Randy Moss & Aaron Brooks (1 Viewer)

[On The Rocks]

I like Ian Allen's writing. I don't agree with everything he writes, but I like his writing. He has a Q&A portion on his site and this question was posted.

Ian Allen Mailbag

QUESTION:

Don't you think Randy Moss at No. 8 is ignoring the potential of him being his old self? After all, it was Culpepper's scrambling and improvisation that allowed Moss to get himself free and dominate years ago. A Kerry Collins passing game simply did not allow that. Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball. And I expect the Raiders to be playing from behind ... a lot.

ANSWER:

We know that teams put up better passing statistics in wins versus losses. Last year, they had slightly more passing yards in losses (221 versus 216), but fell short by an average of almost a half TD pass per game -- 1.48 versus 1.03. And those numbers don't factor in the nature of the passes. I don't have the numbers, but I think that teams that are behind tend to send more dumpoff balls to running backs. Regardless, I don't buy into the theory that Moss' numbers will be helped by the team around him being bad. To me, he's always seemed to be the kind of guy who'll stick out his lip when things start going south. In his final three years in Minnesota, Moss averaged 95 yards in wins, with 24 TDs in 22 games, versus only 72 yards in losses, with 13 TDs in 23 games. And the offseason acquisition of Aaron Brooks doesn't excite me. Over the last five years, Brooks has been about the worst quarterback in the league in red-zone situations, completing 47 percent of his passes in that area, with 70 TDs versus 10 interceptions over those five years. Don't select Moss. Trust me, you'll thank me for it.

I wasn't aware of the stat I have highlighted. I agree that Brooks has become a below avg. QB over the past two years.

I guess I was just interested in hearing your comments to his reply.

 

[diesel7982]

Oddly enough, he predicted a poor season for Moss last year too...Which at the time, was pretty bold.

 

[GiantsRule]

He also backed up what I said for years: ESPN's Mike Patrick is a fantastic play-by-play announcer that often takes the brunt of the criticism for the two stooges he was paired with for years!

 

[ShotGunStyle]

The Raiders had an incredibly tough schedule last season playing the NFC East. This year they play the weaker NFC West and teams like the Texans. I don't see them going 4-12 like last season.

 

[stbugs]

I like Ian Allen's writing. I don't agree with everything he writes, but I like his writing. He has a Q&A portion on his site and this question was posted.

Ian Allen Mailbag

QUESTION:

Don't you think Randy Moss at No. 8 is ignoring the potential of him being his old self? After all, it was Culpepper's scrambling and improvisation that allowed Moss to get himself free and dominate years ago. A Kerry Collins passing game simply did not allow that. Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball. And I expect the Raiders to be playing from behind ... a lot.

ANSWER:

We know that teams put up better passing statistics in wins versus losses. Last year, they had slightly more passing yards in losses (221 versus 216), but fell short by an average of almost a half TD pass per game -- 1.48 versus 1.03. And those numbers don't factor in the nature of the passes. I don't have the numbers, but I think that teams that are behind tend to send more dumpoff balls to running backs. Regardless, I don't buy into the theory that Moss' numbers will be helped by the team around him being bad. To me, he's always seemed to be the kind of guy who'll stick out his lip when things start going south. In his final three years in Minnesota, Moss averaged 95 yards in wins, with 24 TDs in 22 games, versus only 72 yards in losses, with 13 TDs in 23 games. And the offseason acquisition of Aaron Brooks doesn't excite me. Over the last five years, Brooks has been about the worst quarterback in the league in red-zone situations, completing 47 percent of his passes in that area, with 70 TDs versus 10 interceptions over those five years. Don't select Moss. Trust me, you'll thank me for it.

I wasn't aware of the stat I have highlighted. I agree that Brooks has become a below avg. QB over the past two years.

I guess I was just interested in hearing your comments to his reply.

I don't think the stat you highlighted is surprising at all. It is kind of like saying that the team the scores the most wins. I expect the winning team to have better stats and more passing TDs.I think the yardage is the most telling, teams that lose throw enough passes at the end of the game that they do end up outgaining the winning team even though I would bet that the winning teams average better passing numbers to obtain the lead. Again, I would expect the winning team to end up with more passing TDs, otherwise they would probably be the losing team.

In 2005, 8 teams gave up 380+ points. Out of those 8, 6 of them were in the top 14 in passing yards. The only two teams that weren't, were the ridiculously inept Houston Texans and SF 49ers. So basically, if you were a bottom defense, you did pass the ball a ton unless you had one of the worst offenses in NFL history and you were just trying to run the clock out and get off the field.

