Player Spotlight: Philip Rivers (1 Viewer)

2006 Player Spotlight Series

Over the course of the offseason, we will be evaluating a multitude of players at every fantasy position. One such way we go about that is through the Player Spotlight series. Think of the Spotlights as a permanent record on some of the more intriguing players for the upcoming season. Each Spotlight will be featured in an article on the main website.

Thread Topic: Philip Rivers, QB, San Diego Chargers

Player Page Link: Philip Rivers Player Page

Each article will include:

Detailed viewpoint from a Footballguys staff member
Highlighted member commentary from the message board threads
FBG Projections
Consensus Member ProjectionsThe Rules

In order for this thread to provide sustainable value, we ask that you follow a few simple guidelines:

Focus commentary on the player in question, and your expectations for said player
Back up your expectations in whatever manner you deem appropriate; avoid posts that simply say "I hate him" or "He's the best"
To be included in the final synopsis and consensus outlook, you MUST provide projections for the playerProjections should include (at a minimum):

For QBs: Passing Yards, Passing TDs, Ints, Rush Yards, Rush TDs
For RBs: Rushes, Rushing Yards, Rush TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs
For WRs & TEs: Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDsBest of Luck and ENJOY!

Rivers

2900 Yards passing

17 TD's

13 - INTs

Admittedly I am down on Rivers and think that he will not do very well in his first year. The Chargers will run - run - run the ball like the dolphins did with Ricky when they had Feedler at QB for them and he set the record for carries in a season. I think LT might eclipse that record this year.

Any projection I make would be a pure guess. Basically we're talking about a glorified rookie QB which is useless in most leagues. I really feel for the Charger fans as they have a playoff caliber team that won't meet it's potential.

Per Jason's request....2800-17-19

From this thread.

Rookies since 1995 with > 200 pass attempts and < 10 INTs:

Marc Bulger

Charlie Batch

Donovan McNabb

Chad Hutchinson

Patrick Ramsey

Kyle Boller

Rookies since 1995 with > 200 pass attempts and 10 < X < 14 INTs:

Craig Whelian

Cade McNown

Ben Roethlisberger

Jeff Garcia

Kyle Orton

Tim Couch

Rookies since 1995 with > 200 pass attempts and 15 or 16 INTs:

Tony Banks

David Carr

Ryan Leaf

Jake Plummer

Joey Harrington

Byron Leftwich

Kerry Collins (19), Chris Weinke (19) and Peyton Manning (28) are the only other three QBs on the list.

QBs since 1995 that meet the following criteria:

1) They threw at least 200 passes in year X

2) That year X was either their second or third season in the league

3) That prior to year X, they had combined for no more than 75 career passing attempts

This gets a pretty good cross section of the type of guys in comparable situations to Rivers. The list is sorted by interceptions thrown.

CATT = Career Attempts before this season.

EXP = How many prior seasons the QB had under his belt

Phillip Rivers' entry would have '30' under 'CATT' and '2' under 'EXP'.

The average QB was 215/362 for 2481 yards (6.85 Y/A) with 16.25 TD and 10.35 INT, and had 23 career passes before the season began. Pennington and Brad Johnson were third year guys, and may be more comparable to Rivers because of that.

charger homer so take my optimism with a grain of salt, but Rivers' situation is much more analogous to Chad Pennington in 2002 than an average high 1st round rookie taking over a struggling franchise.

Rivers knows the system well, and has perhaps the best combination of RBs/TEs in the NFL - the two things considered essential for a young QB to succeed. Unfortunately, the Bolts are lacking playmakers on the outside (McCardell and Parker are extremely sure-handed though), so Rivers won't be a 30 TD guy until Vincent Jackson emerges or AJ Smith moves for a WR threat.

I'm bullish on Rivers exceeding expectations and playing well from the get go. In the 20+ years I've been watching the NFL, I can't think of a better situation for a young QB to be handed.

Put me down for 3500, 22 TDs, and 12 INTs.

I'm bullish on Rivers exceeding expectations and playing well from the get go. In the 20+ years I've been watching the NFL, I can't think of a better situation for a young QB to be handed.

Click to expand...

Only two pop into my head: Kurt Warner and Daunte Culpepper. Both guys did pretty well their first years.

I'm bullish on Rivers exceeding expectations and playing well from the get go. In the 20+ years I've been watching the NFL, I can't think of a better situation for a young QB to be handed.

Click to expand...

Only two pop into my head: Kurt Warner and Daunte Culpepper. Both guys did pretty well their first years.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those guys stepped into great situations also - with much better WRs than Rivers has at his disposal.

Kerry Collins (19), Chris Weinke (19), Delhomme (16)

Maybe I'm a bit biased on this subject. Bank of Interceptions may be a more appropriate name.

Kerry Collins (19), Chris Weinke (19), Delhomme (16)

Maybe I'm a bit biased on this subject. Bank of Interceptions may be a more appropriate name.

