popping midol because I called him karl rove jr and sending him to switz-erland?if yudkin hasn't already learned his lesson I will post enough numbers to put the Count to sleep --- maybe that's more to your tastes.

Shocking to see another post from you being called out for inappropriate comments.

 

[Seymour Corn]

this has got to be the most hypersensitive humorless board I have ever seen in my internet life.you're popping midol because I called him karl rove jr and sending him to switz-erland?if yudkin hasn't already learned his lesson I will post enough numbers to put the Count to sleep --- maybe that's more to your tastes.

Shocking to see another post from you being called out for inappropriate comments.

baller is an IROC.

 

[-baller]

baller is an IROC.

lolzthat whole bit from earlier in the thread also gets a lolz.

 

[switz]

In essence, my view isn't so much about Brady himself, but rather spending high picks on a QB. How many people were burned by taking Brady, or even Peyton early last season? See my point?

so, what you're suggesting is that we would be much better served by drafting peterson w/a top 5 pick and watching him get knocked out in week 1 of the seson w/a torn acl?could you clarify this, because your posts get more and more confusing.

The main difference is that there are far more RBs available than there are QBs. And behaviorally, when people spend a very high pick on a QB, they typically leave that position very weak at backup. Whereas when people draft RBs, they typically grab multiple backups, and don't expect their one stud RB to be their entire RB corps. So, in essence, in most cases, losing a stud RB is far less costly to your team than losing a stud QB.The more you post, the less it seems you understand drafting. Things like VBD and position scarcity can be of real assistance in having a solid team that is competitive through the entire season. You would benefit greatly from investigating those two methodologies.

 

[iSnitch]

this has got to be the most hypersensitive humorless board I have ever seen in my internet life.

you're popping midol because I called him karl rove jr and sending him to switz-erland?

if yudkin hasn't already learned his lesson I will post enough numbers to put the Count to sleep --- maybe that's more to your tastes.

Still waiting for numbers.I don't see an issue with what Yudkin showed.

He was simply pointing out Brady was merely mortal in the second half (albeit a super awesome mortal) and it wasn't because the Patriots stopped passing the ball.

Personally, I don't think Galloway will contribute much at all.

 

[AllVolUT]

DY, I tend to listen to you regarding anything NE so your input here would be much appreciated.

I understand Brady’s ’07 was the outlier of his career, but this was by-and-large due to the personnel changes. Is it really out of the realm of possibility for him to repeat similar numbers? I know QBs coming off career numbers have a hard time reproducing similar results, but Brady hasn’t had a chance to try. Judging from your comments in this thread, I understand you may predict Brady's numbers somewhere between his averaged career numbers and his ’07 season. In your opinion, what are the main reasons for regression from the ’07 season?

The injury concern could be an argument; however, I would counter that by illustrating the Pats trade of Cassel early on. To me, this seems like the front office feels comfortable in Brady’s recovery.

Speaking of Cassel, after the bye he seemed to settle down and averaged over 21 points a game using standard FBG scoring. As everybody knows, the system works. Therefore, the one thing I am concerned with is the loss of McDaniels. How much of this offense was McDaniels doing? Do you expect the offense to change drastically?

FWIW, I think I agree with you when you mentioned that Belichick may not leave Brady in until the last couple of minutes of a blowout like he did in ’07. However, I also lean towards Brady wanting to prove his value to the critics who might label his ’07 production to the system.

 

[ookook]

(1) You can argue that Brady will not regress significantly toward the average QB if you like, and you can argue he will not regress toward his own mean, but you may just be demonstrating a misunderstanding of the statistical phenomenon. The odds are very, very much against TB having 2007 fantasy numbers. Personally, I see TB and PM as a coin toss for #1 QB.

(2) I pretty much never take a QB early and have pretty much always regretted it when I do. Value lies in finding one in rounds 8 to 12. Actually, I try to find 3 and hope one emerges as a top 8. I am not saying going QBBC, but rather that out of those three one will emerge. What people often fail to realize is that your season can be lost if one of your top 2 RBs goes down, but a QB is much easier to replace due to supply and demand issues.

Consistently winning at fantasy football means allowing for injuries that could derail your season. I will have 3 RBs and 2 WRs in the first 5 rounds based on where I see value. Round 6 I will look for best value at RB, WR, or TE with and eye toward WR. When my top RB or WR goes down, I will have a darn good replacement. When a QB goes down, I will have several of Garrard, Eli, Delhome, or Campbell to step in.