 

[Tau837]

I like Ian Allen's writing.  I don't agree with everything he writes, but I like his writing.  He has a Q&A portion on his site and this question was posted. 

Ian Allen Mailbag

QUESTION:

Don't you think Randy Moss at No. 8 is ignoring the potential of him being his old self? After all, it was Culpepper's scrambling and improvisation that allowed Moss to get himself free and dominate years ago. A Kerry Collins passing game simply did not allow that. Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball. And I expect the Raiders to be playing from behind ... a lot.

ANSWER:

We know that teams put up better passing statistics in wins versus losses. Last year, they had slightly more passing yards in losses (221 versus 216), but fell short by an average of almost a half TD pass per game -- 1.48 versus 1.03. And those numbers don't factor in the nature of the passes. I don't have the numbers, but I think that teams that are behind tend to send more dumpoff balls to running backs. Regardless, I don't buy into the theory that Moss' numbers will be helped by the team around him being bad. To me, he's always seemed to be the kind of guy who'll stick out his lip when things start going south. In his final three years in Minnesota, Moss averaged 95 yards in wins, with 24 TDs in 22 games, versus only 72 yards in losses, with 13 TDs in 23 games. And the offseason acquisition of Aaron Brooks doesn't excite me. Over the last five years, Brooks has been about the worst quarterback in the league in red-zone situations, completing 47 percent of his passes in that area, with 70 TDs versus 10 interceptions over those five years. Don't select Moss. Trust me, you'll thank me for it.

I wasn't aware of the stat I have highlighted. I agree that Brooks has become a below avg. QB over the past two years.

I guess I was just interested in hearing your comments to his reply.

I don't think the stat you highlighted is surprising at all. It is kind of like saying that the team the scores the most wins. I expect the winning team to have better stats and more passing TDs.I think the yardage is the most telling, teams that lose throw enough passes at the end of the game that they do end up outgaining the winning team even though I would bet that the winning teams average better passing numbers to obtain the lead. Again, I would expect the winning team to end up with more passing TDs, otherwise they would probably be the losing team.

In 2005, 8 teams gave up 380+ points. Out of those 8, 6 of them were in the top 14 in passing yards. The only two teams that weren't, were the ridiculously inept Houston Texans and SF 49ers. So basically, if you were a bottom defense, you did pass the ball a ton unless you had one of the worst offenses in NFL history and you were just trying to run the clock out and get off the field.

 

[CA_7]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball.

more mobile than Collins, yes.

remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

 

[diesel7982]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball.

more mobile than Collins, yes.remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

 

[Q-Bert]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball.

more mobile than Collins, yes.remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

 

[Q-Bert]

Regardless, I don't buy into the theory that Moss' numbers will be helped by the team around him being bad. To me, he's always seemed to be the kind of guy who'll stick out his lip when things start going south. In his final three years in Minnesota, Moss averaged 95 yards in wins, with 24 TDs in 22 games, versus only 72 yards in losses, with 13 TDs in 23 games.

This is some pretty terrible logic. In games the Vikings won Randy Moss tended to have good games statistically. In games the Vikings lost Randy Moss tended to have poor games statistically. Therefore, he doesn't do well when he is on a bad team.I think it is more likely that in games where Randy Moss plays well his team wins and in games where Randy Moss is hurt or contained by the other team his team loses. It seems to me that he has his cause and effect backwards.

 

[diesel7982]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball.

more mobile than Collins, yes.remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

 

[MLBrandow]

We know that teams put up better passing statistics in wins versus losses. Last year, they had slightly more passing yards in losses (221 versus 216), but fell short by an average of almost a half TD pass per game -- 1.48 versus 1.03.

I wasn't aware of the stat I have highlighted. I agree that Brooks has become a below avg. QB over the past two years.

I guess I was just interested in hearing your comments to his reply.

Why is this guy employed is my question?He just stated a paramount truth: Teams who lose average fewer points.

What does this have to do with Moss and Brooks?

Moss is damaged goods and gives 85% about 50% of the time. If that's something that appeals to you, then I say draft him.

I don't want a guy half-assing it at will on my roster though. If he plays hard and catches three touchdowns one week, great. But what about the three weeks where he could give a #### less and only catches three balls?

 

[radballs]

Regardless, I don't buy into the theory that Moss' numbers will be helped by the team around him being bad. To me, he's always seemed to be the kind of guy who'll stick out his lip when things start going south. In his final three years in Minnesota, Moss averaged 95 yards in wins, with 24 TDs in 22 games, versus only 72 yards in losses, with 13 TDs in 23 games.

