What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Matt Hasselbeck 2006 ranking (1 Viewer)

Matt Hasselbeck will be:

  • QB 1-3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • QB 4-6

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • QB 7-9

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • QB 10-12

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • QB 13 or worse

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
The Jerk

The Jerk

Footballguy
I've not seen much discussion on Matt Hasselbeck (at least recently). Most of the QB questions concern where to draft Manning, how Palmer and others are doing with their rehab, and who might break out of the pack from QB 6 to QB 15 or so.

What do you think?

I'm in for QB 4-6.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wannabee said:
I have him at QB 5/6 depending on scoring
Click to expand...
Scoring can move players around a little. I don't think most league setups would affect Hasselbeck too much. But if it matters to some of you, let's use 4 pt passing TDs, 1 pt per 25 yards passing just to have a target.
 
I think he'll finish in the 4/5 range, but I'll take him in the 2/3 range because I think he has the highest floor of anyone not named Peyton. I mean, seriously, he lost... what, 17 WRs last season?... and had Shaun Alexander vulture roughly 50 TDs, and he still finished as the #5 overall QB. And this was despite missing pretty much all of week 17 (6/8 for 76 yards before he got pulled). He threw a TD in every game but two (one of them the aforementioned week 17). Really really consistant guy.

 
Guys I like above Hasselbeck:

Manning

Palmer

Bulger

Brooks

Agree with the consensus QB4-6 ranking.

 
SSOG said:
he still finished as the #5 overall QB. And this was despite missing pretty much all of week 17 (6/8 for 76 yards before he got pulled).
Click to expand...
That's a bit misleading. Hasselbeck finished #5 because he played 15 games, not despite it. Vick, the AZ QBs, Bulger and McNabb all were better fantasy players when they were on the field. (I'm adjusting Vick's time for actual time missed, so not dividing by 15 games)http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/0..._rearviewqb.php

As I wrote there, Hasselbeck was just outside the top 10 after adjusting for games played and SOS. He's slightly better than the average fantasy QB in terms of adding value (once again, this is after adjusting for SOS and games played). This is also exactly where he ranked in 2004. His 2004 and 2005 seasons were nearly identical.

 
Chase Stuart said:
SSOG said:
he still finished as the #5 overall QB. And this was despite missing pretty much all of week 17 (6/8 for 76 yards before he got pulled).
Click to expand...
That's a bit misleading. Hasselbeck finished #5 because he played 15 games, not despite it. Vick, the AZ QBs, Bulger and McNabb all were better fantasy players when they were on the field. (I'm adjusting Vick's time for actual time missed, so not dividing by 15 games)http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/0..._rearviewqb.php

As I wrote there, Hasselbeck was just outside the top 10 after adjusting for games played and SOS. He's slightly better than the average fantasy QB in terms of adding value (once again, this is after adjusting for SOS and games played). This is also exactly where he ranked in 2004. His 2004 and 2005 seasons were nearly identical.
Click to expand...
I mentioned week 17 because, if I'm recalling correctly, Hasselbeck was fully healthy when he was pulled out. As a result, I give him a pass for that. McNabb, Bulger, and Vick don't get a pass- they missed time due to injury, so I keep their lowered numbers to account for their increased injury risk. And in all three cases, the injury risk is significant.
 
SSOG said:
Chase Stuart said:
SSOG said:
he still finished as the #5 overall QB. And this was despite missing pretty much all of week 17 (6/8 for 76 yards before he got pulled).
Click to expand...
That's a bit misleading. Hasselbeck finished #5 because he played 15 games, not despite it. Vick, the AZ QBs, Bulger and McNabb all were better fantasy players when they were on the field. (I'm adjusting Vick's time for actual time missed, so not dividing by 15 games)http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/0..._rearviewqb.php

As I wrote there, Hasselbeck was just outside the top 10 after adjusting for games played and SOS. He's slightly better than the average fantasy QB in terms of adding value (once again, this is after adjusting for SOS and games played). This is also exactly where he ranked in 2004. His 2004 and 2005 seasons were nearly identical.
Click to expand...
I mentioned week 17 because, if I'm recalling correctly, Hasselbeck was fully healthy when he was pulled out. As a result, I give him a pass for that. McNabb, Bulger, and Vick don't get a pass- they missed time due to injury, so I keep their lowered numbers to account for their increased injury risk. And in all three cases, the injury risk is significant.
Click to expand...
That's certainly reasonable. We argue over semantics all the time, so I guess this was my way of saying you really mean "Hasselbeck ranked 5th last year because he's good and durable, not because he's really good."
 
