All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Patriots 9.5 points favorites over Ravens
2/7/2013 2:43 PM
I've listed some of Brady's many weaknesses before, and the statistics back it up.

Yes, every team tries to maximize talent, but not every team designs a system specifically to prevent their average or slightly better than average QB from screwing up an otherwise talented team. That's what BB has done in NE for Brady (and Cassel used it too the year Brady was down).

So stop trying to act like every team does what NE does. They don't - either because they don't have a talented team to begin with or they actually have a great QB so they don't have to design a game plan to keep him from screwing up their talented team.

2/7/2013 2:54 PM
Statistics, unequivocally, do not back up your arguments about Brady.

Yes, every team tries to maximize talent and minimize the damage their players may create.  If you're arguing the Pats somehow do something "extra", you are wrong.  Unless you can present evidence that states otherwise.
2/7/2013 2:57 PM
What statistics???

Brady's stats are among the greatest EVER.  So, no....the "stats" you've listed are wrong and crazy talk.
2/7/2013 7:14 PM

I've got him blocked, so I have no idea if Biz has ever favored us with his personal list of the best QB's in history.

2/7/2013 7:47 PM
Anytime anyone goes out of their way to say "What's Mr. X saying, I have him blocked?" or "I have Mr. X blocked, but I bet he's saying..."...it's a sure sign they don't have Mr. X blocked.
2/8/2013 9:45 AM
If you're arguing the Pats somehow do something "extra", you are wrong.  Unless you can present evidence that states otherwise.

You keep trying to frame things in a comparison to other teams and asking for something "extra" and that's not even a concept of what I'm saying.

When Brady had to take over for Bledsoe, the Pats knew he wasn't experienced and they hoped he would do well but naturally they weren't sure how he would perform - so they designed a system to limit his abilities to make mistakes that could cost them wins.  When that system worked better than their previous system worked with Bledsoe, they decided to keep it (and Brady) instead of switching back.

Since the system continued working, they didn't overhaul it and do something new - they kept using it throughout Brady's career and found ways to augment it and make it better. They went out and found players who work well within that system and continuously worked on schemes and plays to take advantage of what they had.

Now you can rant and rave about other teams doing some of these things, but clearly other teams don't do everything NE did. Let me list the major differences for you:

Other teams don't normally try to design a scheme to restrict a QB unless they have reason to do so, such as a backup coming in like Brady did. It's rare when those schemes work well enough to win with the backup, as NE did, so teams don't often have reason to keep the backup and the scheme and usually return to the original starter and/or find someone new and return to the original scheme.

In fact, usually when a team wins with a backup, it's because the backup has physical skills the starter didn't, such as Colin Kapernick with the 49ers, who could run very well and has a rifle for an arm - neither is a trait Brady has.

NE was aware Brady didn't bring any special skills to the table, so they only asked him to do what was necessary to not screw up an already talented team, and that's what he did. This is a very rare idea, because the only teams who normally restrict their QBs because the QB isn't skilled are teams that aren't very talented as a whole and don't win anyway.

It would be difficult for you to find examples of another talented team using a restrictive system for a new QB which allows the team to win despite the QBs lack of physical skills. It may be able to be done, but I honestly can't think of another one other than NE with Brady.

By the way, I may eventually tell you my list of some of the best QBs in NFL history. Keep in mind I don't over rate team wins like most people do - I rate the ability of the QB to contribute to those wins (which is less than most people think it is). Mostly I look at the QBs ability to actually make the plays necessary to win games, and some ability to put up stats.

I also ask myself two key questions: If I were to replace this QB with others of varying skills, how would the result change? If this QB were to be transplanted into another team, how much better would he make that team, and how much worse would his former team get with a replacement QB?

I'll give a strong example to show you why Brady is over rated when I ask those questions:

We'll take an average of NE's wins over Brady's career as a starter with NE. Over 11 seasons NE won an average of just over 12 games in each season. Cassel managed to win 11 despite never having started an NFL game before that season.

So Brady's wins above his replacement, in this case someone who had never started before in the NFL - based on the information we have - is slightly more than one per season.

Let's compare that with a QB who actually IS great and see the difference:

Peyton Manning spent 12 NFL seasons with the Colts, during which they won an average of 11.5 games each year. In the two seasons since when he didn't play a single snap for the Colts, they won 2 games and 11 games for an average of 6.5 wins each season.

