As for Brady, I didn't go so far as to advocate it, but he might be worth taking #1 overall. The best reason not to do so is because we all remember taking Peyton Manning #1 overall in 2005 and being let down when he put up a mere mortal like stat line of 3747 and 28.
Why did Manning burn us? (Well, you, maybe. I took LT with the first pick in my office league that year. Anyway...) Manning burned us because 2004 was a gross statistical anomaly in his stats. Perhaps he faced weaker defenses, perhaps the team was just 'clicking' with many players at their physical and mental peak at the same time. Maybe Dungy got a sneak peak at the defensive playbooks of his division opponents. Whatever it was, nothing fundamental changed about the Colts' offense. There was no reason to suspect Manning's 2004 numbers would repeat in 2005 other than hope.
The Patriots, of course, did have a fundamental shift in their offense not just in play calling, but in personnel. The obvious is the addition of Randy Moss, but the Patriots also said goodbye to bruiser Corey Dillon and transitioned to an injured Laurence Maroney. Brady, who had been pretty darn good anyway, suddenly had a stud WR who could outrun and outjump the defenders and the offense had little need to pound the rock, and little desire to do so because of Maroney's shoulder issues. Having experienced success with the wide-open aerial attack, it's reasonable to assume the team will try it again in 2008, is it not?
But Maroney averaged over 20 attempts per game the last three games of the regular season and the playoffs, you counter? Well, he did. But Moss' stats didn't drop off during the regular season and the playoffs favor rushing b/c the refs don't call interference or holding as often. I wouldn't be worried too much about Maroney supplanting the passing game. Brady's most likely not going to throw 50 TDs again, I admit, but he could easily throw in the mid-30s, making him again the top TD throwing QB. Only Romo (36), Roethlisberger (32) and Manning (31) were even close to that last year.
If your goal is to limit risk while snagging sure things in the first round or two, you can't go wrong with Brady.
Regarding the rise of WRs and TEs, here are the numbers:
WRs
2006 2007
201 280
195 218
183 212
180 198
179 188
178 185
174 179
173 176
173 170
165 167
For comparison's sake
2006 2007
#20 135 130
#30 115 110
TEs
2006 2007
141 147
118 145
115 139
106 133
105 121
99 121
97 93
92 85
88 82
76 78
The first observation is that at the top of the rankings, there appears to be an upward trend in value of WRs and TEs from 2006 to 2007. Yet this trend is not across the board as the values even out. What this says to me is that the stud receivers are gaining more value even while their lesser peers are not. It's evidence of offensive coordinators willing to get the ball into the hands of their studs.
These numbers plainly do not justify abandoning running backs for WRs and TEs. But they do provide support for those who find themselves in a spot with the 'sure thing' RBs gone. The stud-WR drafting theory of grabbing two top flight WRs rather than two questionable RBs keeps looking better every year.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
No comments:
Post a Comment