Is Aaron Brooks the most disrespected fantasy QB? (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

Yeah, it is too easy to remember the bad highlights by ESPN on Brooks, specifically the stupid backwards pass he had. But, in my leagues (6 pt per TD), Brooks was a top 8 QB for 4 straight years before last year's blowup in NO. He is back with the Raiders and did OK his first game back. If Moss really plays, he could put some decent numbers against SD today. If you are in a league that doesn't subtract for mistakes, even better.

Ranking Brooks in the top 20 is much smarter than 32nd if you ask me. I know it is easy to criticize someone else's rankings, but I like to put my thoughts out there BEFORE they happen and then look back and say right or wrong. I would also say that I think Brooks is a sleeper pickup in larger leagues as he could be a decent option down the stretch. If Porter and Moss are out there and playing, he has some options to throw to. I think losing Lamont can hurt out of the backfield and Brooks may get killed without much OL help, but if he stays healthy he should get 30+ running yards every game and put up some decent numbers.

Time will tell...

 

[BrentBlack]

Brooks had a nice game last time out vs. San Diego.

 

[Jason Wood]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

 

[Keepers]

Up against SD this week with the Oakland offensive line ... I agree with the ranking. Should go up after this week with playing Houston and Cincy.

 

[Ozymandias]

The problem is that Oakland is imploding. Yes, they have the personnel to make Brooks a decent QB. But their best receiver is sulking, and doesn'ty even try. Their second best is in the doghouse, and is merely filling in the time until he gets traded. Their best running back is out with injury. Their coaching staff doesn't know their ### from a hole in the ground.

I agree with the ranking, until they show some pride. Could Brooks do better? Yes.

Would I bet on it?

No.

 

[David Dodds]

Imploding is a tad too easy on them. Add OT Gallery to another that is lost to injury. So their offensive line that allowed a sack almost every down last time these two played is worse, QB is back after a long layoff, top WR has quit on the team, 2nd best WR is inactive each week, 3rd best was traded to the Pats, starting RB is out for the year, and Art Shell is calling plays from a 1970's playbook.

Like Jason said....Maybe last is too harsh, but at best he is probably around the 24th best QB. I can't justify any reason he would be a good start against San Diego.

 

[Bri]

there isn't a player on that O that I feel comfortable ranking. If I had to, I'd lean toward the low side too.

 

[dickey moe]

FBG QB rankings are inversely proportional to the Intelligence Quotient.

 

[softball]

With a good effort this week, Randy Moss and Brooks will find themselves in my lineup going forward, this is about Fantasy points.

And there are plenty to be had with this group if you want to take the risk.

 

[Bri]

With a good effort this week, Randy Moss and Brooks will find themselves in my lineup going forward, this is about Fantasy points. And there are plenty to be had with this group if you want to take the risk.

And if the O line takes the week off(as they have) then you get "zip" that week. Brooks and his WRs become worthless if they don't give him time to throw.

 

[mcjc4]

With a good effort this week, Randy Moss and Brooks will find themselves in my lineup going forward, this is about Fantasy points. And there are plenty to be had with this group if you want to take the risk.

What? Did someone dupe you into trading for Moss? he quit, thats it. No catches last week. None,zip zero,nada,the BIG goose egg! I dopped Moss for Caldwell 2 weeks ago, thank god, but it was to late for my season. He is worthless this year and with playoffs coming up, can anyone really afford to start him hoping he trys to play hard? NOPE

 

[H.K.]

The problem with Brooks, outside of the obvious mess in Oakland with regards to coaching, is that the Raiders are the #30 team in the NFL with regards to passing attempts. The play calling and scheme are what limit Brooks from having an FF impact.

 

[CalBear]

The problem with Brooks, outside of the obvious mess in Oakland with regards to coaching, is that the Raiders are the #30 team in the NFL with regards to passing attempts. The play calling and scheme are what limit Brooks from having an FF impact.

