Would you take Tom Brady at 1.1, why or why not?

[kmbryant09 1]

Wrong. If you are talking about the same player in a different year I would agree because there is a constant (the player). However, all the variables you speak of, with it being a totally different player as the main one, seperates him from Manning or Marino or whothefockever. HTH

 

The league is different, the coaches are different, the opposition is different, the feilds are different, there will be different injuries, the o-lines are different, the d-lines are different, the wr's are different, the technology is different, the rules are different, ect. ect. How Petyon Manning played in 2005 has absolutely no bearing or predetermination whatsoever on how Tom Brady will perform in 2008.

 

Like I said, if you think Brady will have a significant dropoff this year that is all good, but don't act as if you can somehow prove it.

 

KSB - sorry man but it's not a coinflip - and while Manning's performance in '04 and '05 has no direct physical bearing on Brady in '07 and '08, the dropoff can be analyzed to figure out WHY there was a dropoff. Every so often teams, coaches, certain players progress far beyond the teams they are playing (i.e. manning and the colts in 04, LT and the chargers in 06, brady and the pats in 07). The problem is, the conditions going into the following year are not the same as they were the year before, when they had their extreme success. TEAMS MAKE ADJUSTMENTS - to personnel, to coaching staffs, to philosophies, to play calling etc etc all the way down the line. You're a fool if you think that when EVERY record-breaking season over the last 10 years HAS NOT DUPLICATED ITSELF, that this is just a coincidence. We know theres not some magical ora floating around Brady saying you can't throw 50 TDs again because it's been proven from the past - but to expect the other teams in the league this year NOT to adjust like every other team has every other year, you'd be a fool...

[KSB2424 3,083]

KSB - sorry man but it's not a coinflip - and while Manning's performance in '04 and '05 has no direct physical bearing on Brady in '07 and '08, the dropoff can be analyzed to figure out WHY there was a dropoff. Every so often teams, coaches, certain players progress far beyond the teams they are playing (i.e. manning and the colts in 04, LT and the chargers in 06, brady and the pats in 07). The problem is, the conditions going into the following year are not the same as they were the year before, when they had their extreme success. TEAMS MAKE ADJUSTMENTS - to personnel, to coaching staffs, to philosophies, to play calling etc etc all the way down the line. You're a fool if you think that when EVERY record-breaking season over the last 10 years HAS NOT DUPLICATED ITSELF, that this is just a coincidence. We know theres not some magical ora floating around Brady saying you can't throw 50 TDs again because it's been proven from the past - but to expect the other teams in the league this year NOT to adjust like every other team has every other year, you'd be a fool...

Couple things:

 

1. The coin flip was an analogy to your line of thinking rather than to Tom Brady or football. Guess that went over your head.

2. Correlation does not equal causitation

3. Who is saying that Brady will meet or surpass last years stats? Nobody.

4. Please look up the word "proven" in a dictionary.

5. You strike me as the guy that walks into a casino, looks at the roulette wheel board, sees that red has hit 5 times in a row, and bets his load on black because you somehow think it is due to happen because of past performance. Casinos make money on suckers like that. Wise up. YWIA

[TheBlade 3]

Wrong. If you are talking about the same player in a different year I would agree because there is a constant (the player). However, all the variables you speak of, with it being a totally different player as the main one, seperates him from Manning or Marino or whothefockever. HTH

 

The league is different, the coaches are different, the opposition is different, the feilds are different, there will be different injuries, the o-lines are different, the d-lines are different, the wr's are different, the technology is differnt ect. ect. How Petyon Manning played in 2004 has absolutely no bearing or predetermination whatsoever on how Tom Brady will perform in 2008.

 

Like I said, if you think Brady will have a significant dropoff this year that is all good, but don't act as if you can somehow prove it.

 

Ok, by that same argument then, couldn't you use the fact that, prior to last season, he has been mostly just an average or slightly above average QB from a fantasy standpoint to then argue that he realistically should come back down to numbers much closer to his historical average?

