Shopping Brady (1 Viewer)

[fantasy nut]

12 TD's vs. 2 INT's...you gotta love that...but half of those TD's were thrown in one game. Don't get me wrong, I love Brady, but after a 51 pt effort in week 6, I feel he is way over-valued and I am looking to take advantage of this. Currently, looking at deals for that would net me a stud RB or WR (PPR league) and a solid QB. I will most likely have to give up another player such as Portis or P. Thomas.

What do you think about the fairness and likelihood of netting the following players?

ADP and Flacco/Ryan

Schaub and S. Smith (NYG)

Gore and Rivers

Without going into the specifics, Brady is my only top shelf starting QB in a start 2 QB league...I hesitate to provide more details because I don't want to make this appear to be a Asst Coach type post. Just curious if anyone else is on the same wavelength with me on Brady or if I am nuts for evening thinking about this. Part of me is just doing this because I love to wheel and deal.

 

[robertd52]

12 TD's vs. 2 INT's...you gotta love that...but half of those TD's were thrown in one game. Don't get me wrong, I love Brady, but after a 51 pt effort in week 6, I feel he is way over-valued and I am looking to take advantage of this. Currently, looking at deals for that would net me a stud RB or WR (PPR league) and a solid QB. I will most likely have to give up another player such as Portis or P. Thomas.What do you think about the fairness and likelihood of netting the following players?ADP and Flacco/RyanSchaub and S. Smith (NYG)Gore and RiversWithout going into the specifics, Brady is my only top shelf starting QB in a start 2 QB league...I hesitate to provide more details because I don't want to make this appear to be a Asst Coach type post. Just curious if anyone else is on the same wavelength with me on Brady or if I am nuts for evening thinking about this. Part of me is just doing this because I love to wheel and deal.

Never been in a 2qb league...i would think having at least one stud qb is big time important?That said, I still like trading Brady now (or even better, if he goes off this week in London again) for the right package.Above, all 3 offers are def nice if you could get them, I like the ss schaub package the least.

 

[Keith1]

presumably you drafted Brady because you were hoping to get the Brady of 2007 (I know I did). So he finally shows a glimpse of that and NOW you want to trade him ??

Seems to me you sit back and hopefully enjoy that you captured that lightning in a bottle.

 

[fantasy nut]

Above, all 3 offers are def nice if you could get them, I like the ss schaub package the least.

Believe it or not, Schaub and S. Smith (NYG) are the #1 scorers at their respective positions in our league. Getting back to the main focus of my post, how does everyone view Brady the rest of the way...without a strong running game, and with the Pats D not being as dominant as in the past (save for the Titans game), I am wondering how often he will truly have big games...no doubt he will have many very nice, DD games...but I can also achieve this by playing matchups.

 

[Ozymandias]

So, do you want advice on who to start?

 

[fantasy nut]

presumably you drafted Brady because you were hoping to get the Brady of 2007 (I know I did). So he finally shows a glimpse of that and NOW you want to trade him ??

Seems to me you sit back and hopefully enjoy that you captured that lightning in a bottle.

Your exactly the type of owner I am looking to deal with...out of six games played, Brady has had 4 solid outings, 1 poor performance and 1 spectacular game. Personally, I see a lot more solid outings ahead, but I see him finishing in the 6-10 range the rest of the way. If I can net another Top 10 QB and stud at RB or WR then I feel I stand to gain.We often talk about "selling high" on players in this forum, but more often than not it relates to marginal players. How many of you have sold high on a marquee player and feel you have got a good value? Are any other Brady owners looking to do the same?

 

[FUBAR]

Above, all 3 offers are def nice if you could get them, I like the ss schaub package the least.

Believe it or not, Schaub and S. Smith (NYG) are the #1 scorers at their respective positions in our league.

Getting back to the main focus of my post, how does everyone view Brady the rest of the way...without a strong running game, and with the Pats D not being as dominant as in the past (save for the Titans game), I am wondering how often he will truly have big games...no doubt he will have many very nice, DD games...but I can also achieve this by playing matchups.

awesome if you can trade for past production. I doubt they keep it up - although Schaub could be top 5, SS top 12 the rest of the way. I like Brady a lot. I happen to have Schaub and SS in a 1 QB league and I'd have to think hard about giving them both for Brady, probably need slightly more - a WR3 type.

 

[The Jerk]

I wouldn't hurry to get rid of Brady, in particular for Schaub, and I own both in one league.

Schaub has been impressive for the past 12 regular season games or so, and I don't expect him to suddenly drop off to mediocrity, but his 2009 performance has been aided considerably by facing four of the six worst fantasy pass defenses in his first six games. Schaub has played one middle of the road fantasy pass defense (OAK) and one top fantasy pass defense (NYJ).

