your fantasy team
Moderators: Mop, Dictators in Training
numatu wrote:You mention New England's changing offense, and yet last year he put up almost 4,000 yards, 28 TD's and 14 INT's -- which would put him around 6th in fantasy value last year depending on what your league's scoring is.
Your mock scoring list follows exactly what I described. You used 1 point per 25yd passing, 1 point per 10yd rushing which favors yards. In other leagues where the scoring is 1 point per 50yds passing, or 1 point per 20 yards rushing (or more), more efficient QB's like Brady are rated higher.
Funny then that Brady isn't actually rated 6th, eh? He's no better than 9th, placing him squarely in the land of fantasy mediocrity. Passing efficiency means two things in fantasy football: jack and shit, and jack... well, you know the rest. Regardless of how you score yardage, Brady isn't going to score much better than he does on this list. The quarterbacks ahead of him tend to have more touchdowns, tons more yards, or better rushing stats. Even if you completely discount passing yards entirely, Brady moves up a whopping one spot. In a 10 team league, he's the third-worst instead of the second-worst choice.
Brady's consistency puts him over players like Plummer, and Delhomme, who just lost his #1 target.
You conveniently forget to mention that Delhomme lost his secondary target. Smith, who he is actually getting back this year, was always his number one receiver. I'm sorry, I didn't realize your league awarded points for 'consistency'. If you'd care to provide your scoring system for it, I'll figure it into the totals.
Delhomme's stats when he had his "#1" and "#2" target in 2003:
3219 yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 1 Rush TD
Delhomme's stats last season when he lost his "#1" to injury, and the "#2" stepped up who is now gone:
3886 yards, 29 TD's, 15 INT's, 1 Rush TD.
As you can see above, it wasn't conveniently forgotten, because it's irrelevant. Just like Steve Smith is. Delhomme's shiny season last year has a Moose in contract year asterisk all over it.
And as far as consistency, Brady has put up ~25 TD's 14 INT's and ~3500 just about every year he's been a starter. Whereas the others you never know what you're going to get from year to year. Consistency from year to year means nothing in fantasy football? Wow.
This is why I love playing against rabid haters!
3219 yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 1 Rush TD
Delhomme's stats last season when he lost his "#1" to injury, and the "#2" stepped up who is now gone:
3886 yards, 29 TD's, 15 INT's, 1 Rush TD.
You conveniently forget to mention that Delhomme lost his secondary target. Smith, who he is actually getting back this year, was always his number one receiver.
As you can see above, it wasn't conveniently forgotten, because it's irrelevant. Just like Steve Smith is. Delhomme's shiny season last year has a Moose in contract year asterisk all over it.
And as far as consistency, Brady has put up ~25 TD's 14 INT's and ~3500 just about every year he's been a starter. Whereas the others you never know what you're going to get from year to year. Consistency from year to year means nothing in fantasy football? Wow.
This is why I love playing against rabid haters!
numatu wrote:Delhomme's stats when he had his "#1" and "#2" target in 2003:
3219 yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 1 Rush TD
Delhomme's stats last season when he lost his "#1" to injury, and the "#2" stepped up who is now gone:
3886 yards, 29 TD's, 15 INT's, 1 Rush TD.
As you can see above, it wasn't conveniently forgotten, because it's irrelevant. Just like Steve Smith is. Delhomme's shiny season last year has a Moose in contract year asterisk all over it.
This is a ridiculous implication. Are you seriously suggesting that Delhomme's improved stats are somehow related to losing the best reciever on the team? Have you seen Delhomme's DVOA over the past few seasons? Have you seen the technical improvements he's made under Fox?
And as far as consistency, Brady has put up ~25 TD's 14 INT's and ~3500 just about every year he's been a starter. Whereas the others you never know what you're going to get from year to year. Consistency from year to year means nothing in fantasy football? Wow.