 

I mean, he's averaged 510 attempts, 316 completions, 3,593 yards, 25 TDs, 226.5 yds/gm, and a 88.5 passer rating over the six years prior to last year. And he's been as about as consistent as one can be in this game over that time span. Last year has all the ingredients of being a statistical anomaly, which is further supported by the previously mentioned statistical anomalies of Manning, Marino, Warner, etc.

 

I understand what you're saying about Manning and Marino in those prior seasons having no bearing on this season for Brady, but they do show a trend. Just as Brady's history prior to last season shows a fairly consistent trend. And, let's face it, anytime anyone makes a prediction of someone's production for the upcoming season, they have to use past data to some degree to support their belief. We use trends everyday in preparing for the fantasy season.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Ok, by that same argument then, couldn't you use the fact that, prior to last season, he has been mostly just an average or slightly above average QB from a fantasy standpoint to then argue that he realistically should come back down to numbers much closer to his historical average?

This would be a much better arguement for Brady having a significant dropoff in 2008.

 

In regards to the Manning and Marino "trend", its not that one can't look at it to make a prediction per se, it just doesn't prove anything like this kmbryant09 is trying to say. If in your opinion the same thing will happen then fine, but don't act like you can prove it.

[kmbryant09 1]

Couple things:

 

1. The coin flip was an analogy to your line of thinking rather than to Tom Brady or football. Guess that went over your head.

2. Correlation does not equal causitation

3. Who is saying that Brady will meet or surpass last years stats? Nobody.

4. Please look up the word "proven" in a dictionary.

5. You strike me as the guy that walks into a casino, looks at the roulette wheel board, sees that red has hit 5 times in a row, and bets his load on black because you somehow think it is due to happen because of past performance. Casinos make money on suckers like that. Wise up. YWIA

 

So sorry to use the word "prove" around you - guess my point went over your head - and for your info i am the exact opposite of the sucker you are explaining. Not that it matters but i study statistics and trends for a living, and am very good at what I do.

 

"CAUSITATION"???? lmao thats close to being a real word - look at the reader's posts below as well as the 3 or 4 previous posts I have written - history STRONGLY STRONGLY STRONGLY SHOWS (not proves, happy?) that Brady has a statistacally small small chance of repeating or even nearing the #'s he put up last year. I guess the whole idea of team adjustments playing a factor in the last SEVEN RECORD BREAKING SEASONS (manning, marino, culpepper, warner, LT, Harrison, Alexander) went WAYYY OVER YOUR HEAD. Stop taking every word so literally as it appears in the dictionary, but while your in that dictionary, can u look up the word causitation for me??

[kmbryant09 1]

How about I say there is a high likelihood (85-95%) that Brady doesn't NEAR his #'s from last year. Doesn't mathematically prove anything, but please don't make it sound like it is likely to happen again...

[KSB2424 3,083]

"CAUSITATION"???? lmao thats close to being a real word

Message bored posting 101: Whenever a poster has to resort to the spelling police arguement then he has been PWNED! HTH

 

I spelled board wrong too, I'll be waiting for you to point it out.  :thumbsup:

[KSB2424 3,083]

How about I say there is a high likelihood (85-95%) that Brady doesn't NEAR his #'s from last year. Doesn't mathematically prove anything, but please don't make it sound like it is likely to happen again...

Now you are pulling percentages out of thin air. Priceless.

[kmbryant09 1]

Now you are pulling percentages out of thin air. Priceless.

 

 

You are just an idiot man - is this what you'd like to hear: brady has a 100% chance of repeating last years outburst?? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE believe this and join my leagues, and I cannot wait to hear from you after week 8 when brady is on pace for 4,000 and 30...it amazes me how irrational and illogical people like you actually take the time to offer advice...

[KSB2424 3,083]

You are just an idiot man - is this what you'd like to hear: brady has a 100% chance of repeating last years outburst?? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE believe this and join my leagues, and I cannot wait to hear from you after week 8 when brady is on pace for 4,000 and 30...it amazes me how irrational and illogical people like you actually take the time to offer advice...