Click to expand...

Kerry Collins (19), Chris Weinke (19), Delhomme (16)

Maybe I'm a bit biased on this subject. Bank of Interceptions may be a more appropriate name.

Click to expand...

Heels fan?

I think that Rivers will be one of the surprise stories of this NFL season. He has two years in the system and will be much more prepared than most suspect. He has playmakers at both TE and RB, who will be there for him and give him yards after the catch.

I believe that he will equal Brees' 2005 stats,

320 completions out of 525 pass attempts for 3577 yards, 23 TDs, and 13 Ints. Add in 120 yards rushing and 2TDs.

Very solid stats and excellent value with the late ADP.

Kerry Collins (19), Chris Weinke (19), Delhomme (16)

Maybe I'm a bit biased on this subject.  Bank of Interceptions may be a more appropriate name.

Click to expand...

Heels fan?

Click to expand...

llo...Guess so since I just bought those Bobcat tix. Let me know if you want a pair of freebies.

3100/24/14

I see so many TDs because Gates is so dominating in the redzone, and the playaction with Tomlinson is going to kill teams. I think he's going to struggle more than his stats say he's struggling, but that doesn't matter in fantasy.

I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating Rivers this year. I've watched every snap he's taken so far in the preseason and in the regular season, and I've watched a number of practices in each of the last few years as well. I think Rivers will be an improvement over Brees immediately. He's got the same strong points as Brees (intelligence, leadership, work ethic, preparation), but he's also got a stronger arm, a quicker release, and better size. The last point (better size) gives him a particular advantage over Brees against the blitz. Brees would always have to take a three- or five-step drop and look for a passing lane; he did not find the hot receiver against the blitz on a one-step drop. The difference between Brees and Rivers on this point was evident as soon as Rivers came into the Bronco game last year. The Broncos had been blitzing effectively all game. But as soon as Rivers came in, he hit Caldwell on a quick slant against the blitz, then hit McCardell on another quick slant against the blitz, and then the Broncos stopped blitzing.

The difference in arm strength was also evident. He hit Eric Parker on a deep curl on second and twenty for 22 yards, right on time and right on the money. He later threw the ball deep down the right sideline intended for Parker. The pass was broken up at the last second by Champ Bailey, but it was the kind of pass Brees always underthrew. Rivers threw it right on target. (Great play by Baliey.)

The people who are saying that Rivers is essentially a rookie have not seen the difference between Rivers and Charles Whitehurst. Whitehurst, the Chargers' third-round pick this year, is a rookie. The difference between the two in practice -- the way each takes charge of the huddle, their confidence, their reads, etc. -- is absolutely huge. (And it's not because Whitehurst sucks. He has looked better than AJ Feeley. It's just that he's no Philip Rivers.)

A lot of people seem to think the Chargers made a mistake by keeping Rivers over Brees -- many of the same people who after the 2003 season thought Brees would never be a starting-caliber NFL QB. In both cases, I think they are underestimating the effect surrounding talent can have on a QB. In 2003, Brees played behind a terrible offensive line, and his best receiver was a very inconsistent David Boston. So Brees looked bad. A year later, he had a completely overhauled and much more effective offensive line, Antonio Gates emerged as a stud, Keenan McCardell was added to the roster, and Brees looked good.

Rivers is stepping into the latter situation. The OL should be improved over last year as some of the younger guys (Hardwick, Dielman, Olivea, Jordan) have another year of experience, and they drafted a few guys as well (Marcus McNeil especially should have an immediate impact). Gates is still awesome. McCardell and Parker are still solid and consistent. And some younger guys like Vincent Jackson or Rashaun Woods could emerge.

Rivers has all the advantages Brees had during the past two seasons, and he has more physical talent. I don't think the offense will miss a beat.

Projection: 296 of 462 for 3379 yards, 21 TDs, 14 INTs (31/62/0 rushing) (13 games) edit: make that 14 games

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???Nevermind...the Chargers are going to suspend him for three games this year.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

I'm bullish on Rivers exceeding expectations and playing well from the get go. In the 20+ years I've been watching the NFL, I can't think of a better situation for a young QB to be handed.

Click to expand...

Only two pop into my head: Kurt Warner and Daunte Culpepper. Both guys did pretty well their first years.

Click to expand...

how about two moreBrady

Bulger

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating Rivers this year. I've watched every snap he's taken so far in the preseason and in the regular season, and I've watched a number of practices in each of the last few years as well. I think Rivers will be an improvement over Brees immediately. He's got the same strong points as Brees (intelligence, leadership, work ethic, preparation), but he's also got a stronger arm, a quicker release, and better size. The last point (better size) gives him a particular advantage over Brees against the blitz. Brees would always have to take a three- or five-step drop and look for a passing lane; he did not find the hot receiver against the blitz on a one-step drop. The difference between Brees and Rivers on this point was evident as soon as Rivers came into the Bronco game last year. The Broncos had been blitzing effectively all game. But as soon as Rivers came in, he hit Caldwell on a quick slant against the blitz, then hit McCardell on another quick slant against the blitz, and then the Broncos stopped blitzing.