They're also #24 in rushing attempts. What's limiting the Raiders offensive players is poor production; they're not getting first downs. But Brooks did put up 213 total yards and a TD in his first game back; that's certainly better than last in the league.

 

[[scooter]]

If Brooks wasn't rusty, then I might disagree with his low ranking.

Given time (and a modern offensive playbook) Brooks can be an extremely productive QB -- for fantasy purposes.

The guy has only played 5 NFL seasons and he was a fantasy stud for 4 of them. Even last year he was 14th in my league (better than Brees/Delhomme/Favre and a bunch of other guys who wouldn't be written off after one bad year).

 

[joffer]

i think i'd rank him behind a few backups too.

 

[ExtraPoint]

There are a lot of leagues out there who start 2 QBs. Something I have more respect for than giving PPR to RBs. So does it matter? Of course it does if you care about rankings.

 

[Lord Lucan]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

there are tons of FF players who had, say, McNabb and Brunell as their QBs and are faced with a choice of something like Brooks, Campbell , Garcia or Pennington. For them it matters very much - I have a similar situation and will probably start Brooks.

 

[Ozymandias]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

there are tons of FF players who had, say, McNabb and Brunell as their QBs and are faced with a choice of something like Brooks, Campbell , Garcia or Pennington. For them it matters very much - I have a similar situation and will probably start Brooks.

I would start any of the other three before I would start Brooks.

 

[Bri]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

there are tons of FF players who had, say, McNabb and Brunell as their QBs and are faced with a choice of something like Brooks, Campbell , Garcia or Pennington. For them it matters very much

not unless they picked up all 4 guysIf that's the case, you start the guy you have

 

[The Jacket]

A lot of his yards last week came on plays when the DBs had all but given up, because the pressure got to him and a sack was on the cards. Unfortunately, the Chiefs were unable to seal the deal more often than not and allowed Brooks to convert.

San Diego won't. They close.

 

[Blue-Kun]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

there are tons of FF players who had, say, McNabb and Brunell as their QBs and are faced with a choice of something like Brooks, Campbell , Garcia or Pennington. For them it matters very much - I have a similar situation and will probably start Brooks.

If they're last possible option was Brooks, then... well they screwed up along the way. Unless your playing in a 16 team league and failed to have a back-up, I can't really imagine the situation where your stuck using Brooks.

 

[CalBear]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

there are tons of FF players who had, say, McNabb and Brunell as their QBs and are faced with a choice of something like Brooks, Campbell , Garcia or Pennington. For them it matters very much - I have a similar situation and will probably start Brooks.

If they're last possible option was Brooks, then... well they screwed up along the way. Unless your playing in a 16 team league and failed to have a back-up, I can't really imagine the situation where your stuck using Brooks.

Their: Third person plural possessive.They're: Contraction of "they are."Your: Second person possessive.You're: Contraction of "you are."Looks like fantasy football isn't the only area where you have no clue.

 

[krsone21]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

there are tons of FF players who had, say, McNabb and Brunell as their QBs and are faced with a choice of something like Brooks, Campbell , Garcia or Pennington. For them it matters very much - I have a similar situation and will probably start Brooks.

If they're last possible option was Brooks, then... well they screwed up along the way. Unless your playing in a 16 team league and failed to have a back-up, I can't really imagine the situation where your stuck using Brooks.

Their: Third person plural possessive.They're: Contraction of "they are."Your: Second person possessive.You're: Contraction of "you are."Looks like fantasy football isn't the only area where you have no clue.

It's people like this that drive me nuts. Everyone thinks they are an english major. Have you ever thought that when people type they don't always go back to correct every single thing.

 

[CalBear]

It's people like this that drive me nuts. Everyone thinks they are an english major. Have you ever thought that when people type they don't always go back to correct every single thing.

Have you ever thought that being arrogant and condescending in an online forum might work better if you have at least a basic grasp of English?

 

[Blue-Kun]

It's people like this that drive me nuts. Everyone thinks they are an english major. Have you ever thought that when people type they don't always go back to correct every single thing.

