Is David Dodds right about Garrard? (1 Viewer)

[Foureyes]

David's "perfect draft" article has served as the blue print for many fantastic drafts over the past few years...and this years article looks better than ever. Everything you need, complete with a top 24 list which will almost guarantee that you start off with three studs, great lists of value candidates to target throughout the draft, and the usual solid recommendations at TE, PK, and defense. Just one catch...if Garrard tanks, it's not worth a thing. The centerpiece of the perfect draft is waiting (and waiting) at the QB position, then taking a super-value player who will smash his ADP.

Last year it was Cutler, drafted (in my league) in the sixth round. Needless to say, that worked out rather well. This year, the choice is Garrard. As much as I'm trying to feel comfortable waiting until (probably) the eight or ninth round, to get Garrard as (probably) the 14-17th QB off the board, makes me a little nervous. Especially when David is pushing Orton as QB2, and he's looked absolutely terrible so far.

Any thoughts? We've spent the big bucks to listen to what David has to say...

 

[Chase Stuart]

Garrard has been a pretty solid fantasy QBs for the last two seasons.

In 2007, he ranked 4th in adjusted fantasy points per adjusted game. What's that? It's fantasy points per game, adjusted for strength of schedule and actual amounts of games played. So if a guy played in 10 whole games and two half games, he'll have 11.0 adjusted games. Why do we use adjusted FP per adjusted game? Because it correlates much better with future performance than fantasy points or fantasy points per game. That's because strength of schedule and injuries are very unpredictable from year to year. This way we just look at how good the guy actually was when he played. And obviously, #4 is very, very good.

In 2008, he ranked 13th in adjFP/adjG. That's obviously not great, but it's not terrible, either. He had one of the toughest schedules in the league last year, which is why his raw numbers understate how good he was. More importantly, he's since added basically six lineman to the team -- all three interior linemen were injured last season and two of them missed every game but the opener. The Jags then drafted two good tackles and picked up a strong veteran tackle. The line should go from being awful to good right away -- ala the '07 season. Then, you add in a great veteran receiver, two exciting young rookies, and a healthy, more seasoned Mike Walker, and this is the best group of WRs the Jaguars have had since Jimmy Smith retired.

On top of all that, Garrard projects to have an easy schedule this year, whereas he's had a hard schedule the past two years. Why? The Jags played the AFC and NFC Norths last year, two of the toughest divisions for fantasy QBs last year. In '09 he gets the NFC West and AFC East, much easier assignments. Garrard should be top ten in FP/G this season, so the only question is how many games will he play? Unless you think Garrard is a much bigger injury risk than the other QBs in the QB7-20 range, I'd feel very safe taking him, and be happy that he has a ton of upside, too.

 

[Couch Potato]

Extremely under-appreciated FF quarterback, he gets yards with his feet, has no competition for his starting job, has better WRs now than in the last 2 years, his OL is healthy again after a rash of injuries last year. A bargain in FF drafts right now.

 

[Bri]

I disagree on Garrard, don't even think he's top 12.

David's a good writer and I'm sure the article is swell.

 

[whodeywhodey]

Personally I'm targeting Palmer and Schaub in the 6-9 round range in all my drafts. Much prefer them over Garrard.

If I get Palmer I would highly consider Garrard as a backup depending on how the draft goes.

 

[Trig2U]

Personally I'm targeting Palmer and Schaub in the 6-9 round range in all my drafts. Much prefer them over Garrard.If I get Palmer I would highly consider Garrard as a backup depending on how the draft goes.

I get the feeling that Schaub will be on a lot of radar screens by my Draft Day. He's in a great situation and he's playing lights out...

 

[whodeywhodey]

Personally I'm targeting Palmer and Schaub in the 6-9 round range in all my drafts. Much prefer them over Garrard.If I get Palmer I would highly consider Garrard as a backup depending on how the draft goes.

I get the feeling that Schaub will be on a lot of radar screens by my Draft Day. He's in a great situation and he's playing lights out...

With Palmer and Schaub I just hope they both stay healthy.

 

[Wadsworth]

David is a safe pick at his ADP. But he's a high floor low ceiling guy that has little chance of vaulting into the fantasy top 5. The easier schedule, the improved OL and Holt will help. But he also lost Matt Jones, Reggie Williams and Northcutt. Mike Walker(another fantasy darling for 2009) has not been able to stay on the field. If Walker cannot fill the WR2 roll the Jags are looking at a group of completely unproven WRs to fill not only WR2 but the slot and WR4 positions as well. Marcedes Lewis has flashed some skill catching the ball at times but overall has been disappointing in that regard.

