FF: start Rogers or Brady?
- Thread starter beachbumdawg
- Start date
Brady. Then Rodgers the rest of the year. Maybe last year was a 'down' year but I think Brady is on the backside of his career.
So you have Brady and Rogers? May I ask why? And I'm sure you drafted Rogers as your 2nd pick....I'm going to be nice here but seeing you have both already tells me you are new at this.
Dude, how can you justify benching Rogers? They will have an ELeCTRIC offense. Who the hell is Brady throwing to?
Dude, how can you justify benching Rogers? They will have an ELeCTRIC offense. Who the hell is Brady throwing to?
I have a Rodgers and Stafford
The last few years I have taken 2 good QBs pretty early and used one for trade bate. I'll be starting Stafford this week
The last few years I have taken 2 good QBs pretty early and used one for trade bate. I'll be starting Stafford this week
A couple of things:
1. You wrongly assume he had a snake draft instead of an auction. Maybe you are new at this.
2. You obviously have forgotten the most electric offense in football getting smashed to hell and back last year by this same Seattle defense. It was called the Super Bowl.
1. You wrongly assume he had a snake draft instead of an auction. Maybe you are new at this.
2. You obviously have forgotten the most electric offense in football getting smashed to hell and back last year by this same Seattle defense. It was called the Super Bowl.
Ok, let me re-answer this question. I forgot that Green Bay was going to be playing the Seahawks D. In any other situation, I would start Rodgers, no questions asked. But against the Seahawks D, it might be a better idea to go ahead and sit him.
Its hard to sit Rodgers in any game, but if you are going to, the Seahawks D would be the game to sit him.
Its hard to sit Rodgers in any game, but if you are going to, the Seahawks D would be the game to sit him.
Never understood the infatuation with Rodgers on FF. There are a couple guys I'd choose year in and year out ahead of him, yet he gets picked before most RB's in most leagues. The year he won the Super Bowl his FF numbers were insane, but other than that they're not too far off from Romo or Ryan or some of the other solidified starters (obviously I'd want Rodgers ahead of these guys).
Brady. And for most of the time, still Brady. The secondaries in that division are weak sauce. The pass rush in the NFC North is fierce.
Both first ballot hall of famers who threw on the (unchanged) Seahawks last year had some of the worst games of their careers. Rodgers isn't better than Manning or Brees, and his receiving corp isn't even as close to as good.
Brady.
Brady. And for most of the time, still Brady. The secondaries in that division are weak sauce. The pass rush in the NFC North is fierce.
Both first ballot hall of famers who threw on the (unchanged) Seahawks last year had some of the worst games of their careers. Rodgers isn't better than Manning or Brees, and his receiving corp isn't even as close to as good.
Brady.
I don't see how having Rogers and Brady is that odd for a 10 team standard league. Furthermore, week 1 projections for both in a 10 team standard ESPN league:
Tom Brady, NE QB P
| WADE | @Mia | Sun 1:00 | Brady has had his way with the Dolphins since 2007, winning 10-of-12 starts based largely on his 3,428 passing yards (285.7 per game), 26 TDs and only 9 INTs. He has thrown a touchdown in every one of these dozen starts, and his six trips to Miami during this timeframe have been out of this world: 329.7 passing YPG, 16 TDs and 5 INTs. While Brady is not expected to duplicate these gaudy numbers as he breaks in some new receivers and has star TE Rob Gronkowski for only limited snaps, Brady is not a quarterback that should ever be underestimated. -BG
Tue, Sep 2 | 27.5 | -- | ||||
Aaron Rodgers, GB QB
| JOHN | @Sea | Thu 8:30 | We hear Seattle is a great place to visit this time of year. That is, unless you are playing the Seahawks. Last season, Mike Glennon's 15 fantasy points in Seattle was the high mark for an opposing QB, with the other seven arms averaging just 5.5 fantasy points per game. But hey, it's still the guy from the "Discount Double Check" commercials who happens to be one of the game's best at his position. Clearly, you are still trotting Rodgers out there, just with the obvious tempered expectations. -JM
Tue, Sep 2 | 27.5 | -- |
Last edited by a moderator:
Am I wrong for assuming, no. I couldn't find where it said auction. And I promise, I'm not new at this. Thanks for answering for him tho. I'm sure you will both dominate this year.