Schaub's numbers broken down:

against four bottom six pass defenses: 114 comp, 164 att, 1420 yds, 13 TD, 3 INT

against two average to good pass defenses: 29 comp, 55 att, 390 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT

Brady's widely analyzed struggles -- in addition to recovering from injury/surgery, the absence of Welker, etc. -- came in large part due to the opposing defenses. In the first five games of 2009, Brady faced the three stingiest fantasy pass defenses (DEN, BUF, NYJ) as well as ATL (14th) and BAL (23rd). Of course, TEN is 32nd.

Brady's numbers broken down:

against three average to bad pass defenses: 75 comp, 108 att, 915 yds, 8 TD, 0 INT

agasint three excellent pass defenses: 81 comp, 133 att, 809 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT

We're dealing with small sample sizes as well as a little bit of "chicken and egg" logic in that had Brady done better against his defenses or had Schaub done worse against his defenses, perhaps the schedule difficulty would not be so strikingly different. In any case, I think it's fair to argue that Schaub's opposition has helped him and Brady's opposition has hurt him. The only question is to what degree.

For the remainder of the season, Brady faces one bottom 8 fantasy pass defense, three in the 17-24 range, two in the 9-16 range, and four top 8. Schaub faces two bottom 8, two 17-24, two 9-16, and four top 8. So Schaub still has a slight schedule edge for the remainder of the season, although far lesser than the difference in the first six games.

 

[shredhead]

I sold Rodgers high (somewhat) to get Brady. I'm keeping him.

 

[thekidd2009]

presumably you drafted Brady because you were hoping to get the Brady of 2007 (I know I did). So he finally shows a glimpse of that and NOW you want to trade him ??

Seems to me you sit back and hopefully enjoy that you captured that lightning in a bottle.

Your exactly the type of owner I am looking to deal with...out of six games played, Brady has had 4 solid outings, 1 poor performance and 1 spectacular game. Personally, I see a lot more solid outings ahead, but I see him finishing in the 6-10 range the rest of the way. If I can net another Top 10 QB and stud at RB or WR then I feel I stand to gain.We often talk about "selling high" on players in this forum, but more often than not it relates to marginal players. How many of you have sold high on a marquee player and feel you have got a good value? Are any other Brady owners looking to do the same?

A buddy of mine is shopping brady in a league that i'm in and I would do the same. He has flacco on the bench and is in major need of upgrades elsewhere. If he makes the trade it will give him the ability to win the league but is risky bc he doesn't have a backup outside of flacco. The payment of our league is basically winner takes all and 2nd gets their money back. I think if you want to win it all, you have to be willing to take these gambles depending upon the amount of risk your able to swallow. I've learned my lesson on being to passive when my team isn't performing up to par and am willing to begin taking risks around this time of the year. It's these make or break type deals that make you a contender or a pretender if your team is in need of upgrades.

 

[SSOG]

I'm shopping Brady, but only because I've got depth elsewhere and I'm looking to package it for an upgrade. I'm trying to make a Brady + _______ = Peyton or Brees type trade. Unless I'm getting one of those two QBs in return, I'm not interested.

 

[Knobs]

I'm shopping Brady, but only because I've got depth elsewhere and I'm looking to package it for an upgrade. I'm trying to make a Brady + _______ = Peyton or Brees type trade. Unless I'm getting one of those two QBs in return, I'm not interested.

I got offered Brady/TO for Brees and turned it down. Just for a frame of reference.

 

[SSOG]

I'm shopping Brady, but only because I've got depth elsewhere and I'm looking to package it for an upgrade. I'm trying to make a Brady + _______ = Peyton or Brees type trade. Unless I'm getting one of those two QBs in return, I'm not interested.

I got offered Brady/TO for Brees and turned it down. Just for a frame of reference.

I'd turn it down, too, since TO's not much of a bump anymore. If I were a Brees owner, I'd hold out for a Brady + WR2 type offer, but as a Brady owner I'm going to try to get away with a Brady + WR3 deal. T.O.'s more of a WR4 than anything, at this point.

 

[cubbie5150]

I'm shopping Brady, but only because I've got depth elsewhere and I'm looking to package it for an upgrade. I'm trying to make a Brady + _______ = Peyton or Brees type trade. Unless I'm getting one of those two QBs in return, I'm not interested.

I got offered Brady/TO for Brees and turned it down. Just for a frame of reference.

I'd turn it down, too, since TO's not much of a bump anymore. If I were a Brees owner, I'd hold out for a Brady + WR2 type offer, but as a Brady owner I'm going to try to get away with a Brady + WR3 deal. T.O.'s more of a WR4 than anything, at this point.

FWIW, on Tuesday (in a 12 team redraft league), the Brady & Brees owners did the following trade:Brady + Jennings, in exchange forBrees + Hakeem Nicks

 

[Keith1]

presumably you drafted Brady because you were hoping to get the Brady of 2007 (I know I did). So he finally shows a glimpse of that and NOW you want to trade him ??

Seems to me you sit back and hopefully enjoy that you captured that lightning in a bottle.