QB4-6. Very steady with good numbers despite erratic WR play. I expect Burleson to be a real positive here although I haven't heard much about Jackson recently and his injury could be a factor.

Obviously, Seattle's offense will feature Alexander but I prefer Hasselbecks consistency (higher floor?) to some of the guys mentioned liked Bulger and Brooks.

Palmer? If not for the injury, yes.

 
Chase Stuart said:
That's certainly reasonable. We argue over semantics all the time, so I guess this was my way of saying you really mean "Hasselbeck ranked 5th last year because he's good and durable, not because he's really good."
Click to expand...
:yes: Early in the draft, it's all about high floors.
 
I agree with SSOG. I have Hasselbeck in that 4-6 range, but I too think his floor is pretty high compared to others in that group. In other words, he's a relatively safe bet... thus I think you could justify taking him as the 2-3 QB off of the board.

I think this is the similar argument one could make for Holt at WR.

 
mlball77 said:
I agree with SSOG. I have Hasselbeck in that 4-6 range, but I too think his floor is pretty high compared to others in that group. In other words, he's a relatively safe bet... thus I think you could justify taking him as the 2-3 QB off of the board.I think this is the similar argument one could make for Holt at WR.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention it. I have Torry Holt as the #1 WR on my board. :)
 
SSOG said:
mlball77 said:
I agree with SSOG. I have Hasselbeck in that 4-6 range, but I too think his floor is pretty high compared to others in that group. In other words, he's a relatively safe bet... thus I think you could justify taking him as the 2-3 QB off of the board.I think this is the similar argument one could make for Holt at WR.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention it. I have Torry Holt as the #1 WR on my board. :)
Click to expand...
As do I.
 
I have Hass in the 7-9 range, but closer to 9. I'm not one to spend an early darft pick on a QB, so I'm not going to spend an early one on Hass (whose ADP puts him in the 5th round). I would much rather take Bledsoe two rounds later and grab a guy like Plummer, who has alternating SOS weeks with Bledsoe, about two rounds after that. :thumbup:

 
I have him as the #3 QB after Peyton and Palmer. I wouldn't take him that high since I don't draft QB's early, but if he slips to the #7 QB I would consider him since it's a great value.

 
mlball77 said:
I agree with SSOG. I have Hasselbeck in that 4-6 range, but I too think his floor is pretty high compared to others in that group. In other words, he's a relatively safe bet... thus I think you could justify taking him as the 2-3 QB off of the board.
Click to expand...
Either him or Brady, I'd probably take Hasselbeck as the #3 QB if only 2 QBs are taken early. Floor at 7, upside of #2.
 
I have him in the 4-6 range with less risk and slightly more updside than most of the others in that range.

In one of my keeper leagues I have the option to protect Hass for pick 7.05 this year. Not the steal of the draft but also an easy decision.

 
there are really 15+ serviceable qbs this year, its just a matter of crunching the numbers to see if he is worth it when you have a chance to draft him vs. how much he outscores the plummers, favres, etc.I've been seeing them going in the 9th/10th or after

 
phowler13 said:
there are really 15+ serviceable qbs this year, its just a matter of crunching the numbers to see if he is worth it when you have a chance to draft him vs. how much he outscores the plummers, favres, etc.I've been seeing them going in the 9th/10th or after
Click to expand...
And this isn't much different from most years. However, what tends to happen is that these 15 "serviceable" QBs aren't drafted 1-15. One or two from the top ten will likely slide toward the 15th rank, while some in the 11-15 range will make the top ten, and others will fall short of the top 15.The thing I personally like about Hasselbeck is his high floor. He is a more secure pick than most of these other "serviceable" QBs, and that is worth something. At the end of the year, you might be able to name 10 QBs who finish within 2 ppg or less of Hasselbeck. However, I'm pretty confident that 3-5 of the top 15 QBs drafted will not be in that group.And of course if Seattle ends up passing a little more, especially in the red zone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Travdogg's post FA 2 round mock draft
Replies
39
Views
1K
rockaction
rockaction
Ministry of Pain
6 possible 1st round QBs in the '24 NFL Draft...they ain't all gonna make it
Replies
47
Views
2K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
T
Travdogg's FA/1st round predictions
2
Replies
82
Views
3K
Ray_T
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top