Wrong again. I'm noticing a trend here. <pun intended>

 

I was merely pointing out that you were wrong for saying in your intial post that the OP was an idiot to draft Brady 1.1 because you could somehow prove it. Here is your quote:

You're an idiot if you'd consider this lol.

 

The OP asked a legit question and almost all he got were posts like yours calling him stupid and a bunch of these: . That sir is irrational and illogical. Brady has just as good of chance to significantly outperform the 2nd tier QB's as LT has at signifcantly outperforming the 2nd and 3rd tier RB's. You can go look at whatever so-called "trends" from different players in years past you want, but it means jackshit.

[kmbryant09 1]

Wrong again. I'm noticing a trend here. <pun intended>

 

I was merely pointing out that you were wrong for saying in your intial post that the OP was an idiot to draft Brady 1.1 because you could somehow prove it. Here is your quote:

 

The OP asked a legit question and almost all he got were posts like yours calling him stupid and a bunch of these: . That sir is irrational and illogical. Brady has just as good of chance to significantly outperform the 2nd tier QB's as LT has at signifcantly outperforming the 2nd and 3rd tier RB's. You can go look at whatever so-called "trends" from different players in years past you want, but it means jackshit.

 

You weren't merely pointing out that i couldn't prove it - and i'm sorry you took my words so literally, i'll be more careful next time with my choice (all honesty, i shouldnt have used "proved"). But maybe i'm wrong but seemed like you were trying to say you think brady will duplicate/come close to last years performance, and i was trying to point out that based on history, which is a stronger indicator than you seem to think, shows that it simply hasn't been duplicated/come close ever before

 

And i significantly disagree with brady outperforming 2nd tier qbs compared to LT and 2nd/3rd tier RBs - there is so much parity among running backs, especially this year. To the point where arguably EVERY running back after LT, or the first couple, have serious question marks (theres another thread with similar comments if you want to check it out). The top 4 qbs (manning brady romo and brees, arguably palmer) are just about locks to finish in the top 5-7 qbs. The same cannot even come close to being said among the running backs, with the exception of LT. Factor in that brees, romo, and even manning are falling to late 2nd, mid 3rd, and I'd pair up LT with brees or romo anyday over brady and mcgahee, lynch, lewis (insert mediocre running back with question marks)...

[craphouse rats 0]

I have the #1 pick in our 12 teamer and what really sealed LT being my pick at #1 was the fact that he faces the easiest run schedule in the league this year.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

KSB and KMBryant you guys were having a thought out discussion (somewhat) that resorted to name calling. Lets try to refrain from that.

 

All I want to point out on that discussion is history "HAS PROVEN" that his numbers will decline. That is a fact. Until a QB produces a back to back 40 td season, that will always be a fact.

 

While it can happen KMB is correct in his assesments and uses plenty of statistical analysis to do so.

 

KSB it seems as though you just want an argument just to argue.

 

Teams make adjustments, you dont think that SD, Jax and NYG gave a blueprint for teams to slow down the passing offense?

[Lumpy Tice 0]

you have to make your pick based on your scoring....people saying otherwise are just generalizing. If your scoring and your projections warrant taking him there, take him.

 

from my league last year:

 

1. Brady 538 pts

2. Romo 375 pts

 

 

5. LT 332 pts

 

9. Moss 318 pts

 

12. Westbrook 298 pts

[kmbryant09 1]

KSB and KMBryant you guys were having a thought out discussion (somewhat) that resorted to name calling. Lets try to refrain from that.

 

All I want to point out on that discussion is history "HAS PROVEN" that his numbers will decline. That is a fact. Until a QB produces a back to back 40 td season, that will always be a fact.

 

While it can happen KMB is correct in his assesments and uses plenty of statistical analysis to do so.

 

KSB it seems as though you just want an argument just to argue.

 

Teams make adjustments, you dont think that SD, Jax and NYG gave a blueprint for teams to slow down the passing offense?