Your exactly the type of owner I am looking to deal with...out of six games played, Brady has had 4 solid outings, 1 poor performance and 1 spectacular game. Personally, I see a lot more solid outings ahead, but I see him finishing in the 6-10 range the rest of the way. If I can net another Top 10 QB and stud at RB or WR then I feel I stand to gain.We often talk about "selling high" on players in this forum, but more often than not it relates to marginal players. How many of you have sold high on a marquee player and feel you have got a good value? Are any other Brady owners looking to do the same?

well, seeing as how 5 of 6 of Brady's performances have been solid or better (let's not forget it takes some time for him to shake off the rust from his injury), unless I can get someone back who has been "solid" 6 out of 6 times, I don't see the value in moving him. I'm not aware of any QBs who have been solid 6 of 6 games (even Brees had 2 clunkers).

 

[jurb26]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:

Car

@Buf

Jack

Unless you get Brees in the deal then Brady is a hold.

 

[jon_mx]

well, seeing as how 5 of 6 of Brady's performances have been solid or better (let's not forget it takes some time for him to shake off the rust from his injury), unless I can get someone back who has been "solid" 6 out of 6 times, I don't see the value in moving him. I'm not aware of any QBs who have been solid 6 of 6 games (even Brees had 2 clunkers).

Manning has been over 300 yards and multiple TD's in 5 games. His worst game was 301 yards and only 1 TD. I would 6 that was 6 for 6.

 

[Keith1]

well, seeing as how 5 of 6 of Brady's performances have been solid or better (let's not forget it takes some time for him to shake off the rust from his injury), unless I can get someone back who has been "solid" 6 out of 6 times, I don't see the value in moving him. I'm not aware of any QBs who have been solid 6 of 6 games (even Brees had 2 clunkers).

Manning has been over 300 yards and multiple TD's in 5 games. His worst game was 301 yards and only 1 TD. I would 6 that was 6 for 6.

you are correct. Manning is the only QB I would even consider trading Brady for. Can't see how anyone would feel otherwise.

 

[sweetness34]

well, seeing as how 5 of 6 of Brady's performances have been solid or better (let's not forget it takes some time for him to shake off the rust from his injury), unless I can get someone back who has been "solid" 6 out of 6 times, I don't see the value in moving him. I'm not aware of any QBs who have been solid 6 of 6 games (even Brees had 2 clunkers).

Manning has been over 300 yards and multiple TD's in 5 games. His worst game was 301 yards and only 1 TD. I would 6 that was 6 for 6.

I'm trying to trade brady for manning (with other players possibly involved...). Manning or Brees are the only guys I'd trade Brady for.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

What do you think about the fairness and likelihood of netting the following players?ADP and Flacco/RyanSchaub and S. Smith (NYG)Gore and Rivers

I think you're overvaluing Brady's worth. It was one big game against a porous defense riddled with injuries. I know for a fact nobody in my league would entertain those types of offers for a second.

 

[FGITLOTR]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:Car@BufJackUnless you get Brees in the deal then Brady is a hold.

It's amazing how many people are bailing on one of the bst QB's in the league--I too would only deal him for Brees

 

[NoCheese]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:Car@BufJackUnless you get Brees in the deal then Brady is a hold.

It's amazing how many people are bailing on one of the bst QB's in the league--I too would only deal him for Brees

In fairness, though, all 3 of those games could be in brutal weather as they all occur in mid to late December. I know, Brady just threw for 6 TD's in snow, but it was relatively mild compared to what a typical December day is like. I would deal him for Brees & Manning (both play in a dome) and that's it. Not sure why he's QB6 in the FGB Top 250. I love Schaub, Rivers, & Rodgers, but not many people I know trade Brady for any of those 3 guys straight up.With that being said, I don't think Brady is all the way back yet, but he's probably 85%. I think he'll have one more clunker game, with the rest being solid to spectacular.

 

[Adebisi]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:Car@BufJackUnless you get Brees in the deal then Brady is a hold.

It's amazing how many people are bailing on one of the bst QB's in the league--I too would only deal him for Brees

In fairness, though, all 3 of those games could be in brutal weather as they all occur in mid to late December. I know, Brady just threw for 6 TD's in snow, but it was relatively mild compared to what a typical December day is like. I would deal him for Brees & Manning (both play in a dome) and that's it. Not sure why he's QB6 in the FGB Top 250. I love Schaub, Rivers, & Rodgers, but not many people I know trade Brady for any of those 3 guys straight up.With that being said, I don't think Brady is all the way back yet, but he's probably 85%. I think he'll have one more clunker game, with the rest being solid to spectacular.

I ran the numbers in a previous thread, and Brady's numbers in cold weather environments late in the season actually were better than his numbers in what would be considered "normal" conditions... for whatever that's worth.

 

[CMU37484]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:Car@BufJackUnless you get Brees in the deal then Brady is a hold.

