Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums


Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bigpapi88

  1. Before free agency and the draft: Standard Rankings 1. David Johnson 2. Le'Veon Bell 3. Ezekiel Elliott These first three are the cream of the crop. As the season goes on the tier might change a bit, but right now you can just flip a three-sided coin. 4. Antonio Brown 5. Odell Beckham Jr. 6. Mike Evans 7. Julio Jones The four most elite and dependable wideouts. A.J. Green is very close to this level as well. 8. Lesean McCoy Sure, he will be 29, but it's tough to resist after the year he just produced. I believe he's got plenty in
  2. It's irrelevant information for the topic of the thread (Denver Broncos 2017 Season Outlook). No one was discussing Brady, but you brought him up completely out of context, which suggests to me you have a hate-driven obsession with him as @mrblonde1984 said. Denver always plays Brady and New England tough. He's 6-6 in the regular season. His passer rating is still 90.7 and his TD:INT are 23:6. In the playoffs it dips to 1-3 with a 89.8 rating and a 9:5 TD to INT ratio. Honestly, I knew the record was poor and I expected the stats to be a bit worse. Sorry for derailing the thread a
  3. No where near third round for me in a dynasty. I see him as a solid flex in that format, but he's shown inconsistency throughout his career and will be 31 next season. I'm not low on him, but his value is higher in redraft than in dynasty imo.
  4. If the front office thinks Garoppolo is the real deal, they should trade that second and probably another pick for him. If the front office thinks Mahomes is the guy then so be it.
  5. With his low strikeout rate and high walk rate he is a great asset in points leagues. In a standard 5x5 he's more of a CI target than a 1B though.
  6. I'm doing nothing of the sort. I've stated my opinion and any facts I'm using are not inaccurate. "Proven" or "disproven" in these cases are merely arbitrary rulings by the offices of the league. There is evidence to suggest both accusations. I think both broke the rules they are accused of having broken. That's my opinion from having looked into the cases. Neither are big deals for thei legacies as I stated above. The only difference is one verdict is endorsed by an organization with questionable integrity while the other is not.
  7. Unless we assume the NFL to be a completely unbiased and neutral purveyor of justice then we can easily look at Manning's HGH allegations and label him a cheater. For whatever reason (I won't speculate here), the NFL pursued relatively flimsy evidence over a pretty minor issue when it came to Brady. Nearly identical allegations levied against Roethlisberger less than two months ago were swiftly dismissed by the NFL. Personally, I can see why Peyton or any other NFL player would use HGH and don't fault him. I also think some tampering of footballs is a fairly common practice across the league a
  8. I think people are sleeping on Salazar. He's a risky pick, but for the first half of the season he was putting up ace stats. I think his fading down the stretch had more to do with injury than anything else. I'd feel good with him as a SP2 if I had a dependable ace.
  9. May well be the case one day. If he wins this year and one more before he retires there is a strong case for him above Brady. It depends on a number of other factors though.
  10. It's a lot different looking at a baseball player versus a quarterback. Quarterbacks account for so much of the team's success or failures than any baseball player. For instance, you can have Barry Bonds posting .350/.550/.850 slash lines with 70 homers and still not win a title. Bonds was absurdly good in the 2002 World Series and it still didn't amount to a ring. Bradshaw has the rings but not the stats. I realize it was a different era, and Bradshaw was still a great QB, but he is a good example of why rings aren't the only metric. The reason Brees doesn't belong in the discussion as THE gr
  11. You're right, and I do expect Brees to eclipse both Brady and Manning in those categories. Not to mention a better completion percentage than both. What keeps Brees out of this conversation for me is the fact that he has only one Super Bowl berth in his career. Manning has four, and Brady has six. If we are talking about greatness, the champion factor has to play a huge role. Particularly when Brady and Manning both posted great statistics as well (albeit not quite as good). If they were Trent Dilfer kind of champions it would be a different discussion. Also, Brees has played 109 games in a do
  12. Neither of the bolded parts are true. Manning has played in 29 more games than Brady has (and started 30 more games than Brady). Manning also has only 83 more TD than Brady, which is a big difference from 100. Manning TD/Game=2.03 Brady TD/Game=1.92 Assuming Brady keeps up that rate, his total will surpass Manning's in fewer than three seasons (2.75 seasons, after 44 more games). It's tough to assume that he will keep it up for that long, but if he plays 29 more games over the course of two seasons he will be tied with Manning in games played, and will have 56 more TD passes, pu
  13. Do you think his ADP will rise significantly to reflect that kind of ranking? The data I can find on him now (Fantrax ADP has him 96th). I am assuming that goes up 15-20 spots if he secures a rotation spot and does well in spring training, but I'm hoping to get him as a SP5 paying close to streamer price.