Have you ever thought that being arrogant and condescending in an online forum might work better if you have at least a basic grasp of English?

Ohs nos! I posted with a bit of messed up grammar! Did that stop you from understanding what I was saying?Explain how Brooks on a god-awful Raiders team is a good choice versus nearly any other starting QB in the NFL.All I said was that if you didn't have a back-up QB better than Brooks, you screwed up. I think that's a fair assessment. Apparently that's "arrogant and condescending" though even though I didn't fish or insult anyone.

 

[CalBear]

Explain how Brooks on a god-awful Raiders team is a good choice versus nearly any other starting QB in the NFL.

How many QBs had less than 213 total yards and a TD last week?

 

[[scooter]]

Explain how Brooks on a god-awful Raiders team is a good choice versus nearly any other starting QB in the NFL.

Well, last week he was as good of a choice as -- or better than -- the following NFL QBsavid GarrardEli ManningDavid CarrCharlie FryeRex GrossmanJon KitnaSteve McNairVince YoungJake PlummerTony RomoMarc BulgerChad PenningtonTrent GreenBrett Favre

 

[Blue-Kun]

Explain how Brooks on a god-awful Raiders team is a good choice versus nearly any other starting QB in the NFL.

How many QBs had less than 213 total yards and a TD last week?

Quite a few. However the Raiders are playing at SD this week. The Raiders were shut out the first week of the season at home on MNF. Brooks threw for 68 yards and rushed for 27 and generally looked lost and inept during the game. In addition this is when the Raiders still had Jordan and Moss hadn't decided to quit on the team. On the flip-side, SD has lost Shawne Merriman for the game, but otherwise looks to still have all the same major components in place.10 weeks later, the Raiders offensive line woes and various team injuries lead me to believe that Brooks will have a sub-par day. It's quite possible that he won't be as awful as his first go at it. However it seems like relying on a inconsistent QB in a match he played at home already and did terribly in doesn't bode particularly well for owners.

 

[crystal]

On the flip-side, SD has lost Shawne Merriman for the game, but otherwise looks to still have all the same major components in place.

Luis Castillo is out as well. That's two of the three best Charger defenders.Also, Gallery is out. So compared to the first time these teams met this year, the Chargers' front seven is worse, and the Raiders' OL is better.

 

[Blue-Kun]

On the flip-side, SD has lost Shawne Merriman for the game, but otherwise looks to still have all the same major components in place.

Luis Castillo is out as well. That's two of the three best Charger defenders.Also, Gallery is out. So compared to the first time these teams met this year, the Chargers' front seven is worse, and the Raiders' OL is better.

My bad. Castillo had slipped my mind, thanks for the catch.

 

[krsone21]

It's people like this that drive me nuts. Everyone thinks they are an english major. Have you ever thought that when people type they don't always go back to correct every single thing.

Have you ever thought that being arrogant and condescending in an online forum might work better if you have at least a basic grasp of English?

I'm condescending, lol, how about the guy that calls people out when they don't use the correct grammer, right in front of everybody.

 

[Gravity]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

This makes NO SENSE. According to this logic then why even bother doing rankings beyond the top 12? Bad post.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

With logic like this, why even rank the guys after 20 then?Edited to say that I didn't realize someone beat me to the punch. Where are you Wood?

 

[Liquid Tension]

Imploding is a tad too easy on them. Add OT Gallery to another that is lost to injury. So their offensive line that allowed a sack almost every down last time these two played is worse, QB is back after a long layoff, top WR has quit on the team, 2nd best WR is inactive each week, 3rd best was traded to the Pats, starting RB is out for the year, and Art Shell is calling plays from a 1970's playbook. Like Jason said....Maybe last is too harsh, but at best he is probably around the 24th best QB. I can't justify any reason he would be a good start against San Diego.