An how is Brady's receiving corp? Matter of fact, who is Brady's receiving corp? Gronk will get hurt then who do they have? Is Troy Brown still playing? Brady was less than stellar last year and I expect more of the same this year. There's a reason why they used a 2nd round pick on Garoppolo(sp?) and haven't traded Mallet yet.
You are interrupting my podcast**
Didn't mean to rustle jimmies, I just can't justify drafting two Qb's, ESPECIALLY in a 10 team league. If you dont end up trading Brady, and are going to base ALL decisions on projections, you will end up having to make this decision more than once this season, which in turn automatically gives your opponent an advantage. Basically having two stud qb's, you have a 50/50 shot at picking the higher score of the two..50/50 at choosing the lower scoring of the two. They're are already tough matchup descions made with Flex/dfense....why complicate with two great Qb's?
Didn't mean to rustle jimmies, I just can't justify drafting two Qb's, ESPECIALLY in a 10 team league. If you dont end up trading Brady, and are going to base ALL decisions on projections, you will end up having to make this decision more than once this season, which in turn automatically gives your opponent an advantage. Basically having two stud qb's, you have a 50/50 shot at picking the higher score of the two..50/50 at choosing the lower scoring of the two. They're are already tough matchup descions made with Flex/dfense....why complicate with two great Qb's?
I think they did trade Mallet last week. Look, i love Tom. Hate to see him getting Crusty...But it's inevitable. Lafell will be good. Forgot about him. I just think that Tom is the ultimate system qb...and he is now an "old piece" in an "old system." Everyone knows what the pats are going to do... Now with him getting older, it's kind of a question of "what CAN he do." He has been the beneficiary of a German like system... And like the Nazi's, his ending will be less than spectacular.
Brady had a HORRIBLE corp last year and still managed to be a quarter and a cheap shot away from the Super Bowl. Never count Brady out. Ever.
I don't see how their backup QB situation is even relevant here. He's in his twilight years. Are they not suppose to groom an heir apparent? I think the fact that they didn't bother with a WR is telling.
Brady is only part of the story. I'd be debating starting RGIII (haha just kidding he sucks) instead of Rodgers this week, because we're talking about the Seahawks.
There are only 2 pro bowl DB's in that division and they both play for the Patriots, and Brady demonstrated that he can throw to D3 QB's and still put up above-average numbers. I'd trade Rodgers for a #1 RB or WR yesterday if I had Brady too. Points difference between the two will be marginal and I'm sure there's an idiot in your league would give his left nut to have Rodgers, for whatever reason.
I don't see how their backup QB situation is even relevant here. He's in his twilight years. Are they not suppose to groom an heir apparent? I think the fact that they didn't bother with a WR is telling.
Brady is only part of the story. I'd be debating starting RGIII (haha just kidding he sucks) instead of Rodgers this week, because we're talking about the Seahawks.
There are only 2 pro bowl DB's in that division and they both play for the Patriots, and Brady demonstrated that he can throw to D3 QB's and still put up above-average numbers. I'd trade Rodgers for a #1 RB or WR yesterday if I had Brady too. Points difference between the two will be marginal and I'm sure there's an idiot in your league would give his left nut to have Rodgers, for whatever reason.
I'm not sure everyone still considers Brady stud QB or even a top 10 QB - for instance, in the sixpack league, he was the 10th QB drafted. Only taking 1 QB certainly makes sense from a strategy standpoint, but having 2 isn't plain silly or anything.
Hell, in any event, strategic play in fantasy football barely matters more than it does in bingo. See generally, Jamaal Charles week 15 last year.
Hell, in any event, strategic play in fantasy football barely matters more than it does in bingo. See generally, Jamaal Charles week 15 last year.
It depends on what I got. If someone gave me Demaryius Thomas, Alfred Morris, Muscle Hampster, or a combination of a couple of #2's I'd take it in a heartbeat for Rodgers. That'd be like you initially having 2 1st round picks for a guy who if you removed his name would have gone in the 4th or 5th rounds. Of all the solidified starters, they're ALL going to average in the teens. Not too many WR's and RB's get 10 points per game. Someone in your league doesn't understand this. I say that, because there's one in every league.