This is some pretty terrible logic. In games the Vikings won Randy Moss tended to have good games statistically. In games the Vikings lost Randy Moss tended to have poor games statistically. Therefore, he doesn't do well when he is on a bad team.I think it is more likely that in games where Randy Moss plays well his team wins and in games where Randy Moss is hurt or contained by the other team his team loses. It seems to me that he has his cause and effect backwards.

I was wondering abou this as well. It seems like he has the causation link bassackwards.

 

[stbugs]

Regardless, I don't buy into the theory that Moss' numbers will be helped by the team around him being bad. To me, he's always seemed to be the kind of guy who'll stick out his lip when things start going south. In his final three years in Minnesota, Moss averaged 95 yards in wins, with 24 TDs in 22 games, versus only 72 yards in losses, with 13 TDs in 23 games.

This is some pretty terrible logic. In games the Vikings won Randy Moss tended to have good games statistically. In games the Vikings lost Randy Moss tended to have poor games statistically. Therefore, he doesn't do well when he is on a bad team.I think it is more likely that in games where Randy Moss plays well his team wins and in games where Randy Moss is hurt or contained by the other team his team loses. It seems to me that he has his cause and effect backwards.

Same as my post above about losing teams throwing less TDs.

Randy Moss is basically the Vikings best player and when does well, they win more. Wow, amazing insight.

 

[CA_7]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball.

more mobile than Collins, yes.remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

Brooks ran for 174 that entire season!

 

[Tau837]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable' date=' but he is mobile and has a good long ball.[/quote']more mobile than Collins, yes.

remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.

Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

Brooks ran for 174 that entire season!

Don't disagree that Brooks isn't as mobile as Culpepper was. But he is one of the most mobile QBs in the league. Quick survey with Data Dominators shows that from 2002 to 2005:

2 QBs (Vick & Culpepper) had more rushing attempts

5 QBs (Vick, Culpepper, McNabb, Gracia, and Carr) had more rushing yards

4 QBs (Vick, Culpepper, McNabb, and Garcia) had more rushing TDs

4 QBs (Vick, Culpepper, McNabb, and Garcia) had more rushing fantasy points

Now those are rushing stats, which are not necessarily the same as QB mobility in the pocket and/or behind the LOS, but I'd say it's not a bad indicator.

 

[diesel7982]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable' date=' but he is mobile and has a good long ball.[/quote']more mobile than Collins, yes.

remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.

Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

Brooks ran for 174 that entire season!

Sigh.

You are confusing mobility with game planning/system. Not that that surprises me.

 

[CA_7]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable' date=' but he is mobile and has a good long ball.[/quote']more mobile than Collins, yes.

remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.

Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

Brooks ran for 174 that entire season!

Sigh.

You are confusing mobility with game planning/system. Not that that surprises me.

I am not confused. I just thought it was a funny stat.

You are condescending, not that that surprises me.

 

[Q-Bert]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable, but he is mobile and has a good long ball.

more mobile than Collins, yes.remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

I think I agree with your overall point. Brooks certainly isn't going to run for 500 yards like Culpepper was capable of. But you are right that he is certainly more mobile than Kerry Collins (although that isn't saying much). What I would like to hear from someone who knows more about the real NFL than I do is this; Is Aaron Brooks mobility going to help Randy Moss. I guess what I am asking is has Aaron Brooks shown the ability to move around in the pocket to avoid pressure and then complete a pass. I think there are four possibilities when there is pressure in the pocket.1. The QB gets sacked (we'll call this the David Carr option)

2. The QB runs for 45 yards (Mike Vick)

3. The QB moves avoids the rush and hits a WR for a 60 yard TD (Brett Favre circa 1996)

4. The QB runs for 8 yards

My question is the mobility that Aaron Brooks has more like #3 or #4. Mobility like #4 will result in a QB who rushes for 200 yards and a few TDs in the season. Mobility like #3 results in Randy Moss scoring 15 touchdowns.

My gut tells me that when pressured Brooks will be the QB who runs for 6-8 yards not the QB who completes a 60 yard bomb. Unfortunately my gut is often wrong. Anyone have a well reasoned argument that Brooks can be like #3?