In last week's Jags scrimmage I counted 9 straight pass plays that went to the RB or TE. That's what you can expect from David. He'll still be a good pick at his ADP, but if you are expecting more than around 20/10 TD/INT and a bit over 3,000 yards I suspect you'll end up disappointed.

 

[Itchy Amos]

David is a safe pick at his ADP. But he's a high floor low ceiling guy that has little chance of vaulting into the fantasy top 5. The easier schedule, the improved OL and Holt will help. But he also lost Matt Jones, Reggie Williams and Northcutt. Mike Walker(another fantasy darling for 2009) has not been able to stay on the field. If Walker cannot fill the WR2 roll the Jags are looking at a group of completely unproven WRs to fill not only WR2 but the slot and WR4 positions as well. Marcedes Lewis has flashed some skill catching the ball at times but overall has been disappointing in that regard.

In last week's Jags scrimmage I counted 9 straight pass plays that went to the RB or TE. That's what you can expect from David. He'll still be a good pick at his ADP, but if you are expecting more than around 20/10 TD/INT and a bit over 3,000 yards I suspect you'll end up disappointed.

If you wait this long for a QB, you probably dont need him to be top 5. If your reciever and running backs can outscore everyone else by 4ppg, then it is ok if Garrard gives up 2 ppg to the field. There just isnt much difference between qbs on a ppg basis once you get out of the top two tiers.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

not buying. adjusted points per game is a way to make players that miss games look good.

and he ranked 10th and 13th or something in the pat 2 years. so what?

In most league thats hardly startable and a position Id be looking to upgrade. 10th or 13th is his ceiling, with that team, WR's and scheme he will have a hard time doing any better

 

[Sweet Love]

David is a safe pick at his ADP. But he's a high floor low ceiling guy that has little chance of vaulting into the fantasy top 5. The easier schedule, the improved OL and Holt will help. But he also lost Matt Jones, Reggie Williams and Northcutt. Mike Walker(another fantasy darling for 2009) has not been able to stay on the field. If Walker cannot fill the WR2 roll the Jags are looking at a group of completely unproven WRs to fill not only WR2 but the slot and WR4 positions as well. Marcedes Lewis has flashed some skill catching the ball at times but overall has been disappointing in that regard.

In last week's Jags scrimmage I counted 9 straight pass plays that went to the RB or TE. That's what you can expect from David. He'll still be a good pick at his ADP, but if you are expecting more than around 20/10 TD/INT and a bit over 3,000 yards I suspect you'll end up disappointed.

If you wait this long for a QB, you probably dont need him to be top 5. If your reciever and running backs can outscore everyone else by 4ppg, then it is ok if Garrard gives up 2 ppg to the field. There just isnt much difference between qbs on a ppg basis once you get out of the top two tiers.

And that is why I would go with Jake Delhomme...better team, better WRs. Equal competition from backups (i.e. NONE), so why bother with a 20/10 guy as your backup, when you can get a little upside...honestly, I think their floors are the same...I just like Delhomme's upside better.

 

[packersfan]

I disagree on Garrard, don't even think he's top 12.

I agree. In the past two seasons, Garrard has thrown for 200 yards or less in 12 of 28 games. That's 42% of the time he puts up terrible passing yardage numbers. Last season, he threw for more than 1 TD in a game just three times. And for all the talk about how he helps with rushing numbers, he gained 20 yards or less in 10 games last season. Garrard rarely has the type of game you need from a QB1 and it happens so infrequently that if you guess wrong and he drops a 170-yard/1 TD/8 yard rushing game on you, it's going to be a significant detriment to your chances of winning that week. If you draft a stud QB and only need to use Garrard once, then I think he's a decent QB2. But if you're going the QBBC route, he is not someone I would want on my roster in that role. He simply is far too inconsistent and not a strong enough passer to make me feel comfortable having to start him with any regularity.

 

[tytyty]

Not sure if it is about right or wrong. I read that and scratched my head. I am in a very high performance and distance league. Warner scored 90 more FP then Garrard last year. So I think in the scoring system he used it makes it a lot closer. If you have any bonus scoring it makes it look like not such a hot plan.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I disagree on Garrard, don't even think he's top 12.