It's amazing how many people are bailing on one of the bst QB's in the league--I too would only deal him for Brees

Come on, what if a guy has Brady and say he plucked Big Ben in the 10th round as his backup. He's weak at WR or RB and can get a package deal of say Ray Rice and a decent WR for Brady? Does he pull the trigger?? YESI don't have Brady but I do have Ben and and I'd shop Brady for sure.Rule #1 in fantasy football for me.........anyone and everyone is always tradeable if the price is right.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:Car@BufJack

Really, why would you want to get rid of a QB with a playoff schedule that has the 10th worst (Car) & 3rd worst (Buf) FF matchup for QBs? Jacksonville is the 3rd best matchup for FF QBs (22 points allowed/game), but Car and Buf ARE NOT good matchups. Having an easy matchup in the championship doesn't mean much if you don't get there first.

 

[Knobs]

I think the Panthers and Bills look like difficult matchups for qb's only because their rushing defense is so horrible as well. Teams haven't needed to pass. I'm skeptical New England won't pass it by the bunches.

 

[Bayhawks]

I think the Panthers and Bills look like difficult matchups for qb's only because their rushing defense is so horrible as well. Teams haven't needed to pass. I'm skeptical New England won't pass it by the bunches.

I understand that, but regardless, it is what it is. The point behind the post was that trading Brady was a bad idea, basically because Brady has such an easy schedule. The fact is that his schedule is not easy.

 

[FUBAR]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:Car@BufJackUnless you get Brees in the deal then Brady is a hold.

It's amazing how many people are bailing on one of the bst QB's in the league--I too would only deal him for Brees

Come on, what if a guy has Brady and say he plucked Big Ben in the 10th round as his backup. He's weak at WR or RB and can get a package deal of say Ray Rice and a decent WR for Brady? Does he pull the trigger?? YESI don't have Brady but I do have Ben and and I'd shop Brady for sure.Rule #1 in fantasy football for me.........anyone and everyone is always tradeable if the price is right.

I'm in almost that exact situation - Brees and Ben in a dynasty. On one hand, I'm very comfortable with them for the next few years, on the other, if I can improve my RB/WR, why not deal one? Only reason I won't deal one is lack of a fair offer. With this being a dynasty, QBs are worth more IMO and are harder to trade than in a redraft.

 

[SSOG]

I ran the numbers in a previous thread, and Brady's numbers in cold weather environments late in the season actually were better than his numbers in what would be considered "normal" conditions... for whatever that's worth.

For the most part, it's because fantasy owners don't really understand how nature affects football. Heavy wind favors the defense, because the ball is a lot harder to throw accurately or with any distance. Rain favors the defense, as well, because it also makes it harder to throw accurately or with any distance, *AND* because it makes the ball slick and promotes fumbles. Snow, however, favors the OFFENSE. It makes the field slower, yes, but it also makes it harder to get your footing. When a CB is covering a WR, the WR knows what route he's running- he knows which direction he's going to cut in, and when he's going to make that cut. The CB doesn't know when or where he'll be cutting, so he doesn't have a chance to get his footing set before cutting. The result is that defenders fall down a lot more (or cut a lot slower) than offensive players. Even if it's actually snowing, the snow is rarely falling hard enough to make passing significantly more difficult (unless the snow is accompanied by heavy winds, which as mentioned favor the defense). Also, while rain favors the defense, as soon as the raining STOPS, it favors the offense for the same reason that snow does- the field is sloppy and a sloppy field is hard on defenders.

 

[FUBAR]

I ran the numbers in a previous thread, and Brady's numbers in cold weather environments late in the season actually were better than his numbers in what would be considered "normal" conditions... for whatever that's worth.

For the most part, it's because fantasy owners don't really understand how nature affects football. Heavy wind favors the defense, because the ball is a lot harder to throw accurately or with any distance. Rain favors the defense, as well, because it also makes it harder to throw accurately or with any distance, *AND* because it makes the ball slick and promotes fumbles. Snow, however, favors the OFFENSE. It makes the field slower, yes, but it also makes it harder to get your footing. When a CB is covering a WR, the WR knows what route he's running- he knows which direction he's going to cut in, and when he's going to make that cut. The CB doesn't know when or where he'll be cutting, so he doesn't have a chance to get his footing set before cutting. The result is that defenders fall down a lot more (or cut a lot slower) than offensive players. Even if it's actually snowing, the snow is rarely falling hard enough to make passing significantly more difficult (unless the snow is accompanied by heavy winds, which as mentioned favor the defense). Also, while rain favors the defense, as soon as the raining STOPS, it favors the offense for the same reason that snow does- the field is sloppy and a sloppy field is hard on defenders.

Not only does your post make intuitive sense, it matches what I feel is reality.However, are there stats to support it? I'm too lazy to do the research.

 

[Knobs]

I think the Panthers and Bills look like difficult matchups for qb's only because their rushing defense is so horrible as well. Teams haven't needed to pass. I'm skeptical New England won't pass it by the bunches.