That is why many of us wait on QBs: Supply and demand coupled with injuries.

 

[AllVolUT]

(1) You can argue that Brady will not regress significantly toward the average QB if you like, and you can argue he will not regress toward his own mean, but you may just be demonstrating a misunderstanding of the statistical phenomenon. The odds are very, very much against TB having 2007 fantasy numbers. Personally, I see TB and PM as a coin toss for #1 QB.

(2) I pretty much never take a QB early and have pretty much always regretted it when I do. Value lies in finding one in rounds 8 to 12. Actually, I try to find 3 and hope one emerges as a top 8. I am not saying going QBBC, but rather that out of those three one will emerge. What people often fail to realize is that your season can be lost if one of your top 2 RBs goes down, but a QB is much easier to replace due to supply and demand issues.

Consistently winning at fantasy football means allowing for injuries that could derail your season. I will have 3 RBs and 2 WRs in the first 5 rounds based on where I see value. Round 6 I will look for best value at RB, WR, or TE with and eye toward WR. When my top RB or WR goes down, I will have a darn good replacement. When a QB goes down, I will have several of Garrard, Eli, Delhome, or Campbell to step in.

That is why many of us wait on QBs: Supply and demand coupled with injuries.

Makes sense. However, playing in a 2QB league adds a premium on top-notch QBs. Also, I'm not sure going into the draft with a specific plan of drafting 3 RBs and 2 WRs is a good idea. IMO, it would be more beneficial to abide by the VBD method...but to each their own.

 

[ookook]

(1) You can argue that Brady will not regress significantly toward the average QB if you like, and you can argue he will not regress toward his own mean, but you may just be demonstrating a misunderstanding of the statistical phenomenon. The odds are very, very much against TB having 2007 fantasy numbers. Personally, I see TB and PM as a coin toss for #1 QB.

(2) I pretty much never take a QB early and have pretty much always regretted it when I do. Value lies in finding one in rounds 8 to 12. Actually, I try to find 3 and hope one emerges as a top 8. I am not saying going QBBC, but rather that out of those three one will emerge. What people often fail to realize is that your season can be lost if one of your top 2 RBs goes down, but a QB is much easier to replace due to supply and demand issues.

Consistently winning at fantasy football means allowing for injuries that could derail your season. I will have 3 RBs and 2 WRs in the first 5 rounds based on where I see value. Round 6 I will look for best value at RB, WR, or TE with and eye toward WR. When my top RB or WR goes down, I will have a darn good replacement. When a QB goes down, I will have several of Garrard, Eli, Delhome, or Campbell to step in.

That is why many of us wait on QBs: Supply and demand coupled with injuries.

Makes sense. However, playing in a 2QB league adds a premium on top-notch QBs. Also, I'm not sure going into the draft with a specific plan of drafting 3 RBs and 2 WRs is a good idea. IMO, it would be more beneficial to abide by the VBD method...but to each their own.

It has just been the way it works out, I tend not to have a fixed plan. But I also have come to regret taking a top TE too early.I do play in a couple 2 QB leagues. I have learned to resist the urge to bite at QBs early there too, unless value falls at that position (which it never really does, but I did grab McNabb in the mid 4th when he dropped). The problem is that the top ones go so early that it starts to seem like fishing by the end of the 2nd.

What I tend to do here is just start picking QBs a couple rounds earlier. So in the 6th and 7th I will take 2. Then try to find a 3rd in the 9th or 10th.

I did do well once or twice take a top QB in the 1st or 2nd, then waiting to harvest a 2nd and 3rd in rounds 6 to 8. But never two in the first 6 rounds.

 

[AllVolUT]

(1) You can argue that Brady will not regress significantly toward the average QB if you like, and you can argue he will not regress toward his own mean, but you may just be demonstrating a misunderstanding of the statistical phenomenon. The odds are very, very much against TB having 2007 fantasy numbers. Personally, I see TB and PM as a coin toss for #1 QB.

(2) I pretty much never take a QB early and have pretty much always regretted it when I do. Value lies in finding one in rounds 8 to 12. Actually, I try to find 3 and hope one emerges as a top 8. I am not saying going QBBC, but rather that out of those three one will emerge. What people often fail to realize is that your season can be lost if one of your top 2 RBs goes down, but a QB is much easier to replace due to supply and demand issues.