I agree. In the past two seasons, Garrard has thrown for 200 yards or less in 12 of 28 games. That's 42% of the time he puts up terrible passing yardage numbers. Last season, he threw for more than 1 TD in a game just three times. And for all the talk about how he helps with rushing numbers, he gained 20 yards or less in 10 games last season. Garrard rarely has the type of game you need from a QB1 and it happens so infrequently that if you guess wrong and he drops a 170-yard/1 TD/8 yard rushing game on you, it's going to be a significant detriment to your chances of winning that week.

If you draft a stud QB and only need to use Garrard once, then I think he's a decent QB2. But if you're going the QBBC route, he is not someone I would want on my roster in that role. He simply is far too inconsistent and not a strong enough passer to make me feel comfortable having to start him with any regularity.

Check his '07 game logs: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/GarrDa00-3.phpCan you really get more consistent than that? In all but one game he played (and didn't get hurt in), he scored 17 FP or more.

Garrard has had some very difficult schedules the psat two years. Don't you think that's a significant part of why he hasn't been regularly dropping big fantasy games? With an easy schedule this year, he's much more likely to have those 25 and 30 point fantasy games.

 

[packersfan]

And last season, he had 7 games of 13 FPs or less, including three games of 10 points or less. At the end of the day, I think he's a very average QB. The Jags don't have much in the receiving game and that doesn't help him but I just don't believe he's anything more than a low-ceiling QB2 for fantasy. Given how infrequently he plays well, I would only be comfortable having him as a QB2 if I had a stud starter who I only expected to sit once during the season when his bye week hit. Otherwise, Garrard is not someone I want on my roster.

 

[Chase Stuart]

not buying. adjusted points per game is a way to make players that miss games look good.

and he ranked 10th and 13th or something in the pat 2 years. so what?

In most league thats hardly startable and a position Id be looking to upgrade. 10th or 13th is his ceiling, with that team, WR's and scheme he will have a hard time doing any better

He ranked 4th and 13th. 4th is very startable.Do you think players that miss games are bad? In 2006, I said that Romo was excellent on a points per adjusted game basis and that it would portend well for the future; he ended up being the #2 fantasy QB in '07.

Last year, I said that Kurt Warner's stats don't show it, but he was amazing on a adjusted game basis; he ranked #4 last season.

No, Romo and Warner weren't bad players in '06 and '07, they just didn't take every snap. And players who don't take every snap look bad on year-end rankings, because QBs accumulate a ton of yards and TDs every game. A bad QB will get more yards in 16 games than Peyton Manning will in 10 games.

Now if you want to claim that Garrard is an injury risk compared to an average QB, that's fine (although I don't think it's supported by much). But I don't understand the aversion to adjusted fantasy points per adjusted game.

If he ranked 13th last year with awful WRs and a terrible line, how is that his ceiling with huge upgrades at those key units?

 

[OldMilwaukee]

yes

He will outperforme!

Value.

 

[Wadsworth]

I disagree on Garrard, don't even think he's top 12.

I agree. In the past two seasons, Garrard has thrown for 200 yards or less in 12 of 28 games. That's 42% of the time he puts up terrible passing yardage numbers. Last season, he threw for more than 1 TD in a game just three times. And for all the talk about how he helps with rushing numbers, he gained 20 yards or less in 10 games last season. Garrard rarely has the type of game you need from a QB1 and it happens so infrequently that if you guess wrong and he drops a 170-yard/1 TD/8 yard rushing game on you, it's going to be a significant detriment to your chances of winning that week.

If you draft a stud QB and only need to use Garrard once, then I think he's a decent QB2. But if you're going the QBBC route, he is not someone I would want on my roster in that role. He simply is far too inconsistent and not a strong enough passer to make me feel comfortable having to start him with any regularity.

Check his '07 game logs: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/GarrDa00-3.phpCan you really get more consistent than that? In all but one game he played (and didn't get hurt in), he scored 17 FP or more.

Garrard has had some very difficult schedules the psat two years. Don't you think that's a significant part of why he hasn't been regularly dropping big fantasy games? With an easy schedule this year, he's much more likely to have those 25 and 30 point fantasy games.

How many 25 and 30 point games has Garrard ever had, even against easy defenses? His 2007 season was very impressive but he had Taylor and MJD running wild. David has never passed for 400 yards in a game and only broken 300 yards in a game twice in his career. David has never thrown 4 TDs in a game and only thrown 3 TD in a game twice in his career. In that same impressive 2007 season, then Jaguars back up Quinn Gray had 2 games over 300 yards and a 4 TD game. Gray is a player with 4 career starts and the same number or more big games with the same team than Garrard who has had with 46 career starts. I'm not pimping Gray, just saying that David is not a big game kind of QB.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I disagree on Garrard, don't even think he's top 12.