 

Thank you Raider - finally someone on here who understands statistical analysis and trends - I wouldn't go as far to say it IS A FACT (just because like you said, it theoretically COULD happen that brady matches last year)...but history strongly strongly strongly shows that brady will come down - and KSB is one of 3 things:

1. A diehard Patriots fan

2. Jealous of Tom Brady's girlfriend

3. Ignorant and arguing for the sake of arguing

[KSB2424 3,083]

Thank you Raider - finally someone on here who understands statistical analysis and trends - I wouldn't go as far to say it IS A FACT (just because like you said, it theoretically COULD happen that brady matches last year)...but history strongly strongly strongly shows that brady will come down - and KSB is one of 3 things:

1. A diehard Patriots fan

2. Jealous of Tom Brady's girlfriend

3. Ignorant and arguing for the sake of arguing

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

 

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[kmbryant09 1]

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

 

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

LOL your last 4 or 5 comments have been nothing but saying I'm wrong, even after somebody backed me - back off trying to offend me (trust me, I'm really not hurt by your oh-so-witty sayings) and look at the numbers - what numbers back up your theory that brady will match/near his 2007 production?? find me ONE record breaking season that was backed by at least 90% production the following year...

[KSB2424 3,083]

All I want to point out on that discussion is history "HAS PROVEN" that his numbers will decline. That is a fact. Until a QB produces a back to back 40 td season, that will always be a fact.

You sir are a dumbass. So it is your assertion that because Peyton Manning had a significant dropoff in 2005 that this makes it an absolute FACT that Tom Brady will do the same in the future.

 

Thats right sports fans, go ahead and cancel the season. We can use years past "trends" to predict the future as fact. No need to play the games. RaiderHater said so. He has PROOF.

[kmbryant09 1]

You sir are a dumbass. So it is your assertion that because Peyton Manning had a significant dropoff in 2005 that this makes it an absolute FACT that Tom Brady will do the same in the future.

 

Thats right sports fans, go ahead and cancel the season. We can use years past "trends" to predict the future as fact. No need to play the games. RaiderHater said so. He has PROOF.

 

I agree KSB you cannot say it is a FACT - we agree there so get over yourself - now can you agree that history strongly suggests that brady will have a significant decline in 08?? yes it is possible he breaks this trend, but EVERY RECORD BREAKING year people say it will repeat. LT was picked first last year in every FF draft with the expectation of 25-30 TDs. Manning went top 3 in every draft in 05 with the expectation of 40-50 TDs...same with culpepper, alexander, harrison and so on - and since you have ZERO EVIDENCE to back up your theory, i'd hafta go with the numbers on this one...

[KSB2424 3,083]

LOL your last 4 or 5 comments have been nothing but saying I'm wrong, even after somebody backed me - back off trying to offend me (trust me, I'm really not hurt by your oh-so-witty sayings) and look at the numbers - what numbers back up your theory that brady will match/near his 2007 production?? find me ONE record breaking season that was backed by at least 90% production the following year...

I thoroughly explained my assertion. Why do I need to say it over and over again? Your thought process is a fallacy. Just as the coin flip and roulette wheel analogy is a common fallacy. The trends that you are using do not have a significant constant in relation to Tom Brady's 2008 season, therefore they are null and void. Not sure how else to put it.

 

If you kwow anything about trends and statistical data you should understand that that it means absolutely nothing without a large base to pull from. A couple seasons is not a large enough pool. This does not create a signifcant trend, rather a random forecast based on happenstance.

 

HTH

[kmbryant09 1]

I thoroughly explained my assertion. Why do I need to say it over and over again? Your thought process is a fallacy. Just as the coin flip and roulette wheel analogy is a common fallacy. The trends that you are using do not have a significant constant in relation to Tom Brady's 2008 season, therefore they are null and void. Not sure how else to put it.

 

If you kwow anything about trends and statistical data you should understand that that it means absolutely nothing without a large base to pull from. A couple seasons is not a large enough pool. This does not create a signifcant trend, rather a random forecast based on happenstance.