Consistently winning at fantasy football means allowing for injuries that could derail your season. I will have 3 RBs and 2 WRs in the first 5 rounds based on where I see value. Round 6 I will look for best value at RB, WR, or TE with and eye toward WR. When my top RB or WR goes down, I will have a darn good replacement. When a QB goes down, I will have several of Garrard, Eli, Delhome, or Campbell to step in.

That is why many of us wait on QBs: Supply and demand coupled with injuries.

Makes sense. However, playing in a 2QB league adds a premium on top-notch QBs. Also, I'm not sure going into the draft with a specific plan of drafting 3 RBs and 2 WRs is a good idea. IMO, it would be more beneficial to abide by the VBD method...but to each their own.

It has just been the way it works out, I tend not to have a fixed plan. But I also have come to regret taking a top TE too early.I do play in a couple 2 QB leagues. I have learned to resist the urge to bite at QBs early there too, unless value falls at that position (which it never really does, but I did grab McNabb in the mid 4th when he dropped). The problem is that the top ones go so early that it starts to seem like fishing by the end of the 2nd.

What I tend to do here is just start picking QBs a couple rounds earlier. So in the 6th and 7th I will take 2. Then try to find a 3rd in the 9th or 10th.

I did do well once or twice take a top QB in the 1st or 2nd, then waiting to harvest a 2nd and 3rd in rounds 6 to 8. But never two in the first 6 rounds.

Interesting. I appreciate the feedback and will look into that strategy. And I completely agree with the fishing comment by the end of round 2. In years past, I generally try to lock up one of the top 2 QBs and wait until ~round 10 or so to grab QB2. But I may need to adjust and will look into your strategy. Thanks.But I don't want to hijack this thread, so enough about me and my league.

 

[ookook]

Last thought on 2 QB leagues: Brady will go in the top 7 for sure, with Manning and Brees gone by pick 14 I would guess. Last year both Brady and Manning were gone by 10.

Then what? Many owners in my main 2 QB league WILL take a QB in first 2 picks and some 2. So I expect at least 6 gone by the end of the second. I just cannot see grabbing one there. And with some nod to increased value at WRs (we do not play PPR, but do start 4), they seem pretty tasty there too.

If I see Brady or Manning at the VERY end of the 1st I might take him, knowing I could get a good RB or WR on the turn. But that is about it and I will try hard to resist that temptation.

Guys like Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, and McNabb will probably all be gone before the third. We get some Bears fans, so Culter too.

Bottom line: If I pick top 7 I will take a RB, then looking at Rivers or Cutler late in the second I will take top RB or WR instead. With that many QBs going, I may be looking at Steve Smith, Greg Jennings, or Brandon Jacobs.

 

[AllVolUT]

Last thought on 2 QB leagues: Brady will go in the top 7 for sure, with Manning and Brees gone by pick 14 I would guess. Last year both Brady and Manning were gone by 10.Then what? Many owners in my main 2 QB league WILL take a QB in first 2 picks and some 2. So I expect at least 6 gone by the end of the second. I just cannot see grabbing one there. And with some nod to increased value at WRs (we do not play PPR, but do start 4), they seem pretty tasty there too. If I see Brady or Manning at the VERY end of the 1st I might take him, knowing I could get a good RB or WR on the turn. But that is about it and I will try hard to resist that temptation. Guys like Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, and McNabb will probably all be gone before the third. We get some Bears fans, so Culter too. Bottom line: If I pick top 7 I will take a RB, then looking at Rivers or Cutler late in the second I will take top RB or WR instead. With that many QBs going, I may be looking at Steve Smith, Greg Jennings, or Brandon Jacobs.

I agree 100%.