The difference in arm strength was also evident. He hit Eric Parker on a deep curl on second and twenty for 22 yards, right on time and right on the money. He later threw the ball deep down the right sideline intended for Parker. The pass was broken up at the last second by Champ Bailey, but it was the kind of pass Brees always underthrew. Rivers threw it right on target. (Great play by Baliey.)

The people who are saying that Rivers is essentially a rookie have not seen the difference between Rivers and Charles Whitehurst. Whitehurst, the Chargers' third-round pick this year, is a rookie. The difference between the two in practice -- the way each takes charge of the huddle, their confidence, their reads, etc. -- is absolutely huge. (And it's not because Whitehurst sucks. He has looked better than AJ Feeley. It's just that he's no Philip Rivers.)

A lot of people seem to think the Chargers made a mistake by keeping Rivers over Brees -- many of the same people who after the 2003 season thought Brees would never be a starting-caliber NFL QB. In both cases, I think they are underestimating the effect surrounding talent can have on a QB. In 2003, Brees played behind a terrible offensive line, and his best receiver was a very inconsistent David Boston. So Brees looked bad. A year later, he had a completely overhauled and much more effective offensive line, Antonio Gates emerged as a stud, Keenan McCardell was added to the roster, and Brees looked good.

Rivers is stepping into the latter situation. The OL should be improved over last year as some of the younger guys (Hardwick, Dielman, Olivea, Jordan) have another year of experience, and they drafted a few guys as well (Marcus McNeil especially should have an immediate impact). Gates is still awesome. McCardell and Parker are still solid and consistent. And some younger guys like Vincent Jackson or Rashaun Woods could emerge.

Rivers has all the advantages Brees had during the past two seasons, and he has more physical talent. I don't think the offense will miss a beat.

Projection: 296 of 462 for 3379 yards, 21 TDs, 14 INTs (31/62/0 rushing) (13 games)

Click to expand...

No, great posting.

My only quibble is that you should expect Rivers to be more durable than the average QB. He started an NCAA record 51 games at N.C. State. This is both because he played through injuries and because he is a big guy (6'5" 228 lbs) and thus more resistant to injuries.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???Nevermind...the Chargers are going to suspend him for three games this year.

Click to expand...

Burn.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

It will booger up the draft dominator if our projections reflect that QBs are bigger injury risks than WRs?

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

Oh good, I can cut and paste from an email I wrote earlier today:This raises the question of what the projections are supposed to reflect -- the possible outcomes weighted by their probabilities, a good over/under, or the most likely scenario. Or in other words, if we were to run the 2006 season ten thousand times, would the perfect projections be equal to the mean performance, the median performance, or the mode?

Sixteen games is obviously not a good over/under, since nobody would ever bet the over. It is also not a good probabilistic expectation, for much the same reason -- there's a non-zero chance that somebody will play fewer than 16 games, but there is no chance he will play more than 16 games, so the expected number of games must be fewer than 16.

Sixteen games may, however, be the mode (i.e., the most likely scenario). But I don't think we should be projecting the mode. If I think there's a 30% chance that Losman will start the whole season, a 25% chance that Holcomb will start the whole season, a 25% chance that Nall will start the whole season, and a 20% chance that there will be some kind of QB-by-committee situation, I do not think my projections should have Losman starting the whole season even though that is the most likely of the four scenarios. I would want to discount his projections by the 70% chance that he won't start the whole season.

I think projecting either the mean or median performance is preferable to projecting the mode. JMHO.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

Oh good, I can cut and paste from an email I wrote earlier today:This raises the question of what the projections are supposed to reflect -- the possible outcomes weighted by their probabilities, a good over/under, or the most likely scenario. Or in other words, if we were to run the 2006 season ten thousand times, would the perfect projections be equal to the mean performance, the median performance, or the mode?

Sixteen games is obviously not a good over/under, since nobody would ever bet the over. It is also not a good probabilistic expectation, for much the same reason -- there's a non-zero chance that somebody will play fewer than 16 games, but there is no chance he will play more than 16 games, so the expected number of games must be fewer than 16.

Sixteen games may, however, be the mode (i.e., the most likely scenario). But I don't think we should be projecting the mode. If I think there's a 30% chance that Losman will start the whole season, a 25% chance that Holcomb will start the whole season, a 25% chance that Nall will start the whole season, and a 20% chance that there will be some kind of QB-by-committee situation, I do not think my projections should have Losman starting the whole season even though that is the most likely of the four scenarios. I would want to discount his projections by the 70% chance that he won't start the whole season.

I think projecting either the mean or median performance is preferable to projecting the mode. JMHO.