I agree. In the past two seasons, Garrard has thrown for 200 yards or less in 12 of 28 games. That's 42% of the time he puts up terrible passing yardage numbers. Last season, he threw for more than 1 TD in a game just three times. And for all the talk about how he helps with rushing numbers, he gained 20 yards or less in 10 games last season. Garrard rarely has the type of game you need from a QB1 and it happens so infrequently that if you guess wrong and he drops a 170-yard/1 TD/8 yard rushing game on you, it's going to be a significant detriment to your chances of winning that week.

If you draft a stud QB and only need to use Garrard once, then I think he's a decent QB2. But if you're going the QBBC route, he is not someone I would want on my roster in that role. He simply is far too inconsistent and not a strong enough passer to make me feel comfortable having to start him with any regularity.

Check his '07 game logs: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/GarrDa00-3.phpCan you really get more consistent than that? In all but one game he played (and didn't get hurt in), he scored 17 FP or more.

Garrard has had some very difficult schedules the psat two years. Don't you think that's a significant part of why he hasn't been regularly dropping big fantasy games? With an easy schedule this year, he's much more likely to have those 25 and 30 point fantasy games.

How many 25 and 30 point games has Garrard ever had, even against easy defenses? His 2007 season was very impressive but he had Taylor and MJD running wild. David has never passed for 400 yards in a game and only broken 300 yards in a game twice in his career. David has never thrown 4 TDs in a game and only thrown 3 TD in a game twice in his career. In that same impressive 2007 season, then Jaguars back up Quinn Gray had 2 games over 300 yards and a 4 TD game. Gray is a player with 4 career starts and the same number or more big games with the same team than Garrard who has had with 46 career starts. I'm not pimping Gray, just saying that David is not a big game kind of QB.

Without Taylor, the Jags should rely on Garrard's arm and legs more this year than in that '07 season.A 400 yard game or a 4 TD game is such a rare occurrence that there's not much difference between zero, one or two games like that in a 30 game career. What's much more important is what he does on average, and on average, he was terrific in '07 and not bad last year despite (as you well know) his team falling apart around him.

Yes, Gray played very well in '07. I think that only means that a healthy Jags offense means very good fantasy numbers for the QB.

 

[Keith1]

I see Garrard as nothing more than a QB2. And I MUCH prefer Matty Hasselbeck over him. Jags are gonna run ALOT this year.

 

[loose circuits]

I can't trade him for crap in a dynasty league

Wonder if those rookies will help him out enough to get him over the hump? Zach Miller and Mike Thomas certainly have the athletic ability to make plays. Was ridiculous how many times I saw Marcedes Lewis drop TD passes

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

He only scored mulitple touchdowns five times last year and never scored three in a game. That's over 2/3rds of the time your QB is giving you 0 or 1 TD. He has issues at receiver too. If I get stuck with David Garrard as my starting QB, it's anything but a perfect draft to me.

 

[Wadsworth]

not buying. adjusted points per game is a way to make players that miss games look good.

and he ranked 10th and 13th or something in the pat 2 years. so what?

In most league thats hardly startable and a position Id be looking to upgrade. 10th or 13th is his ceiling, with that team, WR's and scheme he will have a hard time doing any better

He ranked 4th and 13th. 4th is very startable.Do you think players that miss games are bad? In 2006, I said that Romo was excellent on a points per adjusted game basis and that it would portend well for the future; he ended up being the #2 fantasy QB in '07.

Last year, I said that Kurt Warner's stats don't show it, but he was amazing on a adjusted game basis; he ranked #4 last season.

No, Romo and Warner weren't bad players in '06 and '07, they just didn't take every snap. And players who don't take every snap look bad on year-end rankings, because QBs accumulate a ton of yards and TDs every game. A bad QB will get more yards in 16 games than Peyton Manning will in 10 games.

Now if you want to claim that Garrard is an injury risk compared to an average QB, that's fine (although I don't think it's supported by much). But I don't understand the aversion to adjusted fantasy points per adjusted game.

If he ranked 13th last year with awful WRs and a terrible line, how is that his ceiling with huge upgrades at those key units?

I'll agree with the O-line but huge upgrades at WR? The Jags lost Matt Jones, Porter, Reggie Williams and Northcutt; and gained Holt and a bunch of completely unproven guys. I wouldn't call that a huge upgrade.