Consistency from year to year is beneficial in evaluating a player, to be sure. When a player consistently performs at a mediocre level, it helps us avoid him in our drafts.
I don't expect anyone to take a statistics class before posting here, but seriously, a brief glance at Brady's statistics are enough to invalidate your claim. His yardage figures have been 2843, 3764, 3620, and 3692. His touchdown figures have been 18, 29, 24, and 28. These violate both halves of the 'consistently good' ideal we measure fantasy players against.
This is why I love playing against rabid haters!
That's cool. You stick with your hometown hero. I'll go with the guys who, you know, give me more points. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who's done so much as read this thread that I absolutely do not hate on Brady... but I'm not likely to draft him for a fantasy team for the objective reason that he scores fewer points than the other available options. Of course, it's easier to simply label me a hater than look at them thar number things. It's not a matter of opinion, Brady simply scored fewer points than most quarterbacks likely to start in a fantasy league.
Phlegm wrote:how would Rothlisberger fare in the fantasy football world?
Last year? Poorly. Rookie seasons generally have poor predictive value unless the names "Peyton" or "Leaf" are involved, though. One factor working against Roethlisberger is the system he's operating in (much like Brady after the addition of Dillon). Will Big Ben overcome his technique problems? Will Cowher look to pass the ball more as he gains more trust in Roethlisberger (and as his running backs collapse)? Tough to say given a sample size of only one season.
Have you seen Delhomme's DVOA over the past few seasons? Have you seen the technical improvements he's made under Fox?
You are quick to dismiss every statistic of Delhomme's prior to last season, yet use Brady's first season (the only season to the contrary) coming off Bledsoe's injury as your basis for negating his 3500+, 25 TD/14 INT average? This is comical.
That's cool. You stick with your hometown hero.
I do not have Brady in any fantasy league. You're assuming I do because I defended someone you started to rag on who just might (gasp) do this for fun.
numatu wrote:You are quick to dismiss every statistic of Delhomme's prior to last season, yet use Brady's first season (the only season to the contrary) coming off Bledsoe's injury as your basis for negating his 3500+, 25 TD/14 INT average? This is comical.
That would be because I'm not the one preaching the value of consistency. I'd much rather look at trends to predict future performance. Even dismissing Brady's first full season, his numbers haven't been "consistent", check the standard deviation from the average numbers you're putting forward. You've also ignored the circumstances that have changed around each quarterback.
I do not have Brady in any fantasy league. You're assuming I do because I defended someone you started to rag on who just might (gasp) do this for fun.
I'm not assuming you have Brady. I'm pointing out what a bad decision it would be to draft him in a standard fantasy league. Regardless of why you chose to do it, you still made several spurious arguments in his defense.
xaoshaen wrote:I'd much rather look at trends to predict future performance.
DVOA ranks the last 3 years for 3 QB's:
Jake Delhomme
2002: N/E
2003: 22nd
2004: 14th
Jake Plummer
2002: 42nd
2003: 6th
2004: 12th
Marc Bulger
2002: 2nd
2003: 19th
2004: 8th
These are three QB's you put ahead of Brady in an earlier post with your mock scoring system based on the 2004 season. You say you're looking for "trends".
Here's the "trend": Delhomme benefitted from an aging WR in a contract year who saw the $$ signs at the end of the tunnel. Can Steve Smith rebound? How will DaShawn's return to the lineup affect Fox's playcalling, and subsequent fantasy value of Delhomme?
Plummer is.... well, Plummer. Mike Anderson says thank you for the rushing TD's this year.
Bulger is the only QB here with a definitive comparability to Brady due to Martz being an idiot.
Let's look at Brady.
2002: 18th
2003: 14th
2004: 2nd
How's the trend looking? I'm sure the return of stud Ben Watson from injury will only hurt Brady's red zone targets? How about Branch, who missed most of last season?