Click to expand...

I agree when you can point to a specific reason (unique risk) such as performance or youth movement. Strongly disagree when it related to an injury that may or maynot happen (global risk).Even if you are correct MT, until you convince the rest of the industry, your projections are not useful to anyone but yourself. Case in point, your projections are weighing down the mean of most spotlight threads you chose to weigh in on. Unless you post in every single thread, you've now corupted the means relative to each other.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

It will booger up the draft dominator if our projections reflect that QBs are bigger injury risks than WRs?

Click to expand...

I believe so. Unless the draft dominator solely functions on a ppg basis and can predict which weeks the QB will miss, I don't see how you account for the replacement points.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

It will booger up the draft dominator if our projections reflect that QBs are bigger injury risks than WRs?

Click to expand...

I believe so. Unless the draft dominator solely functions on a ppg basis and can predict which weeks the QB will miss, I don't see how you account for the replacement points.

Click to expand...

If the value of a WR and a QB are equal, wouldn't you want the guy who is more likely to play 16 games?

I agree when you can point to a specific reason (unique risk) such as performance or youth movement. Strongly disagree when it related to an injury that may or maynot happen (global risk).

Click to expand...

It's no different from predicting yards that may or may not happen, or touchdowns that may or may not happen. In all cases, I think we ought to strive for realistic expected numbers based on all the information available. And 13 games is a better expected number than 16 games in the sense that it more accurately weights different possible scenarios according to their realistic probabilities. (There might be a 12% chance that he'll play 0-5 games, a 13% chance that he'll play 6-10 games, a 14% chance that he'll play 11-15 games, and a 61% chance that he'll play 16 games. Well, that's an expectation of 13 games.)

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

It will booger up the draft dominator if our projections reflect that QBs are bigger injury risks than WRs?

Click to expand...

I believe so. Unless the draft dominator solely functions on a ppg basis and can predict which weeks the QB will miss, I don't see how you account for the replacement points.

Click to expand...

If the value of a WR and a QB are equal, wouldn't you want the guy who is more likely to play 16 games?

Click to expand...

They can't be equal relative to their peers based both a full slate of games and a partial slate of games.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

It will booger up the draft dominator if our projections reflect that QBs are bigger injury risks than WRs?

Click to expand...

I believe so. Unless the draft dominator solely functions on a ppg basis and can predict which weeks the QB will miss, I don't see how you account for the replacement points.

Click to expand...

If the value of a WR and a QB are equal, wouldn't you want the guy who is more likely to play 16 games?

Click to expand...

They can't be equal relative to their peers based both a full slate of games and a partial slate of games.

Click to expand...

But if we give all QBs 13 games and all WRs 15 games, the top WRs will benefit over the top QBs. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I agree when you can point to a specific reason (unique risk) such as performance or youth movement.  Strongly disagree when it related to an injury that may or maynot happen (global risk).

Click to expand...

It's no different from predicting yards that may or may not happen, or touchdowns that may or may not happen. In all cases, I think we ought to strive for realistic expected numbers based on all the information available. And 13 games is a better expected number than 16 games in the sense that it more accurately weights different possible scenarios according to their realistic probabilities. (There might be a 12% chance that he'll play 0-5 games, a 13% chance that he'll play 6-10 games, a 14% chance that he'll play 11-15 games, and a 61% chance that he'll play 16 games. Well, that's an expectation of 13 games.)

Click to expand...

I can guarantee one thing, injuries aren't as equally likely across the board. There's a corelation based on size, race, first born, age of mother, home field turf, practice turf, coaching philosphy, conditioning, age, height, etc.Also, you've dimenished the value of the studs relative to ww fodder where you don't account for injury because you cut them if they're hurt.

If you want more accurate projections, use AVT and then get a better crystal ball.

(13 games)

Click to expand...

Predicting an injury MT???

Click to expand...

Sort of. His expected number of injuries is greater than zero. Starting quarterbacks without bad injury histories play an average of 13 games.

Click to expand...

Oh boy...now I've got to factor which staff predicts random injuries and who's projections need to be cleansed. Rivers is more likely to play 16 games then 13. Your projections really aren't useful in the fantasy community if you're factoring everyone down across the board. Furthermore, they'll booger up the draft dominator when comparing players at different positions.

Click to expand...

It will booger up the draft dominator if our projections reflect that QBs are bigger injury risks than WRs?

Click to expand...

I believe so. Unless the draft dominator solely functions on a ppg basis and can predict which weeks the QB will miss, I don't see how you account for the replacement points.

Click to expand...

If the value of a WR and a QB are equal, wouldn't you want the guy who is more likely to play 16 games?

Click to expand...

They can't be equal relative to their peers based both a full slate of games and a partial slate of games.

Click to expand...

But if we give all QBs 13 games and all WRs 15 games, the top WRs will benefit over the top QBs. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Click to expand...