  14. With the likely departure of Hammel, it looks like Montgomery is well poised to claim the fifth starter role for the defending champion Cubs. Obviously that bodes well for his chances at wins, and pitching in the NL will be better for him in general. He has some decent pedigree as a prospect and is still just 27 years old. In 5 starts with the Cubs last season, he amassed 29.1 innings, with a 2.76 ERA and a 0.95 WHIP. His K/9 did dip from 8.9 (on the season as a whole) to 7.36 as a Cubs starter, and his BB/9 rose to 3.68. Also worth noting, is the fact that his FIP was 4.74 with the Cubs,
  15. I believe in Murphy, but that feels kind of high to me. I've heard the upper leg issues might recur, so that makes me more conservative with games played (maybe 140), obviously hurting the counting stats. I could see more regression in the average as well. I agree with the power being legitimate, maybe 23-25 home runs. I'm pretty excited to see how he follows up last year. Hopefully with a campaign where he's healthy for the fantasy playoffs.
  16. Obviously that is a tremendous accomplishment, but Brady has two more Super Bowl berths. I don't see how having two seasons where your team is one drive away from being best in the league should be used against him. It's as if Montana is getting credit for losing in the early rounds as opposed to losing in the Super Bowl. To me that's like saying not winning a medal in the Olympics is better than walking away with the silver.
  17. Fair point to bring up. I just checked out the stats, and Brady (107) has fumbled more times than Manning (77) has. Since a fumble can go one way or the other we will just count fumbles recovered by the opposing team. For Brady that number is 75, whereas Manning sits at 55. If you add those figures to their interceptions, Brady has 227 turnovers, Manning has 306. TO/GS: Brady: 0.966 Manning: 1.155 TD/TO: Brady: 2.009 Manning: 1.761 In any event turnovers is an area where Brady has a clear edge over Manning.
  18. I wasn't trying to paint the picture that Brady was the answer that season. I think that ring was less on Brady's shoulders than the other three he has won. Fair point though that the pieces were in the right place. I think citing Cassel's success as a detriment to Brady's is inaccurate. Cassel took over virtually the same team from 2007, but was only able to lead them to an 11-5 record and no playoff berth despite having among the easiest schedules in the league that year. Brady was able to break records (some of which have been surpassed by Manning to his credit), while Cassel just gave
  19. Great tout. I'll definitely be monitoring how his situation pans out.
  20. A couple things with the bolded part. Brady had one year to learn under Bledsoe, and he was the fourth string QB in 2000. I'm not sure how many personal lessons he got from Bledsoe, but I wouldn't doubt it was limited. He had to fight to even make the roster. Secondly, how was the team built to go to the Super Bowl? The Patriots finished 5-11 in 2000, and were on their way to an 0-2 start when Brady took the reins. Do you mean set up for long term success or just for that season, because only in hindsight can we say that team was set up to go to the Super Bowl.
  21. I'll throw out a projection. .275/.320/.460 with 65/23/75 I think in leagues where he has dual 1B/3B elibilility he's an ideal late round target for CI. Even with the hype I see him as a 16-18th round pick in 12-teamers, so a good chance for profit at that price point.
  22. lol I'm sorry I wasn't actually cherry picking, it was just the first one on google that I had access too (FF calc I think needed a membership). I just checked ESPN and if I'm reading it correctly it says 50th overall for his ADP. Perhaps his draft stock took a hit later in the offseason. I am not familiar with which ADP sites are superior, but it is around where he went in my draft as well. Either way, if he is in the mid-30s or below I consider that a zero-RB candidate, as you are able to snap up two top tier WR in the first two rounds and perhaps a third one before you grab your first RB.
  23. According to fantasypros, Murray had an ADP of 47th (19th RB). Late 4th or sometimes early 5th. Unless an owner in your league was super high on him preseason and not worried at all about Henry, I think he could have been had on many zero RB rosters this season.
  24. I see there are many alternates already, but if like 10 people bail, tag me in a post and I'll jump in. Good luck guys, this should be a great mock to follow.
  • Create New...