 

[David Yudkin]

DY, I tend to listen to you regarding anything NE so your input here would be much appreciated. I understand Brady’s ’07 was the outlier of his career, but this was by-and-large due to the personnel changes. Is it really out of the realm of possibility for him to repeat similar numbers? I know QBs coming off career numbers have a hard time reproducing similar results, but Brady hasn’t had a chance to try. Judging from your comments in this thread, I understand you may predict Brady's numbers somewhere between his averaged career numbers and his ’07 season. In your opinion, what are the main reasons for regression from the ’07 season?The injury concern could be an argument; however, I would counter that by illustrating the Pats trade of Cassel early on. To me, this seems like the front office feels comfortable in Brady’s recovery.Speaking of Cassel, after the bye he seemed to settle down and averaged over 21 points a game using standard FBG scoring. As everybody knows, the system works. Therefore, the one thing I am concerned with is the loss of McDaniels. How much of this offense was McDaniels doing? Do you expect the offense to change drastically?FWIW, I think I agree with you when you mentioned that Belichick may not leave Brady in until the last couple of minutes of a blowout like he did in ’07. However, I also lean towards Brady wanting to prove his value to the critics who might label his ’07 production to the system.

You've already outlined all my points in your post, so not sure what more I can add.Clearly the Patriots COULD put up similar numbers, the question is will they? I doubt it for a lot of reasons. There are three reasons why . . . the scientific/math element, the scheduling element, and the offensive philosophy element.1) Using the conceptual argument that everything clicked for NE in 2007, it is very difficult for the multiplicitude of factors to realign themselves again. They came out with a different look and caught teams by surprise. Thy had great weather most of the season. They mostly all stayed healthy. The ebb and flow of games lent them to have a certain number of plays and possessions. Tipped balls and turnovers went their way. They were peeved after Spygate. Potentially, other teams were weaker defensively and the Pats were at the top of their game. All these things, while seemingly minor, could play a big part collectively in them not repeating their insane scoring total.2) Last year, for the most part, Cassel's big games came against Bottom 10 passing teams. The Pats had a cupcake schedule overall last year, and IMO, if Brady and the offense was going to approach warp speed ever again it would have been last year with some of the teams they faced. This year, on paper anyway, their schedule looks to be much tougher. The AFC East teams all improved. And they get the AFC South and the NFC South to go along with BAL and DEN.3) Scheme wise, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think they will have Brady in as long as they have in the past and I think at least initially they will not leave him as exposed as they used to. I also think they will run more than in the past, as they have a decent stable of backs and were very effective running the ball last year. Fewer plays + fewer passes = lower production for Brady.All of these things make me inclined to think that Brady will have closer to 35 TD than 50 TD this year. His yardage sshould still be 4,000 yards+, but IMO pegging his TD total accurately will determine where he should be slotted for draft purposes.

 

[AllVolUT]

DY, I tend to listen to you regarding anything NE so your input here would be much appreciated. I understand Brady’s ’07 was the outlier of his career, but this was by-and-large due to the personnel changes. Is it really out of the realm of possibility for him to repeat similar numbers? I know QBs coming off career numbers have a hard time reproducing similar results, but Brady hasn’t had a chance to try. Judging from your comments in this thread, I understand you may predict Brady's numbers somewhere between his averaged career numbers and his ’07 season. In your opinion, what are the main reasons for regression from the ’07 season?The injury concern could be an argument; however, I would counter that by illustrating the Pats trade of Cassel early on. To me, this seems like the front office feels comfortable in Brady’s recovery.Speaking of Cassel, after the bye he seemed to settle down and averaged over 21 points a game using standard FBG scoring. As everybody knows, the system works. Therefore, the one thing I am concerned with is the loss of McDaniels. How much of this offense was McDaniels doing? Do you expect the offense to change drastically?FWIW, I think I agree with you when you mentioned that Belichick may not leave Brady in until the last couple of minutes of a blowout like he did in ’07. However, I also lean towards Brady wanting to prove his value to the critics who might label his ’07 production to the system.