This is becoming like debating icy pots with jwcdvlhshflks.

I can guarantee one thing, injuries aren't as equally likely across the board. There's a corelation based on size, race, first born, age of mother, home field turf, practice turf, coaching philosphy, conditioning, age, height, etc.

Click to expand...

Good, so take all of that into account as best you can.

Also, you've dimenished the value of the studs relative to ww fodder where you don't account for injury because you cut them if they're hurt.

Click to expand...

No I haven't. I'm well aware that I can cut them if they're hurt.

I can guarantee one thing, injuries aren't as equally likely across the board. There's a corelation based on size, race, first born, age of mother, home field turf, practice turf, coaching philosphy, conditioning, age, height, etc.

Click to expand...

Good, so take all of that into account as best you can.

Also, you've dimenished the value of the studs relative to ww fodder where you don't account for injury because you cut them if they're hurt.

Click to expand...

No I haven't. I'm well aware that I can cut them if they're hurt.

Click to expand...

O/U 4 pages

I can guarantee one thing, injuries aren't as equally likely across the board.  There's a corelation based on size, race, first born, age of mother, home field turf, practice turf, coaching philosphy, conditioning, age, height, etc.

Click to expand...

Good, so take all of that into account as best you can.

Also, you've dimenished the value of the studs relative to ww fodder where you don't account for injury because you cut them if they're hurt.

Click to expand...

No I haven't. I'm well aware that I can cut them if they're hurt.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm paying you guys to do, but you're insisting on the easy way out by using a slush factor. I think you missed my last point. If I consider Rivers ww fodder, then his stats shouldn't be cut. Either he'll be healthful and acquired as needed or hurt and never considered. Therefore I don't see altering his stats.

Again, the point above isn't at the heart of my objection. My biggest concern is that you're mudding up the projections by not conforming to the globally accepted inductry standard. MT's River's projections relative to Expert X's can't be compared.

That's what I'm paying you guys to do, but you're insisting on the easy way out by using a slush factor.

I think you missed my last point. If I consider Rivers ww fodder, then his stats shouldn't be cut. Either he'll be healthful and acquired as needed or hurt and never considered. Therefore I don't see altering his stats.

Click to expand...

It's hardly the easy way out or a slush factor.Did you cut Anquan Boldin last year? He was hurt but still valuable.

It makes sense to make the most realistic projections possible. You wouldn't want me to project Reggie Bush to rush for 2100 yards just because "Reggie Bush he rocks !!!111". You'd probably come back and tell me that NFL RBs don't rush for that many yards, and NFL rookie RBs generally fall well short of that. If I told you to throw historical precedent out the window, you'd say I was crazy.

So why do you want to throw historical precedent out the window when predicting games played?

That's what I'm paying you guys to do, but you're insisting on the easy way out by using a slush factor. 

I think you missed my last point.  If I consider Rivers ww fodder, then his stats shouldn't be cut.  Either he'll be healthful and acquired as needed or hurt and never considered.  Therefore I don't see altering his stats.

Click to expand...

It's hardly the easy way out or a slush factor.Did you cut Anquan Boldin last year? He was hurt but still valuable.

It makes sense to make the most realistic projections possible. You wouldn't want me to project Reggie Bush to rush for 2100 yards just because "Reggie Bush he rocks !!!111". You'd probably come back and tell me that NFL RBs don't rush for that many yards, and NFL rookie RBs generally fall well short of that. If I told you to throw historical precedent out the window, you'd say I was crazy.

So why do you want to throw historical precedent out the window when predicting games played?

Click to expand...

Historical precedence and the most realistic projections would be AVT. Talk to your boss about why he doesn't use that. Again, my biggest issue is with individual staff using different criteria for projections and rankings. I want to be able to compare the relative values from one expert to the next. Even if MT is dead on with his projection theory, he's mudding the spotlight series unless he contributes in everyone.

That's what I'm paying you guys to do, but you're insisting on the easy way out by using a slush factor.

I think you missed my last point. If I consider Rivers ww fodder, then his stats shouldn't be cut. Either he'll be healthful and acquired as needed or hurt and never considered. Therefore I don't see altering his stats.

Click to expand...

It's hardly the easy way out or a slush factor.Did you cut Anquan Boldin last year? He was hurt but still valuable.

It makes sense to make the most realistic projections possible. You wouldn't want me to project Reggie Bush to rush for 2100 yards just because "Reggie Bush he rocks !!!111". You'd probably come back and tell me that NFL RBs don't rush for that many yards, and NFL rookie RBs generally fall well short of that. If I told you to throw historical precedent out the window, you'd say I was crazy.

So why do you want to throw historical precedent out the window when predicting games played?

Click to expand...