The same four QB's, the last 3 seasons (if applicable):
Jake Delhomme:
2002: N/E
2003: 3219 yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 39 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 6 Fumbles
2004: 3886 yards, 29 TD's 15 INT's, 71 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 5 Fumbles
Jake Plummer:
2002: 2972 yards, 18 TD's 20 INT's, 283 Rushing Yards, 2 TD's, 5 Fumbles
2003: 2182 yards, 15 TD's, 7 INT's, 205 Rushing Yards, 3 TD's, 2 Fumbles
2004: 4089 yards, 27 TD's, 20 INT's, 202 Rushing Yards, 1 TD's, 1 Fumble
Marc Bulger:
2002: N/E
2003: 3845 yards, 22 TD's, 22 INT's, 75 Rushing Yards, 4 TD's, 6 Fumbles
2004: 3964 yards, 21 TD's, 14 INT's, 89 Rushing Yards, 3 TD's, 4 Fumbles
Tom Brady:
2002: 3764 yards, 28 TD's (League Leader), 14 INT's, 110 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 4 Fumbles
2003: 3620 yards, 23 TD's, 12 INT's, 63 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 5 Fumbles
2004: 3692 yards, 28 TD's, 14 INT's, 28 Rushing Yards, 0 TD, 5 Fumbles
xaoshaen wrote:Even dismissing Brady's first full season, his numbers haven't been "consistent", check the standard deviation from the average numbers you're putting forward.
If Brady's numbers aren't consistent relative to, oh I don't know, everyone in the league, who is? I suggest you calculate it again.
xaoshaen wrote:You've also ignored the circumstances that have changed around each quarterback.
To the contrary, I know exactly what has changed; it seems you haven't researched this topic very well. You've also backed yourself into a corner in regards to Brady's so called inconsistent fantasy value while praising the DVOA of QB's with lesser values than Brady each successive year.
Wow, I completely missed this gem.
That wasn't a mock scoring system, it was a fairly standard fantasy scoring system, with consideration given to the most beneficial possible weighting Brady could receive.
I do not think that word means what you think it means... You're referring to the same Steve Smith who's consistently outplayed Mohammed? Delhomme is getting an upgrade to his target set this season. DeShaun Foster is unlikely to create enough success to hamper Carolina's passing game. Steven Davis, when healthy, is another matter. A strong running game can actually be an asset to a quarterback, however, particularly when it's used to set up the deep pass which Fox has shown an affinity for. I do hope you're not suggesting that an offense can only put up good numbers in one aspect of the game. If so, Peyton Manning and Edgerrin James would like to suggest otherwise. Delhomme's been a steadily improving young quarterback as evidenced by his DVOA progression, and has given no cause for us to fear a sudden regression.
Plummer's also benefitted from playing under Shanahan. He seems unlikely to regress to his Arizona numbers, particularly given that he's got the NFL's most dangerous deep threat, statistically speaking and the always solid Denver running game to complement him.
Pop quiz. Who has a better career winning percentage, Martz or Belicheck?
The trend looks good, if you're a Patriot's fan. If you're a fantasy player, it's a bit disconcerting. Brady is already performing at an elite level, yet he's not putting up particularly good fantasy points. What would suggest a change in this trend?
I say again, check his standard deviation and get back to me. Other quarterbacks may certaintly be more inconsistant than Brady, but hey you could guarantee yourself poor fantasy production from Brady or take a chance that one of the others will give you a decent performance.
You may know what's changed, but you've still ignored the implications of those changes. Delhomme is a young, rapidly improving quarterback who's already putting up better fantasy numbers than Brady. Plummer is running an offense that promises to be better this year than last with Lelie finally seeming to catch on, giving the Broncos one of the best deep threats in the league as well as a viable second receiver for the first time since the days of McCaffery. Bulger is playing in the pass-happy Rams offense, which tends to put up huge numbers right up until the quarterback explodes.