You've already outlined all my points in your post, so not sure what more I can add.Clearly the Patriots COULD put up similar numbers, the question is will they? I doubt it for a lot of reasons. There are three reasons why . . . the scientific/math element, the scheduling element, and the offensive philosophy element.1) Using the conceptual argument that everything clicked for NE in 2007, it is very difficult for the multiplicitude of factors to realign themselves again. They came out with a different look and caught teams by surprise. Thy had great weather most of the season. They mostly all stayed healthy. The ebb and flow of games lent them to have a certain number of plays and possessions. Tipped balls and turnovers went their way. They were peeved after Spygate. Potentially, other teams were weaker defensively and the Pats were at the top of their game. All these things, while seemingly minor, could play a big part collectively in them not repeating their insane scoring total.2) Last year, for the most part, Cassel's big games came against Bottom 10 passing teams. The Pats had a cupcake schedule overall last year, and IMO, if Brady and the offense was going to approach warp speed ever again it would have been last year with some of the teams they faced. This year, on paper anyway, their schedule looks to be much tougher. The AFC East teams all improved. And they get the AFC South and the NFC South to go along with BAL and DEN.3) Scheme wise, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think they will have Brady in as long as they have in the past and I think at least initially they will not leave him as exposed as they used to. I also think they will run more than in the past, as they have a decent stable of backs and were very effective running the ball last year. Fewer plays + fewer passes = lower production for Brady.All of these things make me inclined to think that Brady will have closer to 35 TD than 50 TD this year. His yardage sshould still be 4,000 yards+, but IMO pegging his TD total accurately will determine where he should be slotted for draft purposes.

Good stuff. I appreciate the response.

 

[-baller]

The main difference is that there are far more RBs available than there are QBs. And behaviorally, when people spend a very high pick on a QB, they typically leave that position very weak at backup. Whereas when people draft RBs, they typically grab multiple backups, and don't expect their one stud RB to be their entire RB corps. So, in essence, in most cases, losing a stud RB is far less costly to your team than losing a stud QB.The more you post, the less it seems you understand drafting. Things like VBD and position scarcity can be of real assistance in having a solid team that is competitive through the entire season. You would benefit greatly from investigating those two methodologies.

yes, yes --- this is fantasy football, not quantum physics.vbd and scarcity are not high brow concepts.anyway, whether we should draft brady is not what this thread's about --- wait, what was the subject again....?right --- it's a sort of misleading question about brady's ranking.on the face of it, it's a perfectly reasonable subject, but I call it a little misleading because it sort of implies that his value has changed, rather than his value simply being overinflated a year ago after his big season.so, I'd say it's really two questions in one --- what is his real value, and has it come down much from a year ago?if you feel he can reproduce '07, then as a student of vbd and scarcity I'm sure you'd draft him early.yudkin claims nobody could have predicted '07, or brees in '08, but I'm living proof somebody did, and drafting him early paid off great, despite what people like you were telling me at the start of the season.another guy in my league reached on brees last year because he thought he was going to light it up, and it helped get him to our superbowl.I'm not the only one in here predicting a big year from brady, although if it actually bears fruit I'm sure you and yudkin will be back on here next year claiming it was blind luck that nobody could have predicted.by the way -- these late round qb value picks you, or whoever it was, were talking up....?you're perfectly free to take one as your back up.

 

[JamesTheScot]

In fact, I would probably wait til late in the draft and try to land guys like Trent Edwards or Kyle Orton instead of spending a high pick on ANY QB.

I'm quoting this to save it for posterity.

I agree that taken as a mere sentence that this seems odd . . . but you have to consider the entire team drafted to determine how crazy this sounds.Many people draft bulking up at all other positions and then getting their QBs. In your citation, I don't think it's as crazy as it sounds. I think both Edwards and Orton are in for much better seasons and could be had fairly cheap.

I'm not some noobie to value based drafting. I have no problem taking a shot with these guys as my #2. In fact, I am all about drafting value in later rounds. But advocating taking Edwards OR (not and) Orton instead of ANY other QB is too much of a gamble for me.

Again, there's a need to comprehend what's said, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I like Orton or Edwards better than ANY QB out there... rather, I'd prefer to have them fall late in the draft than spend a high pick just to get a QB. Of course the likelihood is that I'd easily be able to get a QB in the 5th or 6th rounds like Delhomme or something... but frankly, I would expect to fare better grabbing a guy like that in the middle and landing Orton or Edwards late, than I woudl spending the pick needed to land a Manning, Brees, or Brady....In essence, my view isn't so much about Brady himself, but rather spending high picks on a QB. How many people were burned by taking Brady, or even Peyton early last season? See my point?

I don't disagree with this revision. I agree with you that, depending on how far Brady regresses from his 2007 numbers, you are better off passing on any QB in the first two rounds. Where I differ is waiting until Edwards and Orton are the BTA before I take my QB1.But in essence it always boils down to expectations. If someone really thinks Brady will duplicate his 2007, they should take him by round 2 rather than miss him.