 

[karmarooster]

I think most of the people in this thread that are disagreeing with the idea of Garrard in the later rounds as part of a perfect draft are disagreeing on the *idea* or waiting on a QB. Yes, Garrard's stats have been consistently average, usually somewhere in the low-end QB1 to high-end QB2 range. I don't expect that to change much... i think the OP and the article are suggesting that with the improved o-line and the hopefully improved WR core, Garrard should return to the low-end QB1 range. a quality game from his is something like 210 yards passing, 1 TD, and 30-40 yards rushing. that's the whole point. he's not going to throw 300 yards or multiple TDs very often. he's consistently average.... that's the whole point. you could do worse than a consistently average QB in the 9th+ round..... that's the whole point!

however there are other candidates for this type of strategy. Myself, i will target first Schaub, then Palmer. I see them as good value targets who DO have the potential to go over 300 yards and multiple TDs. I think they are value plays in the 7th and 8th rounds respectively (12 teams). But if i don't get them, or even if i do, the QBs in the 9th-12th round range are very appealing. Problem is there are too many that seem like decent candidates.

Hasselbeck, Orton, Edwards, Cassel. Somewhere in there. We all know how terrible Orton looked throwing 3 INTs, but before the game I was expecting him to be a higher-ceiling candidate than Garrard. He also has much more risk. The higher-ceiling-but-higher-risk argument can be made for all of these guys. If you wait on a QB, what do you want? A steady but unspectacular play like Garrard? or a riskier pick? the best answer is probably one of each.

So if you don't like Garrard, which of these later round QBs do you prefer? Aside from the obvious choices Palmer and Schaub. If you're one of those guys targeting Rodgers or Rivers, or even worse - one of the big three - then you really have no business in this thread because you're disagreeing with the philosophy of the strategy.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Garrard has been a pretty solid fantasy QBs for the last two seasons.

Really?List his game logs form last year and lets see how useful he was on any given week...IIRC he threw for 1 or ZERO TDs in 13 games he started last season...that's upside baby.

 

[Chase Stuart]

not buying. adjusted points per game is a way to make players that miss games look good.

and he ranked 10th and 13th or something in the pat 2 years. so what?

In most league thats hardly startable and a position Id be looking to upgrade. 10th or 13th is his ceiling, with that team, WR's and scheme he will have a hard time doing any better

He ranked 4th and 13th. 4th is very startable.Do you think players that miss games are bad? In 2006, I said that Romo was excellent on a points per adjusted game basis and that it would portend well for the future; he ended up being the #2 fantasy QB in '07.

Last year, I said that Kurt Warner's stats don't show it, but he was amazing on a adjusted game basis; he ranked #4 last season.

No, Romo and Warner weren't bad players in '06 and '07, they just didn't take every snap. And players who don't take every snap look bad on year-end rankings, because QBs accumulate a ton of yards and TDs every game. A bad QB will get more yards in 16 games than Peyton Manning will in 10 games.

Now if you want to claim that Garrard is an injury risk compared to an average QB, that's fine (although I don't think it's supported by much). But I don't understand the aversion to adjusted fantasy points per adjusted game.

If he ranked 13th last year with awful WRs and a terrible line, how is that his ceiling with huge upgrades at those key units?

I'll agree with the O-line but huge upgrades at WR? The Jags lost Matt Jones, Porter, Reggie Williams and Northcutt; and gained Holt and a bunch of completely unproven guys. I wouldn't call that a huge upgrade.

The huge upgrade at OL is more important. While Dillard/Thomas/Walker are unproven, I'm high on all three of them. I understand being hesitant about those guys, but I don't think much of Williams or Porter. Jones and Northcutt are fine, but I think the Jags will get very good production out of their current receivers. But the improved OL is all Garrard needs to be a very good part of a QBBC or a QB1 on a loaded team. The line was so bad last year and looks to just be a lot better last year. That makes a big difference in fantasy QB production.

 

[Black]

And that is why I would go with Jake Delhomme...better team, better WRs. Equal competition from backups (i.e. NONE), so why bother with a 20/10 guy as your backup, when you can get a little upside...honestly, I think their floors are the same...I just like Delhomme's upside better.