So Manning's wins above his replacement - one season of a mishmash of two players without many NFL starts (Painter and Orlovsky) and a bit of a veteran past his prime (Kerry Collins) and one exceptional rookie season from the top pick in the NFL draft (Andrew Luck) - again, based on the information we have - is five per season.

Brady leaves NE, his replacement manages to come within one win of the average the team had across Brady's career. Peyton leaves Indy and his team ends up in last place and then rebounds with an unexpectedly great season on the shoulders of the top pick in the draft and an average of those two seasons means Peyton was worth five wins.

Comparing Brady and Peyton shows the real difference. These are stats you can't argue with, and they say Peyton is about FIVE TIMES more valuable than Brady.

This is why I say it's a complete joke for anyone to even suggest they are in the same league, let alone think Brady is better than Peyton.  All of this is without even considering how much Manning improved the Broncos when he went there, which only buries the comparison further.

Bottom line: Brady is replaceable with little drop of for his team, because the system and the team talent are what creates the success. Peyton Manning is not replaceable without a significant drop off for the team. Peyton is great, Brady is slightly above average. The stats bear it out.
2/8/2013 10:33 AM
Posted by bistiza on 2/8/2013 9:45:00 AM (view original):
If you're arguing the Pats somehow do something "extra", you are wrong.  Unless you can present evidence that states otherwise.

You keep trying to frame things in a comparison to other teams and asking for something "extra" and that's not even a concept of what I'm saying.

When Brady had to take over for Bledsoe, the Pats knew he wasn't experienced and they hoped he would do well but naturally they weren't sure how he would perform - so they designed a system to limit his abilities to make mistakes that could cost them wins.  When that system worked better than their previous system worked with Bledsoe, they decided to keep it (and Brady) instead of switching back.

Since the system continued working, they didn't overhaul it and do something new - they kept using it throughout Brady's career and found ways to augment it and make it better. They went out and found players who work well within that system and continuously worked on schemes and plays to take advantage of what they had.

Now you can rant and rave about other teams doing some of these things, but clearly other teams don't do everything NE did. Let me list the major differences for you:

Other teams don't normally try to design a scheme to restrict a QB unless they have reason to do so, such as a backup coming in like Brady did. It's rare when those schemes work well enough to win with the backup, as NE did, so teams don't often have reason to keep the backup and the scheme and usually return to the original starter and/or find someone new and return to the original scheme.

In fact, usually when a team wins with a backup, it's because the backup has physical skills the starter didn't, such as Colin Kapernick with the 49ers, who could run very well and has a rifle for an arm - neither is a trait Brady has.

NE was aware Brady didn't bring any special skills to the table, so they only asked him to do what was necessary to not screw up an already talented team, and that's what he did. This is a very rare idea, because the only teams who normally restrict their QBs because the QB isn't skilled are teams that aren't very talented as a whole and don't win anyway.

It would be difficult for you to find examples of another talented team using a restrictive system for a new QB which allows the team to win despite the QBs lack of physical skills. It may be able to be done, but I honestly can't think of another one other than NE with Brady.

By the way, I may eventually tell you my list of some of the best QBs in NFL history. Keep in mind I don't over rate team wins like most people do - I rate the ability of the QB to contribute to those wins (which is less than most people think it is). Mostly I look at the QBs ability to actually make the plays necessary to win games, and some ability to put up stats.

I also ask myself two key questions: If I were to replace this QB with others of varying skills, how would the result change? If this QB were to be transplanted into another team, how much better would he make that team, and how much worse would his former team get with a replacement QB?

I'll give a strong example to show you why Brady is over rated when I ask those questions:

We'll take an average of NE's wins over Brady's career as a starter with NE. Over 11 seasons NE won an average of just over 12 games in each season. Cassel managed to win 11 despite never having started an NFL game before that season.

So Brady's wins above his replacement, in this case someone who had never started before in the NFL - based on the information we have - is slightly more than one per season.

Let's compare that with a QB who actually IS great and see the difference:

Peyton Manning spent 12 NFL seasons with the Colts, during which they won an average of 11.5 games each year. In the two seasons since when he didn't play a single snap for the Colts, they won 2 games and 11 games for an average of 6.5 wins each season.