I understand that, but regardless, it is what it is. The point behind the post was that trading Brady was a bad idea, basically because Brady has such an easy schedule. The fact is that his schedule is not easy.

The Bills have played the following teamsatriotsTampaSaintsDolphinsBrownsJetsPanthers have played the following teams:EaglesFalconsCowboysRedskinsTampaJudge for yourselves if the rankings are due to their actual defensive abilities, inept opponents, or a combination of the two.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

presumably you drafted Brady because you were hoping to get the Brady of 2007 (I know I did). So he finally shows a glimpse of that and NOW you want to trade him ??

Seems to me you sit back and hopefully enjoy that you captured that lightning in a bottle.

Your exactly the type of owner I am looking to deal with...out of six games played, Brady has had 4 solid outings, 1 poor performance and 1 spectacular game. Personally, I see a lot more solid outings ahead, but I see him finishing in the 6-10 range the rest of the way. If I can net another Top 10 QB and stud at RB or WR then I feel I stand to gain.We often talk about "selling high" on players in this forum, but more often than not it relates to marginal players. How many of you have sold high on a marquee player and feel you have got a good value? Are any other Brady owners looking to do the same?

This is the problem with Brady owners (myself included in two leagues). We think he's worth more than he is. Why would an owner give you a top 10 QB (in a start two league) and a dominating player at RB and WR? His big game made him tradeable, as in people might not consider him a bust anymore. But I think it will be hard to get what we consider true value for him.No harm in trying, though. But I think you'll be disappointed with the offers. Inquiring about trading him makes it look like you know that big game was unusual and you want out. If someone comes to you, that's a different story. Good luck.

 

[SSOG]

Not only does your post make intuitive sense, it matches what I feel is reality.However, are there stats to support it? I'm too lazy to do the research.

I'd look up some numbers, but I don't know of a good way to get weather data without going through the old gamebooks. That's way too huge of a project to bother with.I remember a head coach mentioning it (the whole "snow favors the offense" bit) several years back, so I've been paying extra close attention to it since then, and my anecdotal observations seem to confirm for me that, at the very least, there's no negative effect on offense. I was actually planning on starting Flacco over Brady last week until I heard that there would be snow.

 

[Adebisi]

I ran the numbers in a previous thread, and Brady's numbers in cold weather environments late in the season actually were better than his numbers in what would be considered "normal" conditions... for whatever that's worth.

For the most part, it's because fantasy owners don't really understand how nature affects football. Heavy wind favors the defense, because the ball is a lot harder to throw accurately or with any distance. Rain favors the defense, as well, because it also makes it harder to throw accurately or with any distance, *AND* because it makes the ball slick and promotes fumbles. Snow, however, favors the OFFENSE. It makes the field slower, yes, but it also makes it harder to get your footing. When a CB is covering a WR, the WR knows what route he's running- he knows which direction he's going to cut in, and when he's going to make that cut. The CB doesn't know when or where he'll be cutting, so he doesn't have a chance to get his footing set before cutting. The result is that defenders fall down a lot more (or cut a lot slower) than offensive players. Even if it's actually snowing, the snow is rarely falling hard enough to make passing significantly more difficult (unless the snow is accompanied by heavy winds, which as mentioned favor the defense). Also, while rain favors the defense, as soon as the raining STOPS, it favors the offense for the same reason that snow does- the field is sloppy and a sloppy field is hard on defenders.

 

[thatguy]

Not only does your post make intuitive sense, it matches what I feel is reality.However, are there stats to support it? I'm too lazy to do the research.

I'd look up some numbers, but I don't know of a good way to get weather data without going through the old gamebooks. That's way too huge of a project to bother with.I remember a head coach mentioning it (the whole "snow favors the offense" bit) several years back, so I've been paying extra close attention to it since then, and my anecdotal observations seem to confirm for me that, at the very least, there's no negative effect on offense. I was actually planning on starting Flacco over Brady last week until I heard that there would be snow.

I recall 4 or 5 years ago, a snowy game in Denver. Jerry Porter owned Champ Bailey in that game to the tune of a bunch of yards and 3 TDs (although I think Bailey was only covering him for two of the TDs - on his final TD, the game winner, I think he beat a zone in the middle of the end zone and Bailey was not at fault). Still, he almost certainly doesn't have that level of success against Bailey in normal weather conditions.

 

[Adebisi]

Not only does your post make intuitive sense, it matches what I feel is reality.However, are there stats to support it? I'm too lazy to do the research.

I'd look up some numbers, but I don't know of a good way to get weather data without going through the old gamebooks. That's way too huge of a project to bother with.I remember a head coach mentioning it (the whole "snow favors the offense" bit) several years back, so I've been paying extra close attention to it since then, and my anecdotal observations seem to confirm for me that, at the very least, there's no negative effect on offense. I was actually planning on starting Flacco over Brady last week until I heard that there would be snow.