I don't ever recall suggesting that any of the quarterbacks I listed would have more NFL success, which is what DVOA measures, than Brady. However, they are a useful tool for predicting trends. Brady had one of his best seasons last year... and was still a sub-par fantasy performer.
numatu wrote:xaoshaen wrote:I'd much rather look at trends to predict future performance.
DVOA ranks the last 3 years for 3 QB's:
Jake Delhomme
2002: N/E
2003: 22nd
2004: 14th
Jake Plummer
2002: 42nd
2003: 6th
2004: 12th
Marc Bulger
2002: 2nd
2003: 19th
2004: 8th
These are three QB's you put ahead of Brady in an earlier post with your mock scoring system based on the 2004 season. You say you're looking for "trends".
That wasn't a mock scoring system, it was a fairly standard fantasy scoring system, with consideration given to the most beneficial possible weighting Brady could receive.
Here's the "trend": Delhomme benefitted from an aging WR in a contract year who saw the $$ signs at the end of the tunnel. Can Steve Smith rebound? How will DaShawn's return to the lineup affect Fox's playcalling, and subsequent fantasy value of Delhomme?
I do not think that word means what you think it means... You're referring to the same Steve Smith who's consistently outplayed Mohammed? Delhomme is getting an upgrade to his target set this season. DeShaun Foster is unlikely to create enough success to hamper Carolina's passing game. Steven Davis, when healthy, is another matter. A strong running game can actually be an asset to a quarterback, however, particularly when it's used to set up the deep pass which Fox has shown an affinity for. I do hope you're not suggesting that an offense can only put up good numbers in one aspect of the game. If so, Peyton Manning and Edgerrin James would like to suggest otherwise. Delhomme's been a steadily improving young quarterback as evidenced by his DVOA progression, and has given no cause for us to fear a sudden regression.
Plummer is.... well, Plummer. Mike Anderson says thank you for the rushing TD's this year.
Plummer's also benefitted from playing under Shanahan. He seems unlikely to regress to his Arizona numbers, particularly given that he's got the NFL's most dangerous deep threat, statistically speaking and the always solid Denver running game to complement him.
Bulger is the only QB here with a definitive comparability to Brady due to Martz being an idiot.
Pop quiz. Who has a better career winning percentage, Martz or Belicheck?
Let's look at Brady.
2002: 18th
2003: 14th
2004: 2nd
How's the trend looking? I'm sure the return of stud Ben Watson from injury will only hurt Brady's red zone targets? How about Branch, who missed most of last season?
The trend looks good, if you're a Patriot's fan. If you're a fantasy player, it's a bit disconcerting. Brady is already performing at an elite level, yet he's not putting up particularly good fantasy points. What would suggest a change in this trend?
The same four QB's, the last 3 seasons (if applicable):
Jake Delhomme:
2002: N/E
2003: 3219 yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 39 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 6 Fumbles
2004: 3886 yards, 29 TD's 15 INT's, 71 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 5 Fumbles
Jake Plummer:
2002: 2972 yards, 18 TD's 20 INT's, 283 Rushing Yards, 2 TD's, 5 Fumbles
2003: 2182 yards, 15 TD's, 7 INT's, 205 Rushing Yards, 3 TD's, 2 Fumbles
2004: 4089 yards, 27 TD's, 20 INT's, 202 Rushing Yards, 1 TD's, 1 Fumble
Marc Bulger:
2002: N/E
2003: 3845 yards, 22 TD's, 22 INT's, 75 Rushing Yards, 4 TD's, 6 Fumbles
2004: 3964 yards, 21 TD's, 14 INT's, 89 Rushing Yards, 3 TD's, 4 Fumbles
Tom Brady:
2002: 3764 yards, 28 TD's (League Leader), 14 INT's, 110 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 4 Fumbles
2003: 3620 yards, 23 TD's, 12 INT's, 63 Rushing Yards, 1 TD, 5 Fumbles
2004: 3692 yards, 28 TD's, 14 INT's, 28 Rushing Yards, 0 TD, 5 Fumblesxaoshaen wrote:Even dismissing Brady's first full season, his numbers haven't been "consistent", check the standard deviation from the average numbers you're putting forward.