So Manning's wins above his replacement - one season of a mishmash of two players without many NFL starts (Painter and Orlovsky) and a bit of a veteran past his prime (Kerry Collins) and one exceptional rookie season from the top pick in the NFL draft (Andrew Luck) - again, based on the information we have - is five per season.

Brady leaves NE, his replacement manages to come within one win of the average the team had across Brady's career. Peyton leaves Indy and his team ends up in last place and then rebounds with an unexpectedly great season on the shoulders of the top pick in the draft and an average of those two seasons means Peyton was worth five wins.

Comparing Brady and Peyton shows the real difference. These are stats you can't argue with, and they say Peyton is about FIVE TIMES more valuable than Brady.

This is why I say it's a complete joke for anyone to even suggest they are in the same league, let alone think Brady is better than Peyton.  All of this is without even considering how much Manning improved the Broncos when he went there, which only buries the comparison further.

Bottom line: Brady is replaceable with little drop of for his team, because the system and the team talent are what creates the success. Peyton Manning is not replaceable without a significant drop off for the team. Peyton is great, Brady is slightly above average. The stats bear it out.
Denver the year before Peyton won a playoff game and with Peyton lost a playoff game.  Denver actually won games with Tebow.  You're whole arguement about Brady is that his team behind his wins him games....Denver is stacked!  They won with Tebow!!

Every team makes an offense the suits their QB and their abilities.  Yeah, Brady's 1st year was dumbed down.   They slowly evolved the offense around him and he progressively got better.  What a shocker!

As for a schem to restrict Brady...huh?  Pretty sure he hasn't be restricted since 2001.  Again, you clearly don't watch Pats games.

Also, your breaking down years to help your stats out.  The year before Cassell was QB, the Pats were 16-0 in the reg season.  Set all time highs for offenses.  With Cassell, they dropped dramatically.


2/8/2013 10:35 AM

I take exception to the idea that Brady doesn’t have great talent.  I take exception to the idea that the Pats thought the same way, and exception to the idea that the Pats changed their offense to make sure Brady “didn’t screw it up” and kept it that way until Moss and Welker got there.  

You spent several paragraphs essentially arguing 2 main points:

  • Brady doesn’t have the physical talent I think he has.
  • The Pats developed a system to limit the “damage” he can do.

You have given little evidence to support these claims, and dismiss the evidence I present to refute them.  I’ll give you some additional actual evidence now:

  • In 2001, Brady’s YPC was 10.76.  In 2000, Bledsoe’s YPC was 10.54.  This suggests that your argument that the offense became more conservative to limit the mistakes that Brady would make, is inaccurate.
  • In 2000, Bledose completed 84 of his 312 completions to running backs.  2001, Brady completed 76 of his 264 completions to running backs.  It’s not a significant difference, and suggests that the offense didn’t change much.  
  • In 2000, the Patriots went 5-11.  In 2001, with Bledsoe, the Patriots went 0-2.  This suggests the team was NOT already very talented.

It would be difficult for you to find examples of another talented team using a restrictive system for a new QB which allows the team to win despite the QBs lack of physical skills.

  • It would be difficult, which is why I’m arguing it hasn’t happened at any point in time.


Your logic that brings you to the idea that Manning is five times as valuable as Brady is laughable, at best, and frightening, at worst.  Bledsoe went 5-11 in 2000.  Brady averaged 12 wins a season.  Brady’s wins above replacement is now 7.  Now he’s more valuable than Manning.

Actual physical statistics collected by people who work in football for a living, suggest that Brady is a great QB.  And I never argued that Brady was better than Peyton, btw.

2/8/2013 11:16 AM

It would be difficult for you to find examples of another talented team using a restrictive system for a new QB which allows the team to win despite the QBs lack of physical skills.

  • It would be difficult, which is why I’m arguing it hasn’t happened at any point in time.

I can think of 1.  The 2005 Chicago Bears who rode rookie Kyle Orton (15 starts, 1869 yards on 368 passes, 9 TDs, 13 INTs) to 10-5 record and a playoff berth after Rex Grossman went down in the preseason.  The Bears only scored 260 points that year (including defense), only threw for over 200 yards in a game once and were under 100 yards passing 5 different times.  The Bears defense was the best in the league that year and the next year Grossman came back and the team was in the Super Bowl.

