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!
In the 44 games where Brees played the whole game the past 3 years (basically ignoring 3 games where he hardly played), Brees has averaged 249 passing yards, 1.73 TD, and .75 INT per game. That works out to 3984/28/12 over a full season . . . and it appears that the Saints are capable of posting better passing totals than San Diego.
exactlythats 600 fewer yards and 1 more int per season.plus, hes played in 75 games. the 31 prior to the last 44 dont count?
defensive adjustments?
Just that simple eh? Please explain why defensive adjustments will work so easily on the Saints, and why they are incapable of making offensive adjustments. I didn't see anyone duplicate the success the Redskins had against the Saints.defensive adjustments?
Actually, in my mind, they don't. Brees played on a terrible team and was learning how to play the pro game. The past three years he's ranked 11th, 7th, and 2nd for fantasy purposes. CLEARLY he is not the same QB as he was his first three years. I guess we need to write off Alex Smith because his rookie year he had a 1 to 11 TD to INT ratio.How'd Troy Aikman do in his first three years? Steve Young in TB? John Elway? Dan Fouts? I could go on and on. All of those guys were statisically well below average and evolved into HOFers. I'm not saying that Brees is a future HOFer, only that many times it takes a few years for QBs to start doing well.I agree that Brees will not consistently throw for 4400 yards a year, but he still has been very, very good. He's scored the second most fantasy point over the past three years, second to PManning.tppt said:
did you watch the games?? Often, Bush ran a pedestrian flare out route, and a CB was waiting for him . . . until Payton learns how to use Bush like Philly uses Westbrook, Bush's YPC will continue to be low . . . and like another guy wrote, Bush can't break a tackle to save his life . . .
2005: New Orleans was the #20 offense (total yards)2006: New Orleans was the #1 offense (total yards)I'd expect a regression for a few players on the team.Why do you think that his numbers will regress!?
What does 2005 have to do with anything? New coach, QB, Bush, Colston and completely re-shuffled, enhanced offensive line. Are you arguing that the Saints offense will regress because they struggled in '05? I have yet to read a reason for the Saints offensive demise other than "just cause."2005: New Orleans was the #20 offense (total yards)2006: New Orleans was the #1 offense (total yards)I'd expect a regression for a few players on the team.Why do you think that his numbers will regress!?
Like I said, in general I agree and normally I'd be the one making that same argument, however I think there is more to it than that.This is not player X getting hot in games 67 through 75 of his career here. This also isn't one of the bevy of guys (like those you mentioned earlier) who had an advantage during their stretch that they wouldn't carry over into the next year (playing fresh). MJD is a much more applicable example of a hot stretch run due to an advantage from one year that he won't carry over to the next (a la Mcgahee, JJ, Willie Green, etc) than Bush is imho.Bush is more akin to Steven Jackson who I argued for the same purpose last offseason, when he was coming off a 1400/10 season with a half-season split that was extraordinary and over an entire season would lead to outrageous numbers like well, the numbers he put up the next season in '06. In Jackson's case, in '05 one of his splits was ruined by a Rams team that completely fell apart. Bulger hurt, Martz in the hospital, backup QB hurt, #2 WR hurt, etc etc. All of this was unlikely to carry over into next season, so I felt his numbers from before this were more applicable.Likewise with Bush, we're talking about a guy who made some of the most visibly obvious improvements that we've ever seen at the position, and the numbers followed that trend instead of vice versa. One could have watched 2 carries from game 4 for Reggie Bush and 2 carries from game 14 for Reggie Bush and told you right then and there that he was going to put up much better numbers in game 14. He genuinely got better as an NFL RB with what he learned in the first half season, again more visibly than we've seen in a long, long time. That is something that will carry into next season. Mcgahee, JJ, Green, KJ, and now MJD's advantages that aided their huge numbers were not.You said yourself in regards to Brees that one of the reasons to disregard his first 31 games was his adjustment to the pro game, and here we're talking about someone who due to his style had one of the biggest adjustments to make of anyone and appears to have visibly done that to an extent we haven't seen in a while, and it's being ignored?
I guess you are assuming they'll be #1 yet again. I'm assuming they won't be, thus a regression. I think they'll still be a top 10 offense, but the loss of yards has to come from somewhere.If Bush goes up in rushing yards, then McAllister goes down. And likewise, if McAllister rushes for more, Bush's yards go down.I think Brees will come back to the pack after his career year.No one thinks LT will surpass what he did last year, nor did anyone think Manning would surpass his TD record year. Their career years are ones for the record books, Brees' was not.I don't think Brees is another Steve Young: a late blooming Hall of Famer. Subtract 500-700 passing yards from his 2006 total and you have your regression. Project the receivers along the same lines.
He's stronger than Metcalf. 700 6 TD's rushing780 6 TD's receiving. In a 1 1/2 PPR league he will have a good year.
And certainly, while I'm projecting Bush to modestly INCREASE his reception numbers, a great case can be made to expect some drop off, particularly if you believe Bush's carries will go up substantially (FWIW, I don't...I expect a modest uptick, but for the Deuce/Bush roles to remain largely the same). However, I simply cannot envision a scenario, short of injury, where Reggie winds up with 60 or less catches. Given what we saw last year, I think 70 is his floor, with 100 being the ceiling.exactly, he wont have a season every year like he did last year. thats all i said and meant. if he throws for 500 fewer yards, someone on the offense is taking a hit. if bush carries 50 more times, runs for more yards, good luck getting the same production receiving wise. as for the games played, i agree the first 31 dont matter, but I always get a laugh when people make up stats to support thier opinions, "the last 44 games" game 45 he stunk so lets not count it. i do it too, but its still funny tiger has never won a masters when the wind chill is beloew 50 degrees and its played on easter, while wearing a black hat