 

HTH

 

You were the one who came up with the coinflip and roulette wheel fallacies - they don't have a significant constant?? try EVERY RECORD BREAKING SEASON WE HAVE SEEN...is that enough of a constant? or what about the common theme of every opponent making adjustments to slow the performer down...you think it is just happenstance these numbers drop off? so you think peyton manning performed at nearly twice the level in 04 as he did in 05 (49 TDs to 28)???? or did the thought of adjustments and opponents focusing on stopping the colts passing game ever cross your ego-filled head???

and a small base doesn't mean absolutely nothing, it often times hints at what the larger population leads to - back to ur coin flip analogy, you flipping a coin 10 times is not a large sample, but theres a pretty good chance of it being 5 and 5, or 6 and 4...both very close to the statistical output of 50/50 of the large sample...and in terms of football seasons, 8 seasons is a fair indicator of predicting the overall trend of statistical outliers (in case you don't know what this means - it's one sample out of many, in this case brady manning etc out of every qb season ever, landing way out of the normal curve)...if every single statistical outlier receeded back to the norm, why would you think brady's season is any different? other than last year's performance...oh wait, thats the SIGNIFICANT CONSTANT.....

[KSB2424 3,083]

You were the one who came up with the coinflip and roulette wheel fallacies - they don't have a significant constant?? try EVERY RECORD BREAKING SEASON WE HAVE SEEN...is that enough of a constant? or what about the common theme of every opponent making adjustments to slow the performer down...you think it is just happenstance these numbers drop off? so you think peyton manning performed at nearly twice the level in 04 as he did in 05 (49 TDs to 28)???? or did the thought of adjustments and opponents focusing on stopping the colts passing game ever cross your ego-filled head???

and a small base doesn't mean absolutely nothing, it often times hints at what the larger population leads to - back to ur coin flip analogy, you flipping a coin 10 times is not a large sample, but theres a pretty good chance of it being 5 and 5, or 6 and 4...both very close to the statistical output of 50/50 of the large sample...and in terms of football seasons, 8 seasons is a fair indicator of predicting the overall trend of statistical outliers (in case you don't know what this means - it's one sample out of many, in this case brady manning etc out of every qb season ever, landing way out of the normal curve)...if every single statistical outlier receeded back to the norm, why would you think brady's season is any different? other than last year's performance...oh wait, thats the SIGNIFICANT CONSTANT.....

[pronghorn3 0]

Hey Birdbrain, If you're trying to impress someone with your wealth of knowledge

and then search the internet for a word "that you've used at least 10 times" make sure you spell it right.

 

cau·sa·tion

1. the action of causing or producing.

2. the relation of cause to effect; causality.

3. anything that produces an effect; cause.

 

Your theory is also faulted, and the CORRELATION to Marino, Warner and Manning is valid.

The flip a coin example is BS and has no bearing on anything" I mean anything" Just nonsense,

 

Brady will have a good year, better than most, but he won't put up 40 TD's.

 

 

 

Message bored posting 101: Whenever a poster has to resort to the spelling police arguement then he has been PWNED! HTH

 

I spelled board wrong too, I'll be waiting for you to point it out.  :thumbsup:

[KSB2424 3,083]

Hey Birdbrain, If you're trying to impress someone with your wealth of knowledge

and then search the internet for a word "that you've used at least 10 times" make sure you spell it right.

 

cau·sa·tion

1. the action of causing or producing.

2. the relation of cause to effect; causality.

3. anything that produces an effect; cause.

 

Your theory is also faulted, and the CORRELATION to Marino, Warner and Manning is valid.

The flip a coin example is BS and has no bearing on anything" I mean anything" Just nonsense,

 

Brady will have a good year, better than most, but he won't put up 40 TD's.

It has already been established that I misspelled that word on a message board. Try and keep up.

 

The coin flip is an anlogy to the line of thinking and fallacies. i.e. A small sample size of past history does not predict the future of the next totally seperate occurrance (I might of spelled that word wrong to so go ahead and post the definition for me. TIA).