Thanks for the response David. While the ranking is for this week only, I also think we need to be proacive in our thinking. Even with all the factors you mention, barring injury let's come back and see whether I was correct or not in calling this out. I do think that while you guys are saying the team is imploding, I think they are more motivated than at any time this year as they have been playing much more competitive.

 

[Liquid Tension]

There are a lot of leagues out there who start 2 QBs. Something I have more respect for than giving PPR to RBs. So does it matter? Of course it does if you care about rankings.

This is about spotting things BEFORE it is too late. Maybe you are a top team in a start 2 QB league and have been dealing Brunell and now picked up Gradkowski...I would be all over a guy like Brooks.

 

[Liquid Tension]

' date='Nov 23 2006, 09:04 PM' post='5954552']

Explain how Brooks on a god-awful Raiders team is a good choice versus nearly any other starting QB in the NFL.

Well, last week he was as good of a choice as -- or better than -- the following NFL QBsavid GarrardEli ManningDavid CarrCharlie FryeRex GrossmanJon KitnaSteve McNairVince YoungJake PlummerTony RomoMarc BulgerChad PenningtonTrent GreenBrett Favre

Exactly, and this was his first game back on a team that has not jelled at all. BTW, since when is SD a shut down defense against QB's? They are ranked 20th in terms of allowing fantasy points to QB's. That is below average.As I said barring injury I would be shocked if Brooks wasn't 10 spots higher at the minimum. I recognize it is a risky choice, but if he stays healthy the history shows he will be decent. Some people just don't see anything until it happens.

 

[CalBear]

216 total and a TD.

I think you can pretty much expect at least that level of production out of him from here on in, making him a decent #2 option.

 

[lod2005]

Moss doesn't try anymore and for some reason Shell is taking a page out of the martzinelli coaching manual and putting the hard working loser Whitted in as the other starting WR.

That should give Brooks the rating he has.

 

[ericttspikes]

I think Brooks has more fantasy potential than Moss at this point, at least he appears to try and does have some recievers other than Moss to throw to. The ranking that had me scratching my head this week was Moss. He was top 30 with his QB ranked barely top 30. Hell, Chris Henry is a better play, especailly vs. the depleated Browns, and he wasn't even in the top 70. I really have no idea how Moss can be in the top 50 at this point, the dude has zero game.

 

[Liquid Tension]

' date='Nov 23 2006, 09:04 PM' post='5954552']

Explain how Brooks on a god-awful Raiders team is a good choice versus nearly any other starting QB in the NFL.

Well, last week he was as good of a choice as -- or better than -- the following NFL QBsavid GarrardEli ManningDavid CarrCharlie FryeRex GrossmanJon KitnaSteve McNairVince YoungJake PlummerTony RomoMarc BulgerChad PenningtonTrent GreenBrett Favre

Exactly, and this was his first game back on a team that has not jelled at all. BTW, since when is SD a shut down defense against QB's? They are ranked 20th in terms of allowing fantasy points to QB's. That is below average.As I said barring injury I would be shocked if Brooks wasn't 10 spots higher at the minimum. I recognize it is a risky choice, but if he stays healthy the history shows he will be decent. Some people just don't see anything until it happens.

I was away so I didn't get a chance to mock myself or pat myself on the back. Brooks was a little weaker than I thought he would be and he still was more than 10 spots higher than Dodds had him. In my league he was 19th. Still not too good, but an option in some leagues. Part of my thinking in him being very underrated was that Moss would be a good target to help him, but Moss appears to have quit or they are "portering" him into non existence. I was away but how many targets did Moss have? I stick to my guns that he not getting the correct respect. 20th best is the low mark barring injury.

 

[Liquid Tension]

' date='Nov 23 2006, 09:04 PM' post='5954552']

Explain how Brooks on a god-awful Raiders team is a good choice versus nearly any other starting QB in the NFL.