The team most definitely ran a more restrictive system with Orton than with Grossman because no one had confidence that Orton coudl throw the ball down field.  And he proved them correct that season...but the neck beard was awesome.
2/8/2013 11:18 AM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/7/2013 7:47:00 PM (view original):
Anytime anyone goes out of their way to say "What's Mr. X saying, I have him blocked?" or "I have Mr. X blocked, but I bet he's saying..."...it's a sure sign they don't have Mr. X blocked.
Wrong again. 

You're really good at being wrong.
2/8/2013 11:25 AM
"Hey everyone, what's Todd saying? I have him blocked!! I'll bet he's making comments about me being wrong all the time!"
2/8/2013 11:28 AM
Posted by loudawg10 on 2/8/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):

It would be difficult for you to find examples of another talented team using a restrictive system for a new QB which allows the team to win despite the QBs lack of physical skills.

  • It would be difficult, which is why I’m arguing it hasn’t happened at any point in time.

I can think of 1.  The 2005 Chicago Bears who rode rookie Kyle Orton (15 starts, 1869 yards on 368 passes, 9 TDs, 13 INTs) to 10-5 record and a playoff berth after Rex Grossman went down in the preseason.  The Bears only scored 260 points that year (including defense), only threw for over 200 yards in a game once and were under 100 yards passing 5 different times.  The Bears defense was the best in the league that year and the next year Grossman came back and the team was in the Super Bowl.

The team most definitely ran a more restrictive system with Orton than with Grossman because no one had confidence that Orton coudl throw the ball down field.  And he proved them correct that season...but the neck beard was awesome.
You're right.  And Dilfer too the year they won the Super Bowl.  I should have worded it differently.  My point is more that the Pats didn't operate that way.
2/8/2013 12:14 PM
Denver the year before Peyton won a playoff game and with Peyton lost a playoff game.  Denver actually won games with Tebow.

So you want to attack Manning instead of discussing Brady? Fine. Let's look at that route, shall we?

With Tebow in 2011, the Broncos won 8 games in the regular season, barely made the playoffs by virtue of division winning tie breakers, and won a single playoff game. The playoff game was a close contest that went to overtime and was won on one play when the defense blew its coverage.

With Manning in 2012, the Broncos won 13 games (what do you know, there's that 5 game margin between Manning and replacement QBs again) and were the number one seed before running into an incredibly hot team that would go on to win the Super Bowl.

Besides outright wins, the other numbers suggest the 2012 Broncos were much better as well. The 2011 team scored 81 points less than their opponents. Meanwhile, the 2012 team scored 192 points MORE than their opponents. The "talent" Tebow had to work with was very similar, yet the Manning led team - factoring in both offense and defense by using net points - was effectively 273 points better.
Yeah, Brady's 1st year was dumbed down.
Brady's EVERY year is "dumbed down", and so was Cassel's one year there. The "dumbed down" system works, so there is no reason to fix it. It allows Brady to operate without screwing up talented teams so they still win, which they would do if he wasn't there (shown, as I demonstrated, by the Cassel lead season).
As for a schem to restrict Brady...huh?  Pretty sure he hasn't be restricted since 2001.
Sure, he's been given more freedom to operate within the system over the years, but that doesn't mean the system isn't there - and that system is set up to deliberately restrict the ways Brady's limited physical tools and other weaknesses can make the team lose.
Also, your breaking down years to help your stats out.  The year before Cassell was QB, the Pats were 16-0 in the reg season.  Set all time highs for offenses.  With Cassell, they dropped dramatically.
No, I'm breaking down years because a 16-0 season is a statistical outlier (if you don't believe that, tell me all the other 16-0 seasons which have occurred in NFL history).

You can't make accurate comparisons using outliers as your basis. What you CAN do is include the outlier in a larger sample if one is available - it will skew the sample, to be sure, but that can't be avoided if you want to include it. A larger sample of the Patriots seasons under Brady IS available, so I've included the outlier within that larger example.

If anything, trying to make comparisons by using the 16-0 outlier season as the basis would represent you trying to "help" your argument.