Historical precedence and the most realistic projections would be AVT. Talk to your boss about why he doesn't use that. Again, my biggest issue is with individual staff using different criteria for projections and rankings. I want to be able to compare the relative values from one expert to the next. Even if MT is dead on with his projection theory, he's mudding the spotlight series unless he contributes in everyone.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which boss to talk to but I'm sure both of them are smart enough not to use AVT. AVT does NOT give the most realistic projections. As for your other point, there's some validity to it. I'll send a fax over to Jason Wood to see if he can put an asterisk next to the spotlights MT posts in.

I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating Rivers this year. I've watched every snap he's taken so far in the preseason and in the regular season, and I've watched a number of practices in each of the last few years as well. I think Rivers will be an improvement over Brees immediately. He's got the same strong points as Brees (intelligence, leadership, work ethic, preparation), but he's also got a stronger arm, a quicker release, and better size. The last point (better size) gives him a particular advantage over Brees against the blitz. Brees would always have to take a three- or five-step drop and look for a passing lane; he did not find the hot receiver against the blitz on a one-step drop. The difference between Brees and Rivers on this point was evident as soon as Rivers came into the Bronco game last year. The Broncos had been blitzing effectively all game. But as soon as Rivers came in, he hit Caldwell on a quick slant against the blitz, then hit McCardell on another quick slant against the blitz, and then the Broncos stopped blitzing.

The difference in arm strength was also evident. He hit Eric Parker on a deep curl on second and twenty for 22 yards, right on time and right on the money. He later threw the ball deep down the right sideline intended for Parker. The pass was broken up at the last second by Champ Bailey, but it was the kind of pass Brees always underthrew. Rivers threw it right on target. (Great play by Baliey.)

The people who are saying that Rivers is essentially a rookie have not seen the difference between Rivers and Charles Whitehurst. Whitehurst, the Chargers' third-round pick this year, is a rookie. The difference between the two in practice -- the way each takes charge of the huddle, their confidence, their reads, etc. -- is absolutely huge. (And it's not because Whitehurst sucks. He has looked better than AJ Feeley. It's just that he's no Philip Rivers.)

A lot of people seem to think the Chargers made a mistake by keeping Rivers over Brees -- many of the same people who after the 2003 season thought Brees would never be a starting-caliber NFL QB. In both cases, I think they are underestimating the effect surrounding talent can have on a QB. In 2003, Brees played behind a terrible offensive line, and his best receiver was a very inconsistent David Boston. So Brees looked bad. A year later, he had a completely overhauled and much more effective offensive line, Antonio Gates emerged as a stud, Keenan McCardell was added to the roster, and Brees looked good.

Rivers is stepping into the latter situation. The OL should be improved over last year as some of the younger guys (Hardwick, Dielman, Olivea, Jordan) have another year of experience, and they drafted a few guys as well (Marcus McNeil especially should have an immediate impact). Gates is still awesome. McCardell and Parker are still solid and consistent. And some younger guys like Vincent Jackson or Rashaun Woods could emerge.

Rivers has all the advantages Brees had during the past two seasons, and he has more physical talent. I don't think the offense will miss a beat.

Projection: 296 of 462 for 3379 yards, 21 TDs, 14 INTs (31/62/0 rushing) (13 games)

Click to expand...

so you base everything soley on preseason , and 1 meaningless game at the end of the year when Denver had nothing to play for?!?!Brees went to the pro bowl a few times, right? I think he knows quite a bit more than Rivers, otherwise, Rivers would have started all of last year, no?

you forgot to mention that Rivers also fumbled TWICE in that game vs. Denver!! how convenient that you left that important detail out..

poor QB play at its finest..

2750-17-13

struggles will start from day one, when he faces REAL defenses and not watered-down preseason pushovers..

He'll be good in the future, he's going to have a hard go of it at first, IMO..

I'm sure at some point someone we'll get back to Rivers, but if MT wants to adjust his projections to reflect fewer games played and does it across the board, wouldn't the end result be the same? If he sliced off the same ratio for all QB then they all would have lower projections but the order where they ranked would still be the same.

I often wondered what is the best way to do projections, as some people will slot almost every RB for 1,500 yards and 10 TD--ususally more than twice the "expected" amount per season. If someone were to project 25 guys at that level, is that any better or worse than MT projecting QB to play 13 games each?

In the Larry Johnson PS thread, I mentioned that I had a difficult time projecting any RB at 400+ touches in a season. It doesn't happen very often (on average between 1 and 2 times a year). It certainly could happen, but expecting that to happen is a stretch IMO.

Better stated, if I said that you had to pick 10 RB that will get 400+ touches this year and gave you $10 for each one you got right but you had to pay me $10 for each one you got wrong and you HAD to pick 10 players, you would lose money.

Marc Bulger is the perfect example of how projections get misleading. Projected over a 16-game season Bulger's stats would be phenomenal. But he's never played in all 16 games. How many games should he be projected to play in? 12? 14? 16?