Well, last week he was as good of a choice as -- or better than -- the following NFL QBsavid GarrardEli ManningDavid CarrCharlie FryeRex GrossmanJon KitnaSteve McNairVince YoungJake PlummerTony RomoMarc BulgerChad PenningtonTrent GreenBrett Favre

Exactly, and this was his first game back on a team that has not jelled at all. BTW, since when is SD a shut down defense against QB's? They are ranked 20th in terms of allowing fantasy points to QB's. That is below average.As I said barring injury I would be shocked if Brooks wasn't 10 spots higher at the minimum. I recognize it is a risky choice, but if he stays healthy the history shows he will be decent. Some people just don't see anything until it happens.

I was away so I didn't get a chance to mock myself or pat myself on the back. Brooks was a little weaker than I thought he would be and he still was more than 10 spots higher than Dodds had him. In my league he was 19th. Still not too good, but an option in some leagues. Part of my thinking in him being very underrated was that Moss would be a good target to help him, but Moss appears to have quit or they are "portering" him into non existence. I was away but how many targets did Moss have? I stick to my guns that he not getting the correct respect. 20th best is the low mark barring injury.

So Dodds now has Brooks up to 18th this week. I guess he is seeing the light Proactive projections are much more useful than hindsight ones. Of course, when someone else is projecting so many players it is way too easy to pick out a few you see that are way off base.

 

[cr8f]

He's a better start than Eli or Trent Green.

 

[DoubleG]

Just a thought:

Keep in mind QB rankings are not just afunction of the QB. The one decent Raider WR has basically phoned in the rest of the season, the RB situation is either underperforming or overmatched (depending on whose playing) and their O-line...well, alright, the 5 guys they call an O-line...oh and we can't forget about that stout D...

My point is that Brooks will put lousy fantasy numbers (for the most part) due to the equation:

FF production = talent X opportunity (i.e. situation)

Please note: it's not necessarily the "talent" that's low.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Just a thought:Keep in mind QB rankings are not just afunction of the QB. The one decent Raider WR has basically phoned in the rest of the season, the RB situation is either underperforming or overmatched (depending on whose playing) and their O-line...well, alright, the 5 guys they call an O-line...oh and we can't forget about that stout D...My point is that Brooks will put lousy fantasy numbers (for the most part) due to the equation: FF production = talent X opportunity (i.e. situation)Please note: it's not necessarily the "talent" that's low.

Understood. However, 18th best is 18th best and while I wouldn't want to have to start him, in some leagues he is an option and it is not as bad as the 32nd ranking Dodds had given him. This week, if he stays healthy, my money would be that he is better than Dodds ranking again.

 

[GoBills02]

Let's say for argument's sake he was ranked 20th this week...would you start him? Would that make a difference? If you think he's closer to 20th than 32nd, and are in an 8-12 team league, how does that matter?

Because I start 2 QB's and drafted McNabb in the 4th. So yeah, wth Kitna, Carr, Griese, and Brooks left, it matters.

 

[Blue-Kun]

238 yards, 0 TD and 2 INT.

Against Houston. Ouch.

Even I didn't expect numbers anywhere near that level. Brooks is as inconsistent as ever, not that the receivers helped much.

 

[Blue-Kun]

He's a better start than Eli or Trent Green.

Green: 297 yrds, 4 TD, 1 INTEli: 270 yrds, 2 TD, 0 INT

 

[Liquid Tension]

238 yards, 0 TD and 2 INT.

Against Houston. Ouch.

Even I didn't expect numbers anywhere near that level. Brooks is as inconsistent as ever, not that the receivers helped much.

yep. bad game for Brooks and his weak receivers. The receivers hurt him but that was not to be unexpected. I thought he would be about 250 yards with 1 TD and 1 pick and about 20 yards running

 

[shadyridr]

For the 2nd week in a row he outscored Rivers

 

[Liquid Tension]

For the 2nd week in a row he outscored Rivers

Brooks was the 19th best QB this week. Still not good, but still better than the 30th ranking by Dodds. I thought with a healthy Moss, that Brooks would eventually move into the top 15 with consistency, but it appears with no running game and an injured or lame Moss that may not happen