Wow, now I'm teaching fundamentals of statistics on here.
In 2001, Brady’s YPC was 10.76.  In 2000, Bledsoe’s YPC was 10.54.  This suggests that your argument that the offense became more conservative to limit the mistakes that Brady would make, is inaccurate.
Perhaps conservative is the wrong word, because you keep misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Brady's play was (and still is to some extent) limited by the system put in place for him. This does not necessarily mean the entire offense will perform worse with him as opposed to Bledsoe before him. All your YAC stats show is that the system was more effective for the team than the previous system with Bledsoe - a fact I already acknowledged.
In 2000, Bledose completed 84 of his 312 completions to running backs.  2001, Brady completed 76 of his 264 completions to running backs.  It’s not a significant difference, and suggests that the offense didn’t change much. 
Again, this shows you just don't understand what was changed. It was a system designed to limit Brady's abilities to make mistakes, not a system designed to throw to running backs.
In 2000, the Patriots went 5-11.  In 2001, with Bledsoe, the Patriots went 0-2.  This suggests the team was NOT already very talented.
Or maybe it suggests the offensive system in place wasn't working. A change in the system might fix things - oh look, that's exactly what happened, and they started winning. What a shock.
It would be difficult, which is why I’m arguing it hasn’t happened at any point in time.
Except it happened with Brady, and the system is still in place to this day - he just has more freedom than he used to because of his experience. It's the same system.
Your logic that brings you to the idea that Manning is five times as valuable as Brady is laughable, at best, and frightening, at worst.
I spelled out for you, using NFL wins statistics, exactly how Manning can be said to be five times as valuable as Brady.  You can label it what you want, but it DESTROYS any argument that you can make for Brady being anywhere close to Manning.
Bledsoe went 5-11 in 2000.  Brady averaged 12 wins a season.  Brady’s wins above replacement is now 7.
If you want to compare Brady to Bledsoe, you have to average all of Bledsoe's seasons with NE, in which the team won an average of 8 games each year. That would put Brady at +4.

HOWEVER, Brady's teams (especially in recent years) have been far more talented. Also, Manning and Brady played in many of the exact same seasons, suggesting the teams they played against were comparable. Bledsoe's numbers come from a different era.

By the way, your examples of Orton and Dilfer in those season are PERFECT to make my point - those guys in those years are a lot like Brady has been his entire career, and I've said that before (I specifically used Dilfer as an example of what I think of Brady).
2/8/2013 1:46 PM (edited)

No, I'm breaking down years because a 16-0 season is a statistical outlier (if you don't believe that, tell me all the other 16-0 seasons which have occurred in NFL history). 

  • Tell me what other offenses put up the numbers the Pats did that year.  If anything, I’d argue that Cassel hurts your argument, rather than help it.  has put up similar numbers in a season since the season with the Pats, and didn’t have the same weapons you claim “carried” Brady to record-setting numbers.  He put up good, above-average numbers with the same weapons Brady set records with.


Brady's play was (and still is to some extent) limited by the system put in place for him. This does not necessarily mean the entire offense will perform worse with him as opposed to Bledsoe before him. All your YAC stats show is that the system was more effective for the team than the previous system with Bledsoe - a fact I already acknowledged.

  • Please be specific in how the system changed.  You claimed that the new system was conservative in nature.  I show you statistics that suggest it wasn’t, and you insist I have it wrong.  Then please explain it.  What routes do the Pats run with Brady that are different than the ones when Bledsoe runs the offense?  You claimed there were a lot of screens and dump offs to the running backs.  When shown evidence that there wasn'tt a significant increase in that area, you claim I’m misunderstanding.  Please be specific and succinct in exactly how the system was different. 

 

In 2000, the Patriots went 5-11.  In 2001, with Bledsoe, the Patriots went 0-2.  This suggests the team was NOT already very talented.

Or maybe it suggests the offensive system in place wasn't working. A change in the system might fix things - oh look, that's exactly what happened, and they started winning. What a shock.

  • No, it suggests that Brady is a better quarterback than Drew Bledsoe.

 

Your logic that brings you to the idea that Manning is five times as valuable as Brady is laughable, at best, and frightening, at worst.

 

I spelled out for you, using NFL wins statistics, exactly how Manning can be said to be five times as valuable as Brady.  You can label it what you want, but it DESTROYS any argument that you can make for Brady being anywhere close to Manning.

Your logic is flawed in so many ways, it’s ridiculous.  I’ll help you:

·         You explain that wins aren’t as directed to QB play as everyone thinks, and then compare QBs based on the amount of wins they have.  You ignore actual QB statistics, and would rather look at wins as the barometer of how valuable a QB is.