 

[Tau837]

I think I agree with your overall point. Brooks certainly isn't going to run for 500 yards like Culpepper was capable of. But you are right that he is certainly more mobile than Kerry Collins (although that isn't saying much). What I would like to hear from someone who knows more about the real NFL than I do is this; Is Aaron Brooks mobility going to help Randy Moss. I guess what I am asking is has Aaron Brooks shown the ability to move around in the pocket to avoid pressure and then complete a pass. I think there are four possibilities when there is pressure in the pocket.

1. The QB gets sacked (we'll call this the David Carr option)

2. The QB runs for 45 yards (Mike Vick)

3. The QB moves avoids the rush and hits a WR for a 60 yard TD (Brett Favre circa 1996)

4. The QB runs for 8 yards

My question is the mobility that Aaron Brooks has more like #3 or #4. Mobility like #4 will result in a QB who rushes for 200 yards and a few TDs in the season. Mobility like #3 results in Randy Moss scoring 15 touchdowns.

My gut tells me that when pressured Brooks will be the QB who runs for 6-8 yards not the QB who completes a 60 yard bomb. Unfortunately my gut is often wrong. Anyone have a well reasoned argument that Brooks can be like #3?

Good post and question. My gut, which is also often wrong, tells me that when a QB who would otherwise tend to fit #4 suddenly has a WR as difficult to cover and as physically talented as Moss, he might tend to shade more toward #3. So what Brooks has done in the past without Moss isn't a good indicator of whether he will be more like #3 or #4 with the Raiders.

 

[Q-Bert]

I think I agree with your overall point. Brooks certainly isn't going to run for 500 yards like Culpepper was capable of. But you are right that he is certainly more mobile than Kerry Collins (although that isn't saying much). What I would like to hear from someone who knows more about the real NFL than I do is this; Is Aaron Brooks mobility going to help Randy Moss. I guess what I am asking is has Aaron Brooks shown the ability to move around in the pocket to avoid pressure and then complete a pass. I think there are four possibilities when there is pressure in the pocket.

1. The QB gets sacked (we'll call this the David Carr option)

2. The QB runs for 45 yards (Mike Vick)

3. The QB moves avoids the rush and hits a WR for a 60 yard TD (Brett Favre circa 1996)

4. The QB runs for 8 yards

My question is the mobility that Aaron Brooks has more like #3 or #4. Mobility like #4 will result in a QB who rushes for 200 yards and a few TDs in the season. Mobility like #3 results in Randy Moss scoring 15 touchdowns.

My gut tells me that when pressured Brooks will be the QB who runs for 6-8 yards not the QB who completes a 60 yard bomb. Unfortunately my gut is often wrong. Anyone have a well reasoned argument that Brooks can be like #3?

Good post and question. My gut, which is also often wrong, tells me that when a QB who would otherwise tend to fit #4 suddenly has a WR as difficult to cover and as physically talented as Moss, he might tend to shade more toward #3. So what Brooks has done in the past without Moss isn't a good indicator of whether he will be more like #3 or #4 with the Raiders.

Good point. However, I think we need to remember that while Joe Horn of 2000-2004 was no Randy Moss he also was no slouch. What I think is likely to happen this year is that Aaron Brooks will continue to be Aaron Brooks. He will put up better fantasy football numbers than real world numbers and be undervalued in drafts just like usual. I think Randy Moss will continue to be Randy Moss and if healthy will be a top 5 WR.I think the whole key to this situation is Randy Moss' health. If he is healthy for 13+ games. He and Aaron Brooks will be fantastic fantasy football players. Say top 3 WR for Moss and top 8 QB for Brooks.

Edit:

And if Randy Moss is not able to stay healthy then you are looking at a season very much like last year in Oakland. Moss drives you insane with his inconsistency and Brooks isn't able to elevate his game to make up for the loss of Moss. In this scenario Brooks' season looks a lot like Collins' did last year.

 

[jurb26]

Collins passing stats with a healthy Moss:

WK  OPP  |  CMP  ATT   PYD  TD  INT |  RSH    YD  TD |+----------+--------------------------+----------------+|  1  nwe  |   18   39   265   3   0  |    1     2   0 ||  2  kan  |   21   35   263   1   0  |    2    11   0 ||  3  phi  |   24   42   345   2   0  |    1    -1   0 ||  4  dal  |   13   23   218   0   0  |    2    -1   0 |

I know what you're thinking... where did the INTs go? You may very well be asking that very quesiton again this year if Moss is healthy too.

 

[ShotGunStyle]

Calling Brooks an 'improviser' is probably laughable' date=' but he is mobile and has a good long ball.[/quote']more mobile than Collins, yes.

remotely close to mobile as Cpepp, maybe in Jan of 05

Can you name the last QB besides Vick to run for more than 100 yards in a game?