Ohhh man, don't do that. I can't see anything positive about Delhomme. I had him last year, and between him and safe Mr. Hasselback (who's WR problems I assumed would clear up eventually) I was scrambling.I have a 'meh' feeling about Gerrard. He's starting all over with his WR and has a 1/2 a new O-line. They will need a complement to MJD in the backfield...not sure who they'll use. I think his upside is QB8, assuming he can get a few rushing TDs also.I like the idea of Palmer/Schaub, but see them creeping up the draft charts, close to 6th/7th round in 10 teams. That means I'd probably try for one of them, then backup with Gerrard or Orton in the 9th or 10th.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

David is a safe pick at his ADP. But he's a high floor low ceiling guy that has little chance of vaulting into the fantasy top 5. The easier schedule, the improved OL and Holt will help. But he also lost Matt Jones, Reggie Williams and Northcutt. Mike Walker(another fantasy darling for 2009) has not been able to stay on the field. If Walker cannot fill the WR2 roll the Jags are looking at a group of completely unproven WRs to fill not only WR2 but the slot and WR4 positions as well. Marcedes Lewis has flashed some skill catching the ball at times but overall has been disappointing in that regard.

In last week's Jags scrimmage I counted 9 straight pass plays that went to the RB or TE. That's what you can expect from David. He'll still be a good pick at his ADP, but if you are expecting more than around 20/10 TD/INT and a bit over 3,000 yards I suspect you'll end up disappointed.

If you wait this long for a QB, you probably dont need him to be top 5. If your reciever and running backs can outscore everyone else by 4ppg, then it is ok if Garrard gives up 2 ppg to the field. There just isnt much difference between qbs on a ppg basis once you get out of the top two tiers.

Why is it an automatic in a year where RBs and WRs are pretty wide open for where they rank...answer me why waiting on a QB ensures you are stacked at other positions?Let's use a middle pick in 12 teams PPR...

1.06-Chris Johnson

2.07-Roddy White

3.06-Pierre Thomas

4.07-Dallas Clark

5.06-Ray Rice

6.06-D.Driver

7.06-D.Mason

Is that team really stacked? Is it such a monster that you can give away 10 points a week to the likes of Drew Brees, T.Brady, A.Rodgers...because believe you me that you're going to be facing those guys week in and week out. You can accumulate points for the season but when the good QBs face you and they log 300/3TD, and you answer with 220/TD form Garrard...not quite the same.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Trent Edwards, guys. ADP even lower, and I'll eat my hat if he doesn't outscore Garrard.

Football Outsiders does like Jacksonville's passing game based on their performance last year, for whatever that may be worth to you.

 

[Avery]

Trent Edwards, guys. ADP even lower, and I'll eat my hat if he doesn't outscore Garrard.

Football Outsiders does like Jacksonville's passing game based on their performance last year, for whatever that may be worth to you.

I think he may outscore Garrard on a points per adjusted game basis but I also think he'll be killed behind that O-line running the K-gun by mid-season making Edwards a guy I wouldn't want to stake my season on.

 

[Sack-Religious]

Garrard has been a pretty solid fantasy QBs for the last two seasons.

Really?List his game logs form last year and lets see how useful he was on any given week...IIRC he threw for 1 or ZERO TDs in 13 games he started last season...that's upside baby.

I think Chase mentioned Garrard's adjusted FP/G last year was still solid at the end of the year. Considering that his o-line was completely decimated, he played a tough schedule and that his WR's were either injured or have more potential on paper than they actually produce on the field and his numbers end up not looking so bad, when you contextualize them.I'm not saying that Garrard is Brees/Manning/Brady-esque in that they can single-handedly win you a week, but if you're wating SUPER-late to draft a QB and loading up on RB and WR value, all you need is for him to be consistent and get you 15-17 ppg.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I can't trade him for crap in a dynasty leagueWonder if those rookies will help him out enough to get him over the hump? Zach Miller and Mike Thomas certainly have the athletic ability to make plays. Was ridiculous how many times I saw Marcedes Lewis drop TD passes

Interesting, I have people making decent offers for Garrard all the time in my dynasty league but I don't want to turn him loose. Chase's point about Garrard from 2007 is excellent and I hardly think Reggie Williams and Matt Jones are loses. From a potential standpoint they were excellent. In reality, they were mostly disappointing. The Jags held onto them long enough. Considering neither of them were willing to work and knew consistently where they were supposed to be, I'd say Walker and Holt will make up for their lack of 1st round athleticism (which Walker arguably has) with work ethic and rapport with their QB. Same with the two rookie WRs. Personally, I'd rather have Edwards this year, but Garrard is a very good strategic move considering where you can get him.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I can't trade him for crap in a dynasty leagueWonder if those rookies will help him out enough to get him over the hump? Zach Miller and Mike Thomas certainly have the athletic ability to make plays. Was ridiculous how many times I saw Marcedes Lewis drop TD passes