·         You’re putting a number on “how many times as valuable” based on the difference of wins the QBs accumulate.  Meaning that no QB can be any more than 16x as valuable as any other QB.  It’s a strange thing to say.

·         You’re also assuming all backup QBs are of the same level.  If I took over the Patriots next year at QB, and went 0-16, you’re essentially saying that Tom Brady is about 12x more valuable than say, Colin Kaepernick.  This DESTORYS any argument that you can make for Kap being anywhere close to Tom Brady!! 

·         In the Bears Orton argument made earlier, Orton won 11 games for that team.  The QB the year before won 5.  Is Orton more valuable than Brady AND Manning?!?

 

Bledsoe went 5-11 in 2000.  Brady averaged 12 wins a season.  Brady’s wins above replacement is now 7.

 

If you want to compare Brady to Bledsoe, you have to average all of Bledsoe's seasons with NE, in which the team won an average of 8 games each year. That would put Brady at +4.

·         No, I don’t.  If you want to compare Matt Cassel’s one year with the Patriots, I’m going to use one year with Drew Bledsoe.  I don’t know what Bledsoe’s Super Bowl year has anything to do with the year where he went 5-11 with few weapons. 

·         And yes, your argument IS flawed in the way where you’re assuming Brady had a similar team every year, and averaging it out to 12 wins.  You compare Cassel’s 11 wins with the most talent the team has ever had with Brady’s average of 12.

 

Sad.  Sad is the word I’d use for this argument.  Come on.

2/8/2013 2:04 PM
Tell me what other offenses put up the numbers the Pats did that year.


Two issues:

First, I was using wins as a standard of measurement, not other statistics. If you want to discuss those, it'll be a separate discussion from the point I was making.

Second, once again, that season was a statistical outlier. Thank you for making that point more clearly.
Please be specific and succinct in exactly how the system was different.
The basic premise is that Brady isn't asked to do things he's not good at. I explained that before, giving specific examples of things Brady isn't good at and even listing QBs who ARE good at those things. I'm not going to repeat every line because you failed to understand the first go round.
No, it suggests that Brady is a better quarterback than Drew Bledsoe.
That's YOUR opinion. I think it suggests the system was better than the one under Bledsoe. You say to-may-to, I say to-maw-to.
 
You explain that wins aren’t as directed to QB play as everyone thinks, and then compare QBs based on the amount of wins they have.


Yes, I used YOUR metric (wins) in an argument against you. That makes it much more powerful.

You’re putting a number on “how many times as valuable” based on the difference of wins the QBs accumulate.  Meaning that no QB can be any more than 16x as valuable as any other QB.  It’s a strange thing to say.

Actually, I'm comparing the difference in wins between when a QB is on his team and when he isn't, then using THAT to compare the QBs. It's no more strange than any other metric often used to rate QBs.
You’re also assuming all backup QBs are of the same level.


No, I'm not. I said you need to compare the QB to replacements of various levels.

I did this as I compared Brady to both his actual replacement for a season (Cassel) who never started an NFL game and a QB who has started many games and is considered to be great (Manning).  I even went on to compare Brady to Bledsoe after you made a flawed attempt to do the same.
you’re essentially saying that Tom Brady is about 12x more valuable than say, Colin Kaepernick.

No, I'm not. We'd have to compare Kapernick's win averages to Brady's to even begin to assess that situation.
In the Bears Orton argument made earlier, Orton won 11 games for that team.  The QB the year before won 5.  Is Orton more valuable than Brady AND Manning?!?

You keep making the mistake of using one season as the only comparison rather than an average of many seasons.

The only conclusion you could possibly get from the info you gave above is that Orton is perhaps more valuable than the QB the year before.
No, I don’t.  If you want to compare Matt Cassel’s one year with the Patriots, I’m going to use one year with Drew Bledsoe. 

The difference is there are plenty of seasons to average for Bledsoe with the Patriots, while there is only one season of Cassel with the Patriots.

But if you acknowledge the system that came in and made the Pats better when Brady began instead of denying it, that would explain why Brady and Cassel had similar results while Bledsoe's team didn't average nearly as many wins.
of 85
All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Patriots 9.5 points favorites over Ravens

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.