 

I don't have a theory per se. I just know that there is no absolute proof of how Brady will do next year. Hell, he might break a leg in week one. Or he may throw for 4500 and 45TD's. Whatever the fock Peyton Manning did in the past has no bearing. Plain and focking simple.

 

 

Also! I won this thread

[kmbryant09 1]

I don't have a theory per se. I just know that there is no absolute proof of how Brady will do next year. Hell, he might break a leg in week one. Or he may throw for 4500 and 45TD's. Whatever the fock Peyton Manning did in the past has no bearing. Plain and focking simple.

Also! I won this thread

 

We aren't saying specifically Peyton Manning and his performances influences Tom Brady - try and keep up

 

What we are saying is a small difference. We are looking at the REASONS (try and comprehend) why Manning dropped off and to rationalize the dropoff and to consider what to expect from Brady (Not just Manning, but manning, marino, warner, LT, etc. just use manning as example). You are saying the stats at the end of the year are pretty much random, and don't reflect what actually happens in games - hence why you think just as likely for brady to repeat. Under this line of thinking you would have to argue that Manning played at such a lower level in 2005 then he did in 2004, which was the reason for his dropoff; or his receivers dropped 21 TDs in 2005, or his OC suddenly hated Manning and just didn't give him the opp. to throw TDs...We (and pretty much anyone who knows sports) realize that the opponents actually had a great impact on Manning. They spent offseasons acquiring the personnel to keep up with Harrison, Wayne, and the slot receiver Stokley, they spent weeks and months gameplanning, looking at tapes, and figuring out blueprints on how to slow them down. The result was a defensive scheme that aimed to slow down the Colts passing attack at all costs. If you think this is a fallacy, here are some numbers: Edge carried the ball an EXTRA 26 times in 2005, same yards, and 5 more TDs in 2005 IN ONE LESS GAME then he did in 2004. Thats approximately 50 extra carries, 6 extra tds, and an extra 100+ yards because the teams were focusing on Manning and the passing game.

 

Bottom line is you need to rationalize why things happen in life - there are actual causes beyond the control of Tom Brady and the Patriots that will occur in 2008. I'm sure they will adjust, but understand that they won't be able to duplicate last year...

[Darko M 0]

If I end up with the pick 1.1 and I want Brady, there is no doubt in my mind I trade down for maybe 1.6 + 5.6...because there is zero doubt in my mind that Brady falls in my draft somewhere between 1.6-1.12. I honestly think he would fall to 2.6 if it weren't for the magazine brainwashing. People get programmed to think if Player A falls to 1.12 you HAVE to take them, which is why there is no way Brady falls out of the first round, even though drafting QBs so early really puts your team in a tough place.

 

...it really depends on your philosophy; sometimes a safe play is the way to go.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

It has already been established that I misspelled that word on a message board. Try and keep up.

 

The coin flip is an anlogy to the line of thinking and fallacies. i.e. A small sample size of past history does not predict the future of the next totally seperate occurrance (I might of spelled that word wrong to so go ahead and post the definition for me. TIA).

 

I don't have a theory per se. I just know that there is no absolute proof of how Brady will do next year. Hell, he might break a leg in week one. Or he may throw for 4500 and 45TD's. Whatever the fock Peyton Manning did in the past has no bearing. Plain and focking simple.

Also! I won this thread

 

small sample size? There have been 4 QB's to ever throw for 40+tds

 

lets just start with the superbowl era there has been approx 1200 starting QB's (approx 40 seasons x 30 teams, yes I know these arent exact numbers, but rounded)

 

5(total seasons of 40+ tds) in 1200 = .004% of 40 td seasons (approx)

 

of those 5 season 0 were followed by 40+ tds = 0% therefore

 

It is 99.996% probable that he will not break 40 tds this year

 

past statistics do reflect current projections. If I took it to a baseball parallel, no person has stolen more then 130 bases in consecutive seasons so therefore it is a fact that no person will ever do it. Can it happen, yes, but until it does its still a fact