It was mentioned above that MT's approach would reduce effectiveness of the Draft Dominator. I don't see this. If a DD user reviews all projections and tweaks them to his/her liking, no problem. If a DD user simply uses the projections as imported from FBGs, then the MT effect is taken into account equally across all projections, so the effect on average rankings is the same. If that's not true, please explain.

I do agree that it makes comparing MT's projections to those of someone who does not reduce games played similarly an apples and oranges comparison. But why is that so important? That is, why is it so important for someone to compare, say MT's projections to Jason Wood's projections?

And if that is important, have the projections include projected games played and ppg columns, and use those columns for such comparisons.

Rivers knows the system well, and has perhaps the best combination of RBs/TEs in the NFL - the two things considered essential for a young QB to succeed. Unfortunately, the Bolts are lacking playmakers on the outside (McCardell and Parker are extremely sure-handed though), so Rivers won't be a 30 TD guy until Vincent Jackson emerges or AJ Smith moves for a WR threat.

I'm bullish on Rivers exceeding expectations and playing well from the get go. In the 20+ years I've been watching the NFL, I can't think of a better situation for a young QB to be handed.

Put me down for 3500, 22 TDs, and 12 INTs.

Click to expand...

I'm bullish on Rivers exceeding expectations and playing well from the get go.  In the 20+ years I've been watching the NFL, I can't think of a better situation for a young QB to be handed.

Click to expand...

Only two pop into my head: Kurt Warner and Daunte Culpepper. Both guys did pretty well their first years.

Click to expand...

I think that Rivers will be one of the surprise stories of this NFL season. He has two years in the system and will be much more prepared than most suspect. He has playmakers at both TE and RB, who will be there for him and give him yards after the catch.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating Rivers this year. I've watched every snap he's taken so far in the preseason and in the regular season, and I've watched a number of practices in each of the last few years as well. I think Rivers will be an improvement over Brees immediately. He's got the same strong points as Brees (intelligence, leadership, work ethic, preparation), but he's also got a stronger arm, a quicker release, and better size. The last point (better size) gives him a particular advantage over Brees against the blitz. Brees would always have to take a three- or five-step drop and look for a passing lane; he did not find the hot receiver against the blitz on a one-step drop. The difference between Brees and Rivers on this point was evident as soon as Rivers came into the Bronco game last year. The Broncos had been blitzing effectively all game. But as soon as Rivers came in, he hit Caldwell on a quick slant against the blitz, then hit McCardell on another quick slant against the blitz, and then the Broncos stopped blitzing.

Rivers has all the advantages Brees had during the past two seasons, and he has more physical talent. I don't think the offense will miss a beat.

Projection: 296 of 462 for 3379 yards, 21 TDs, 14 INTs (31/62/0 rushing) (13 games)

Click to expand...

Firstly, and to the pointrojection - 3600 yards, 25 TD's, 14 INT's

PROS - Rivers' arm strength will provide better opportunities for his WR's to exploit (more completions and yardage). Gates and LT are ALWAYS a threat to score from anywhere on the field (more everything). I think production after the catch will help his stats nicely this year. He does have the physical tools and does know the system. His confidence and leadership will have every Charger on offense playing their best.

CONS - How may real NFL snaps does it take to adjust? He saw some successes and failures last year... The reps are coming, Rivers' success will depend on how he keeps his head, plain and simple. We'll see if Rivers is the product of a system (NCSU) or the real deal.

THE BREAKER - You get a guy like Rivers on your side and you'll go to war for him. Don't underestimate his leadership skills. His absolute commitment to those around him is a genuine bond that is stronger than most. The players already feel it. The faith that he'll get from his teammates will take him the extra mile. He has such charisma that it makes me think of another Wolfpack great...

Jimmy V

If you've never heard this speech, you owe it to yourself... one of the greats.

Firstly, and to the point:

Projection - 3600 yards, 25 TD's, 14 INT's

PROS - Rivers' arm strength will provide better opportunities for his WR's to exploit (more completions and yardage). Gates and LT are ALWAYS a threat to score from anywhere on the field (more everything). I think production after the catch will help his stats nicely this year. He does have the physical tools and does know the system. His confidence and leadership will have every Charger on offense playing their best.

CONS - How may real NFL snaps does it take to adjust? He saw some successes and failures last year... The reps are coming, Rivers' success will depend on how he keeps his head, plain and simple. We'll see if Rivers is the product of a system (NCSU) or the real deal.

THE BREAKER - You get a guy like Rivers on your side and you'll go to war for him. Don't underestimate his leadership skills. His absolute commitment to those around him is a genuine bond that is stronger than most. The players already feel it. The faith that he'll get from his teammates will take him the extra mile. He has such charisma that it makes me think of another Wolfpack great...

Jimmy V

If you've never heard this speech, you owe it to yourself... one of the greats.

Click to expand...