Interesting, I have people making decent offers for Garrard all the time in my dynasty league but I don't want to turn him loose. Chase's point about Garrard from 2007 is excellent and I hardly think Reggie Williams and Matt Jones are losses. From a potential standpoint they were excellent. In reality, they were mostly disappointing. The Jags held onto them long enough. Considering neither of them were willing to work and knew consistently where they were supposed to be, I'd say Walker and Holt will make up for their lack of 1st round athleticism (which Walker arguably has) with work ethic and rapport with their QB. Same with the two rookie WRs. Personally, I'd rather have Edwards this year, but Garrard is a very good strategic move considering where you can get him.

 

[bocksheesh]

not buying. adjusted points per game is a way to make players that miss games look good.

and he ranked 10th and 13th or something in the pat 2 years. so what?

In most league thats hardly startable and a position Id be looking to upgrade. 10th or 13th is his ceiling, with that team, WR's and scheme he will have a hard time doing any better

He ranked 4th and 13th. 4th is very startable.Do you think players that miss games are bad? In 2006, I said that Romo was excellent on a points per adjusted game basis and that it would portend well for the future; he ended up being the #2 fantasy QB in '07.

Last year, I said that Kurt Warner's stats don't show it, but he was amazing on a adjusted game basis; he ranked #4 last season.

No, Romo and Warner weren't bad players in '06 and '07, they just didn't take every snap. And players who don't take every snap look bad on year-end rankings, because QBs accumulate a ton of yards and TDs every game. A bad QB will get more yards in 16 games than Peyton Manning will in 10 games.

Now if you want to claim that Garrard is an injury risk compared to an average QB, that's fine (although I don't think it's supported by much). But I don't understand the aversion to adjusted fantasy points per adjusted game.

If he ranked 13th last year with awful WRs and a terrible line, how is that his ceiling with huge upgrades at those key units?

I'll agree with the O-line but huge upgrades at WR? The Jags lost Matt Jones, Porter, Reggie Williams and Northcutt; and gained Holt and a bunch of completely unproven guys. I wouldn't call that a huge upgrade.

The huge upgrade at OL is more important. While Dillard/Thomas/Walker are unproven, I'm high on all three of them. I understand being hesitant about those guys, but I don't think much of Williams or Porter. Jones and Northcutt are fine, but I think the Jags will get very good production out of their current receivers. But the improved OL is all Garrard needs to be a very good part of a QBBC or a QB1 on a loaded team. The line was so bad last year and looks to just be a lot better last year. That makes a big difference in fantasy QB production.

Chase, is there a list/chart somewhere on FBG for players ranked by their Adjusted Fantasy Points per Game?Apologies if you've mentioned it elsewhere, but couldn't find anything.

 

[Captain Hook]

Really some of you guys should look at the actual numbers and not what you think you remember

12.95 Wk 1

10,45

8.15

25.90

15.20

18.50

bye

28.05

12.75

20.90

7.35

18.95

18.75

13.00

23.00

26.35 Wk 16

12.35

Total 272.60 avg = 17.04 (and if you take out Week 17 since most of us don't play that week, slighly higher)

That is better than Romo, or Eli, Matt Ryan, or Big Ben

The idea is to find a guy who can give you decent numbers that you can draft so the rest of your team is better than guys who took those quarterbacks or others earlier. If YOU like Hass to say healthy and his offenisve line to protect him, yes he has a better schedule. The point is to find one who will give you GOOD points for the LATE draft position.

BTW that 272.60 (or 260.25 for Weeks 1-16 is BETTER than

Westbrook, ADP or Portis (PPR, 1/10)

or R. White, Marshall, or Jennings

maybe not by much....but again if you get those guys AND have DECENT scoring from your QB then you had a good draft and have a shot.

PS - not saying Garrard will match David's projections, but again the point is to wait for a quarterback or better quaterbacks who can give you those points.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Personally, I'd rather have Edwards this year, but Garrard is a very good strategic move considering where you can get him.

He's a great #2 if you take an injury prone guy like Warner, McNabb, or Schaub as your #1. But I can't see how anyone that walks out of a draft with Garrard as their #1 can claim they had a perfect draft.

 

[Chase Stuart]

bocksheesh: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2009/0..._rearviewqb.php

 

[Matt Waldman]

Trent Edwards, guys. ADP even lower, and I'll eat my hat if he doesn't outscore Garrard.