I recall 4 or 5 years ago, a snowy game in Denver. Joey Porter owned Champ Bailey in that game to the tune of a bunch of yards and 3 TDs (although I think Bailey was only covering him for two of the TDs - on his final TD, the game winner, I think he beat a zone in the middle of the end zone and Bailey was not at fault). Still, he almost certainly doesn't have that level of success against Bailey in normal weather conditions.

 

[thatguy]

Not only does your post make intuitive sense, it matches what I feel is reality.However, are there stats to support it? I'm too lazy to do the research.

I'd look up some numbers, but I don't know of a good way to get weather data without going through the old gamebooks. That's way too huge of a project to bother with.I remember a head coach mentioning it (the whole "snow favors the offense" bit) several years back, so I've been paying extra close attention to it since then, and my anecdotal observations seem to confirm for me that, at the very least, there's no negative effect on offense. I was actually planning on starting Flacco over Brady last week until I heard that there would be snow.

I recall 4 or 5 years ago, a snowy game in Denver. Joey Porter owned Champ Bailey in that game to the tune of a bunch of yards and 3 TDs (although I think Bailey was only covering him for two of the TDs - on his final TD, the game winner, I think he beat a zone in the middle of the end zone and Bailey was not at fault). Still, he almost certainly doesn't have that level of success against Bailey in normal weather conditions.

Jerry Porter... My mistake.

 

[Rounders]

Not only does your post make intuitive sense, it matches what I feel is reality.However, are there stats to support it? I'm too lazy to do the research.

I'd look up some numbers, but I don't know of a good way to get weather data without going through the old gamebooks. That's way too huge of a project to bother with.I remember a head coach mentioning it (the whole "snow favors the offense" bit) several years back, so I've been paying extra close attention to it since then, and my anecdotal observations seem to confirm for me that, at the very least, there's no negative effect on offense. I was actually planning on starting Flacco over Brady last week until I heard that there would be snow.

I recall 4 or 5 years ago, a snowy game in Denver. Joey Porter owned Champ Bailey in that game to the tune of a bunch of yards and 3 TDs (although I think Bailey was only covering him for two of the TDs - on his final TD, the game winner, I think he beat a zone in the middle of the end zone and Bailey was not at fault). Still, he almost certainly doesn't have that level of success against Bailey in normal weather conditions.

Jerry Porter?

 

[jesse]

Why in the world would anyone want to trade one of the few elite fantasy QBs who has this playoff schedule:Car@BufJackUnless you get Brees in the deal then Brady is a hold.

Oh my SICKNESS! Staying put!

 

[thatguy]

Not only does your post make intuitive sense, it matches what I feel is reality.However, are there stats to support it? I'm too lazy to do the research.

I'd look up some numbers, but I don't know of a good way to get weather data without going through the old gamebooks. That's way too huge of a project to bother with.I remember a head coach mentioning it (the whole "snow favors the offense" bit) several years back, so I've been paying extra close attention to it since then, and my anecdotal observations seem to confirm for me that, at the very least, there's no negative effect on offense. I was actually planning on starting Flacco over Brady last week until I heard that there would be snow.

I recall 4 or 5 years ago, a snowy game in Denver. Joey Porter owned Champ Bailey in that game to the tune of a bunch of yards and 3 TDs (although I think Bailey was only covering him for two of the TDs - on his final TD, the game winner, I think he beat a zone in the middle of the end zone and Bailey was not at fault). Still, he almost certainly doesn't have that level of success against Bailey in normal weather conditions.

Jerry Porter?

Yup. I'm an idiot.

 

[certificate]

I don't think that snow favors the offense, although I'd like to see the stats. You're supposing that the WRs have some better ability to "get their footing" in the snow because they know where they're going to cut?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, the WRs always have the advantage of knowing where they're going to cut. The trouble is that you can't cut as quickly in snow, knowing where you're going to cut doesn't change the physics where the cleat meets the turf.

The point is, the WR can't cut any more quickly or any harder than the DB can... forehand knowledge of when and where the cut is going to occur doesn't change that.

Not buying it.

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think that snow favors the offense, although I'd like to see the stats. You're supposing that the WRs have some better ability to "get their footing" in the snow because they know where they're going to cut?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, the WRs always have the advantage of knowing where they're going to cut. The trouble is that you can't cut as quickly in snow, knowing where you're going to cut doesn't change the physics where the cleat meets the turf.

The point is, the WR can't cut any more quickly or any harder than the DB can... forehand knowledge of when and where the cut is going to occur doesn't change that.

Not buying it.

the reaction time changes, if even slightly, that's an advantage for the offense.

 

[Bayhawks]

I think the Panthers and Bills look like difficult matchups for qb's only because their rushing defense is so horrible as well. Teams haven't needed to pass. I'm skeptical New England won't pass it by the bunches.