Sure, Donovan McNabb. What's your point?

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.

Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

I think I agree with your overall point. Brooks certainly isn't going to run for 500 yards like Culpepper was capable of. But you are right that he is certainly more mobile than Kerry Collins (although that isn't saying much). What I would like to hear from someone who knows more about the real NFL than I do is this; Is Aaron Brooks mobility going to help Randy Moss. I guess what I am asking is has Aaron Brooks shown the ability to move around in the pocket to avoid pressure and then complete a pass. I think there are four possibilities when there is pressure in the pocket.

1. The QB gets sacked (we'll call this the David Carr option)

2. The QB runs for 45 yards (Mike Vick)

3. The QB moves avoids the rush and hits a WR for a 60 yard TD (Brett Favre circa 1996)

4. The QB runs for 8 yards

My question is the mobility that Aaron Brooks has more like #3 or #4. Mobility like #4 will result in a QB who rushes for 200 yards and a few TDs in the season. Mobility like #3 results in Randy Moss scoring 15 touchdowns.

My gut tells me that when pressured Brooks will be the QB who runs for 6-8 yards not the QB who completes a 60 yard bomb. Unfortunately my gut is often wrong. Anyone have a well reasoned argument that Brooks can be like #3?

Brooks is definitely more like QB 3 or 4. After he signed his big contract the coaches told him not to run as much, and that's part of the reason he's one of the few mobile QBs who stays away from injuries. I found this video of Brooks scrambling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWVe5ccBoEk

 

[Ducegonads]

FF wise and NFL wise are truely different things when talking about Brooks. IMO a 12 team league has Brooks as a borderline stater / top BU while attached to Moss.

NFL wise he's not going to carry a team but he can put points on the board. Heck Dilfer and B.Johnson won Superbowls.

 

[CalBear]

Collins passing stats with a healthy Moss:

WK OPP | CMP ATT PYD TD INT | RSH YD TD |+----------+--------------------------+----------------+| 1 nwe | 18 39 265 3 0 | 1 2 0 || 2 kan | 21 35 263 1 0 | 2 11 0 || 3 phi | 24 42 345 2 0 | 1 -1 0 || 4 dal | 13 23 218 0 0 | 2 -1 0 |I know what you're thinking... where did the INTs go? You may very well be asking that very quesiton again this year if Moss is healthy too.

You keep bringing those four games up. They are not statistically significant, the Raiders lost three of the four (winning 19-13 against the Cowboys), and didn't score more than 20 points. In fact, the best offensive numbers for Oakland in 2006 came in weeks 7 and 8, when Moss was hurt.Culpepper threw 23 INTs with Moss at WR, so it's not like Randy is some magical anti-INT machine.

That being said, Brooks has something Collins doesn't; aggressive decision-making. Collins is tentative, which is the worst thing to be when you have someone like Moss on the field. Moss, when healthy, will make a lot of bad decisions look good, as he makes plays with his athleticism. If Randy can get and stay healthy in 2006 (no guarantee), I expect Brooks and Moss both to have good fantasy seasons.

 

[Tau837]

Collins passing stats with a healthy Moss:

WK  OPP  |  CMP  ATT   PYD  TD  INT |  RSH    YD  TD |+----------+--------------------------+----------------+|  1  nwe  |   18   39   265   3   0  |    1     2   0 ||  2  kan  |   21   35   263   1   0  |    2    11   0 ||  3  phi  |   24   42   345   2   0  |    1    -1   0 ||  4  dal  |   13   23   218   0   0  |    2    -1   0 |I know what you're thinking... where did the INTs go?  You may very well be asking that very quesiton again this year if Moss is healthy too.

You keep bringing those four games up. They are not statistically significant, the Raiders lost three of the four (winning 19-13 against the Cowboys), and didn't score more than 20 points. In fact, the best offensive numbers for Oakland in 2006 came in weeks 7 and 8, when Moss was hurt.Culpepper threw 23 INTs with Moss at WR, so it's not like Randy is some magical anti-INT machine.

That being said, Brooks has something Collins doesn't; aggressive decision-making. Collins is tentative, which is the worst thing to be when you have someone like Moss on the field. Moss, when healthy, will make a lot of bad decisions look good, as he makes plays with his athleticism. If Randy can get and stay healthy in 2006 (no guarantee), I expect Brooks and Moss both to have good fantasy seasons.