If Brady's numbers aren't consistent relative to, oh I don't know, everyone in the league, who is? I suggest you calculate it again.
I say again, check his standard deviation and get back to me. Other quarterbacks may certaintly be more inconsistant than Brady, but hey you could guarantee yourself poor fantasy production from Brady or take a chance that one of the others will give you a decent performance.
xaoshaen wrote:You've also ignored the circumstances that have changed around each quarterback.
To the contrary, I know exactly what has changed; it seems you haven't researched this topic very well. You've also backed yourself into a corner in regards to Brady's so called inconsistent fantasy value while praising the DVOA of QB's with lesser values than Brady each successive year.
You may know what's changed, but you've still ignored the implications of those changes. Delhomme is a young, rapidly improving quarterback who's already putting up better fantasy numbers than Brady. Plummer is running an offense that promises to be better this year than last with Lelie finally seeming to catch on, giving the Broncos one of the best deep threats in the league as well as a viable second receiver for the first time since the days of McCaffery. Bulger is playing in the pass-happy Rams offense, which tends to put up huge numbers right up until the quarterback explodes.
I don't ever recall suggesting that any of the quarterbacks I listed would have more NFL success, which is what DVOA measures, than Brady. However, they are a useful tool for predicting trends. Brady had one of his best seasons last year... and was still a sub-par fantasy performer.
Arlos wrote:Would it be that awful to draft him in a very late round as a backup QB?
-Arlos
I'd say go for it, if you're only using him when you're primary quarterback is unavailable. Getting one of the top 10-15 QBs in the league as a late round backup is a good deal. I wound up with Hasselbeck as my second QB, so I'm damn near thrilled
In the NT league, which is the only one I'm doing right now, I ended up with Bulger as my starting QB, with a backup of (*gulp*) Patrick Ramsey. If the Rams play the rest of the season like they did last night in dismantling the Lions, I think Bulger is going to work out quite well for me, though as a 49ers fan it rankles my soul to actually root FOR the Rams. I guess I'll hope their D breaks down, and he has to throw for 500 yards every game, and they lose a lot of 45-42 games.
Anyway, I think my NT team is pretty solid overall, though I haven't done the fantasy football thing before, so I dunno for sure.
-Arlos
Anyway, I think my NT team is pretty solid overall, though I haven't done the fantasy football thing before, so I dunno for sure.
-Arlos
After 10 games, the top 3 QB's in just about every FFL league are:
Carson Palmer
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Congratulations Susvain, on your "decidely mediocre" starting FFL QB. Depending on where you drafted him, you most likely got a steal. Brady proving people wrong once again.
Another nice stat:
Brady needs 3 more TD's without a pick to join an exclusive club. There are only two QB's that I've found with more than 1000 attempts that also have a 2:1 TD/INT ratio or greater. These two are Steve Young, and Donovan McNabb.
Carson Palmer
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Congratulations Susvain, on your "decidely mediocre" starting FFL QB. Depending on where you drafted him, you most likely got a steal. Brady proving people wrong once again.
Another nice stat:
Brady needs 3 more TD's without a pick to join an exclusive club. There are only two QB's that I've found with more than 1000 attempts that also have a 2:1 TD/INT ratio or greater. These two are Steve Young, and Donovan McNabb.
arlos wrote:In the NT league, which is the only one I'm doing right now, I ended up with Bulger as my starting QB, with a backup of (*gulp*) Patrick Ramsey. If the Rams play the rest of the season like they did last night in dismantling the Lions, I think Bulger is going to work out quite well for me
Bulger is out for the next two games. Perhaps if you have someone worthwhile, I'll trade you Jamie Martin for them.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
– C. S. Lewis
– C. S. Lewis