I understand that, but regardless, it is what it is. The point behind the post was that trading Brady was a bad idea, basically because Brady has such an easy schedule. The fact is that his schedule is not easy.

The Bills have played the following teamsatriotsTampaSaintsDolphinsBrownsJetsPanthers have played the following teams:EaglesFalconsCowboysRedskinsTampaJudge for yourselves if the rankings are due to their actual defensive abilities, inept opponents, or a combination of the two.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make? The only common opponent is TB. The Panthers have played the Eagles and Falcons-good passing teams, while the Bills have played the Patriots and Saints-good passing teams. Panthers have played the Cowboys-average passing team, and the Bills have played the Jets and Dolphins-below average passing teams. The Panthers have played the Redskins-sucky team, period. The Bills have played the Browns-sucky team, period. I don't see how the teams they have faced are so drastically different that they would invalidate their pass defense stats.

 

[Bayhawks]

I don't think that snow favors the offense, although I'd like to see the stats. You're supposing that the WRs have some better ability to "get their footing" in the snow because they know where they're going to cut?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, the WRs always have the advantage of knowing where they're going to cut. The trouble is that you can't cut as quickly in snow, knowing where you're going to cut doesn't change the physics where the cleat meets the turf.

The point is, the WR can't cut any more quickly or any harder than the DB can... forehand knowledge of when and where the cut is going to occur doesn't change that.

Not buying it.

the reaction time changes, if even slightly, that's an advantage for the offense.

It's not really the reaction time. When you cut, you have to be balanced to make good, sharp, quick cuts. Obviously some people are more equipped, genetically, than others. That's why they get paid millions of dollars to play in the NFL, and others top at at college, high school, or lower sport levels.Anyway, SSOG is right, because when there is snow on the ground (or the ground is soggy, or icy, etc), the WR, who knows where/when he is cutting is able to make sure he is physically in a good position of balance to come out of a cut quicker and cleaner than a DB who may or may not be in the best position (balance-wise) to make the same cut.

It's the same as when a WR makes a good cut and "jukes" a DB on a dry, clean surface. The DB is/gets off-balance, and the WR breaks away from him. This is just exaggerated, and more likely to happen on a slippery surface.

 

[certificate]

I don't think that snow favors the offense, although I'd like to see the stats. You're supposing that the WRs have some better ability to "get their footing" in the snow because they know where they're going to cut?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, the WRs always have the advantage of knowing where they're going to cut. The trouble is that you can't cut as quickly in snow, knowing where you're going to cut doesn't change the physics where the cleat meets the turf.

The point is, the WR can't cut any more quickly or any harder than the DB can... forehand knowledge of when and where the cut is going to occur doesn't change that.

Not buying it.

the reaction time changes, if even slightly, that's an advantage for the offense.

It's not really the reaction time. When you cut, you have to be balanced to make good, sharp, quick cuts. Obviously some people are more equipped, genetically, than others. That's why they get paid millions of dollars to play in the NFL, and others top at at college, high school, or lower sport levels.Anyway, SSOG is right, because when there is snow on the ground (or the ground is soggy, or icy, etc), the WR, who knows where/when he is cutting is able to make sure he is physically in a good position of balance to come out of a cut quicker and cleaner than a DB who may or may not be in the best position (balance-wise) to make the same cut.

It's the same as when a WR makes a good cut and "jukes" a DB on a dry, clean surface. The DB is/gets off-balance, and the WR breaks away from him. This is just exaggerated, and more likely to happen on a slippery surface.

I think that I understand the concept behind what you're saying, but what I"m saying is that the WR can't make a good cut in snow, and the DB makes an equally crappy cut to follow. I'm not sure there is any reason to think that it's exaggerated in the snow.But I'd love to see the stats.

 

[SSOG]

I don't think that snow favors the offense, although I'd like to see the stats. You're supposing that the WRs have some better ability to "get their footing" in the snow because they know where they're going to cut?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, the WRs always have the advantage of knowing where they're going to cut. The trouble is that you can't cut as quickly in snow, knowing where you're going to cut doesn't change the physics where the cleat meets the turf.

The point is, the WR can't cut any more quickly or any harder than the DB can... forehand knowledge of when and where the cut is going to occur doesn't change that.

Not buying it.

You can set and plant your feet better in preparation for the cut if you know you're going to be making it, which means you can execute the maneuver quicker than the defender, and with less chance of winding up on your backside.

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think that snow favors the offense, although I'd like to see the stats. You're supposing that the WRs have some better ability to "get their footing" in the snow because they know where they're going to cut?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, the WRs always have the advantage of knowing where they're going to cut. The trouble is that you can't cut as quickly in snow, knowing where you're going to cut doesn't change the physics where the cleat meets the turf.

The point is, the WR can't cut any more quickly or any harder than the DB can... forehand knowledge of when and where the cut is going to occur doesn't change that.

Not buying it.

the reaction time changes, if even slightly, that's an advantage for the offense.