Good post. In terms of being a product of the system, note that Rivers played for 3 offensive coordinators in his 4 years at NCSU. And his head coach is a linebacker & former defensive coordinator, so it wasn't one of those situations where the head coach is the real offensive coordinator. This just illustrates another strength of Rivers IMO.

I'm bullish on Rivers exceeding expectations and playing well from the get go. In the 20+ years I've been watching the NFL, I can't think of a better situation for a young QB to be handed.

Click to expand...

Only two pop into my head: Kurt Warner and Daunte Culpepper. Both guys did pretty well their first years.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, these guys had "throw first" head coaches. Shocker that you and the bolts homers would choose completely different offensive schemes to compare with.

Great debate so far, guys

That said, I think the projections so far are way too optimistic. Rivers may look good in preseason snaps, and he may be cerebral enough to fully grasp the playbook, but this will be his first game time.

In the last seven years, consider:

On average, 9 QBs have thrown 3,500 or more yards
On average, 15 QBs have thrown 3,000 or more yardsIt seems that nearly every QB projection (save for Mike Vick) we see is above the 3,000 yard threshold, yet less than 50% of the teams in the league have a passre get over that mark annually.

Marty Schottenheimer is going to play it close to the vest, particularly early on. Rivers is going to have to prove himself capable of playing to Brees' level (or a close approximation thereof) before he gets the run of the playbook, IMHO.

236 completions
420 attempts
56.2% completion
6.5 yards per attempt
2,750 yards passing
16 TD passes
14 Ints
30 rushes
80 rushing yards
1 rush TD
202 fantasy points

Marc Bulger is the perfect example of how projections get misleading. Projected over a 16-game season Bulger's stats would be phenomenal. But he's never played in all 16 games. How many games should he be projected to play in? 12? 14? 16?

Click to expand...

Bulger averaged 21 ppg last year. Assuming MT's 13 games played, which is more accurate from a fantasy perspective...a) 21 * 13 = 273

b) 21 * 16 = 336

The actual fantasy output is 21 * 13 + 14 * 3 (Boller or Gerrand off the wire) = 315.

Approach a) is 42 points light while approach b) is 21 points high.

For reference, 273 / 16 = 17 ppg is is getting pretty close to what you can pick up off the waiver wire.

I am going to have to disagree with Jason and his numbers for several reasons, but first and foremost because the Chargers head into this year having already surpassed the key metrics that he set for QBs.

As a team, SD ranked 8th in completions, 13th in passing attempts, 12th in passing yardage, and 4th in passing TD.

To compare Rivers stepping into that situation with other teams that had DREADFUL passing stats is very misleading. Frye, Smith, Pennington, et al have less chance to do well given their situations and systems than Rivers does IMO.

I will post additional info in a bit, but IMO how SD did passing in 2005 should be a consideration that may be getting overlooked.

Just a reference point as to how high MT is on River's prospects this year, if Rivers' plays 16 games he'll post numbers of 4159-26-17. That would have been tops in the league in yardage in 2005. Basically we're talking about Rivers' joining Brady and Manning among the fantasy elites.

In the last seven years, consider:

On average, 9 QBs have thrown 3,500 or more yards
On average, 15 QBs have thrown 3,000 or more yardsIt seems that nearly every QB projection (save for Mike Vick) we see is above the 3,000 yard threshold, yet less than 50% of the teams in the league have a passre get over that mark annually.

Click to expand...

This is a good example of using statistics without context.1. How many games played have all QBs averaged over that span? Jason, how many games are you assuming Rivers will play? If you use these numbers, you must be assuming he plays less than 16 games. If so, why do you think he'll play less?

As I pointed out previously, Rivers proved in college to be extremely durable, and one can argue that he is less likely to miss time due to injury. At the same time, I think there is no chance he gets replaced due to performance. In order for the Chargers to bench him in favor of Feely or Whitehurst, it would require an extraordinarily bad level of performance from him that I cannot see happening.

If we assume he does indeed play 16 games, he only needs to average 187.5 passing yards to reach 3000. Anyone want to sig bet that he won't average 187.5 passing yards per game?

2. Rivers enters a better than average offense and better than average passing offense. You can expand this to better than average situation if you want, considering that the defense will be good. The numbers you quote above are for QBs in general, few of whom have such favorable situations.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you would throw out data like that when it is so clearly faulty without that context.

Lots of people bullish and bearish on Rivers in this thread. I think I fall somewhere in the bull catagory. Brees finished close to the top10 (least in my league) and I don't see Rivers falling too much behind that pace. Not only does he have excellent weapons in LT and Gates, he has 2 of the most sure handed WR in the game in Parker and McCardel. Combine that with a defense that could finish in the top 5 in the league, everything sets up very well for Rivers.

Passes: 291 of 480

Yards: 3511

TD: 22

INT: 17

Rushes: 38

Yards: 101

1 Rush TD

Historical precedence and the most realistic projections would be AVT.

Click to expand...

Not by a longshot.