Nice point on the aggressive decision making. To kind of take jurb's point a bit farther, Collins was QB5 after 12 games last year, and that was with Moss not fully healthy for most of those games. That illustrates some potential for this offensive cast, though with a new coaching staff it is certainly true that one must take last year's performance with a large grain of salt.

 

[Borat]

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.

Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

Maybe I missed something here, but are you seriously pointing to one game from 6 years ago to showcase Brooks' mobility?

 

[Sigfawn]

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.

Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

Maybe I missed something here, but are you seriously pointing to one game from 6 years ago to showcase Brooks' mobility?

He means if Brooks AND Moss revert to 2000 form, they're going to be pretty scary!

 

[ShotGunStyle]

My point, before I forgot that McNabb ran for 100 against Jacksonville in 2002, was that Aaron Brooks was the last to do so when he ran for over 100 yards in a game in 2000.

Just because Brooks hasnt been running doesnt mean he's less mobile than Daunte Culpepper.

Maybe I missed something here, but are you seriously pointing to one game from 6 years ago to showcase Brooks' mobility?

I think he was just trying to make people aware that Brooks ran for 100 yards in a game before, something a lot of people probably didn't know. He's had no injuries and is probably just as mobile today as he was then,

 

[videoguy505]

I always thought the team behind would abandon the run and gain garbage yards against the prevent D more often. I understand why it makes sense more yards=more wins, but I wouldn't expect it to be overwhelmingly so.

 

[The Jerk]

Why is this guy employed is my question?

MLB,Just so you know, Ian Allan is one of the most influential figures in the rise of the popularity and strategizing of Fantasy Football. He is the publisher and Senior Writer of Fantasy Football Index, the original (as in first) fantasy football magazine that debuted in 1987. Unless I'm misjudging your age, he's been writing about fantasy football roughly as long as you have been alive.FFI is a little bit like IBM. In its day, it was the premier information source available, but it has become less relevant with the rise of the Internet and competition has surpassed it in terms of volume and sophistication. Yeah, there's a website and all that, but there have not been many significant improvements to the content provided by FFI since the '90's, at least by my account. However, like On the Rocks, I continue to enjoy reading Ian Allan's writing, both in the magazine and in his mailbag. It's simply fun and gives me a starting foundation for the upcoming season.I will readily admit that my success in the mid-90's was due more to Ian Allan than my own knowledge and ability at the time. I'd read the magazine cover to cover than get an update mailed (that's right, mailed) before my drafts. Then in 1996 I stumbled across the rsff newsgroup and started reading the comments and exchanging opinions and strategy advice with some guy named Joe (he used the o and e back then), and the rest, as people say, is history...

 

[SSOG]

The problem with Randy Moss this year is that, with Aaron Brooks as his QB, he's going to have to compete for touches with the Left Tackle.

To be honest, I just don't think there are enough touches to go around. We know that Barry Simms is going to get his. Moss might be the odd man out.

 

[Borat]

The problem with Randy Moss this year is that, with Aaron Brooks as his QB, he's going to have to compete for touches with the Left Tackle.

To be honest, I just don't think there are enough touches to go around. We know that Barry Simms is going to get his. Moss might be the odd man out.

 

[Dancing Bear]

SSOG,

That was hilarious!

Thanks!

 

[jurb26]

Collins passing stats with a healthy Moss:

WK OPP | CMP ATT PYD TD INT | RSH YD TD |+----------+--------------------------+----------------+| 1 nwe | 18 39 265 3 0 | 1 2 0 || 2 kan | 21 35 263 1 0 | 2 11 0 || 3 phi | 24 42 345 2 0 | 1 -1 0 || 4 dal | 13 23 218 0 0 | 2 -1 0 |I know what you're thinking... where did the INTs go? You may very well be asking that very quesiton again this year if Moss is healthy too.

You keep bringing those four games up. They are not statistically significant, the Raiders lost three of the four (winning 19-13 against the Cowboys), and didn't score more than 20 points. In fact, the best offensive numbers for Oakland in 2006 came in weeks 7 and 8, when Moss was hurt.Culpepper threw 23 INTs with Moss at WR, so it's not like Randy is some magical anti-INT machine.

That being said, Brooks has something Collins doesn't; aggressive decision-making. Collins is tentative, which is the worst thing to be when you have someone like Moss on the field. Moss, when healthy, will make a lot of bad decisions look good, as he makes plays with his athleticism. If Randy can get and stay healthy in 2006 (no guarantee), I expect Brooks and Moss both to have good fantasy seasons.

Im not sure if you are trying to make my point for me here or not.