It's not really the reaction time. When you cut, you have to be balanced to make good, sharp, quick cuts. Obviously some people are more equipped, genetically, than others. That's why they get paid millions of dollars to play in the NFL, and others top at at college, high school, or lower sport levels.Anyway, SSOG is right, because when there is snow on the ground (or the ground is soggy, or icy, etc), the WR, who knows where/when he is cutting is able to make sure he is physically in a good position of balance to come out of a cut quicker and cleaner than a DB who may or may not be in the best position (balance-wise) to make the same cut.

It's the same as when a WR makes a good cut and "jukes" a DB on a dry, clean surface. The DB is/gets off-balance, and the WR breaks away from him. This is just exaggerated, and more likely to happen on a slippery surface.

I think that I understand the concept behind what you're saying, but what I"m saying is that the WR can't make a good cut in snow, and the DB makes an equally crappy cut to follow. I'm not sure there is any reason to think that it's exaggerated in the snow.But I'd love to see the stats.

by reaction time I am meaning the time it takes for the DB to see the WR cut, make the cut himself and get back in the right position. The reason it's exagerated although not by a lot is the ground is slippery which leads to the WR having a little more separation.

 

[jurb26]

I ran the numbers in a previous thread, and Brady's numbers in cold weather environments late in the season actually were better than his numbers in what would be considered "normal" conditions... for whatever that's worth.

For the most part, it's because fantasy owners don't really understand how nature affects football. Heavy wind favors the defense, because the ball is a lot harder to throw accurately or with any distance. Rain favors the defense, as well, because it also makes it harder to throw accurately or with any distance, *AND* because it makes the ball slick and promotes fumbles. Snow, however, favors the OFFENSE. It makes the field slower, yes, but it also makes it harder to get your footing. When a CB is covering a WR, the WR knows what route he's running- he knows which direction he's going to cut in, and when he's going to make that cut. The CB doesn't know when or where he'll be cutting, so he doesn't have a chance to get his footing set before cutting. The result is that defenders fall down a lot more (or cut a lot slower) than offensive players. Even if it's actually snowing, the snow is rarely falling hard enough to make passing significantly more difficult (unless the snow is accompanied by heavy winds, which as mentioned favor the defense). Also, while rain favors the defense, as soon as the raining STOPS, it favors the offense for the same reason that snow does- the field is sloppy and a sloppy field is hard on defenders.

Pretty much agree with this, but not the part of rain being an advantage for the D. At least not all the time. Rain often times makes for poorer footing than snow. Also, snow makes for difficult ball handling just as rain does. In colder temp. the leather of a football becomes more slick naturally, though as often as the field crews rotate the balls they really don't get very wet. IMO the only time a D really gets a true advantage is when it is very windy. Heavy wind can make an offense one dimensional. Any form of precipitation makes for worse footing and defenders are always going to be reacting to what an offense does.

 

[certificate]

I don't think that snow favors the offense, although I'd like to see the stats. You're supposing that the WRs have some better ability to "get their footing" in the snow because they know where they're going to cut?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, the WRs always have the advantage of knowing where they're going to cut. The trouble is that you can't cut as quickly in snow, knowing where you're going to cut doesn't change the physics where the cleat meets the turf.

The point is, the WR can't cut any more quickly or any harder than the DB can... forehand knowledge of when and where the cut is going to occur doesn't change that.

Not buying it.

You can set and plant your feet better in preparation for the cut if you know you're going to be making it, which means you can execute the maneuver quicker than the defender, and with less chance of winding up on your backside.

Assuming that the NFL DBs can't see you setting and planting your feet in preparation for the cut, and react to it themselves...It's possible, but as a Canadian who played dozens of games in the snow, and has watched probably 100+ cfl games in the snow, in my experience and opinion, I don't think it matters.

Maybe you're right about the cutting thing, but other factors at play negate this advantage (wet ball tougher to catch, tougher to pass block, timing off because the routes are sloppier), and it ends up being a wash.

 

[Darko M]

12 TD's vs. 2 INT's...you gotta love that...but half of those TD's were thrown in one game. Don't get me wrong, I love Brady, but after a 51 pt effort in week 6, I feel he is way over-valued and I am looking to take advantage of this. Currently, looking at deals for that would net me a stud RB or WR (PPR league) and a solid QB. I will most likely have to give up another player such as Portis or P. Thomas.What do you think about the fairness and likelihood of netting the following players?ADP and Flacco/RyanSchaub and S. Smith (NYG)Gore and RiversWithout going into the specifics, Brady is my only top shelf starting QB in a start 2 QB league...I hesitate to provide more details because I don't want to make this appear to be a Asst Coach type post. Just curious if anyone else is on the same wavelength with me on Brady or if I am nuts for evening thinking about this. Part of me is just doing this because I love to wheel and deal.

Who in there right mind is going to give you a 1st round player in Gore/ADP/S.Smith PLUS a top 5 QB for a top 3 QB? You're delusional.