Football Outsiders does like Jacksonville's passing game based on their performance last year, for whatever that may be worth to you.

I think he may outscore Garrard on a points per adjusted game basis but I also think he'll be killed behind that O-line running the K-gun by mid-season making Edwards a guy I wouldn't want to stake my season on.

I don't think so. I think the overly repeated "he'll get killed" in the two-minute offense goes directly against what the effect the two-minute offense has on the opposing defense. It runs them down, tires them out, and slows the rush. So do three- and five- step drops against a base defense that won't be able to make substitutions. Sure, Edwards will take some knocks, but he has decent mobility. You can probably get Garrard and Edwards back to back and play the best match up each week - although I think Edwards will be a steal.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Personally, I'd rather have Edwards this year, but Garrard is a very good strategic move considering where you can get him.

He's a great #2 if you take an injury prone guy like Warner, McNabb, or Schaub as your #1. But I can't see how anyone that walks out of a draft with Garrard as their #1 can claim they had a perfect draft.

It's a good point, but I look at it this way. QBs generally have the smallest separation in Fpts compared to their peer offensive positions Brady and/or Brees could be exceptions, but recent history (decade) shows the gap is smaller among starting QBs than starting RBs or WRs.If you focus on getting really strong at other positions and get a QB like Garrard who won't kill your output in any given week and you really do wind up with a great draft. Garrard may not have dominant weeks, but he'll hold it down for you. Especially if you have a strong team, which drafting Garrard that late can afford you to build!

 

[Bri]

I disagree on Garrard, don't even think he's top 12.

I agree. In the past two seasons, Garrard has thrown for 200 yards or less in 12 of 28 games. That's 42% of the time he puts up terrible passing yardage numbers. Last season, he threw for more than 1 TD in a game just three times. And for all the talk about how he helps with rushing numbers, he gained 20 yards or less in 10 games last season. Garrard rarely has the type of game you need from a QB1 and it happens so infrequently that if you guess wrong and he drops a 170-yard/1 TD/8 yard rushing game on you, it's going to be a significant detriment to your chances of winning that week.

If you draft a stud QB and only need to use Garrard once, then I think he's a decent QB2. But if you're going the QBBC route, he is not someone I would want on my roster in that role. He simply is far too inconsistent and not a strong enough passer to make me feel comfortable having to start him with any regularity.

Check his '07 game logs: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/GarrDa00-3.phpCan you really get more consistent than that? In all but one game he played (and didn't get hurt in), he scored 17 FP or more.

Garrard has had some very difficult schedules the psat two years. Don't you think that's a significant part of why he hasn't been regularly dropping big fantasy games? With an easy schedule this year, he's much more likely to have those 25 and 30 point fantasy games.

huh?what's good about it?

the six games less than 200? the one game where he didn't even throw for 100 yards? the zero 300 yard games he's had?

that was his career best season by far and if you want to project more improvement, that's gutsy but I guess it's fine. He has improved fairly steadily.

I don't see it though.

He has seven years in the league and five of them he didn't even throw for 2000 yards.

(We did this dance last summer)

Last year he was the 12th QB according to (had to pick one) one of my league's scoring. That means you had the worst starter in a 12 team league IF the league was total scoring.

If it was week to week/head to head scoring:

He wasn't top 12 in weeks 1 thru 4 so that was a clearly worse QB than the rest of the FF league.

He was 6th in week 5.

week 6 15th.

Week 7 pfft.

Week 8 he was 3rd.

Week 9 pfft 22nd

Week 10 8th best QB

week 11 30th

week 12 20th

week 13 14th

only three times was he a good start and that includes an 8th best which is kinda nearer to the low side in a 12 team league but...three times he was a good start.

Show promise for 09?

Their line was terrible last year. They had several injuries on the interior of the offensive line(not that the starters were great). The replacements struggled and each of them returns to be backups this year. So they must have addressed it in the draft, right? Nah they grabbed two tackles even though it was the interior of the OL that needed the help.

Well there's continuity with the WRs?

Nope the only returning WRs have rarely played. Key players in the passing game include a WR that may be over the hill, two players that have never caught an NFL pass, and a third that has 16 catches and one start in two years in the league.

Further, it is quite likely that there are a large number of third downs that he doesn't have the reliable blocker saving his hide that he had last year(MJD) because MJD needs a breather at some point.

Oh and last year was the first time a Del Rio team had never ranked higher than 15th in passing yards. More often than not they're 20th ranked or worse in passing TDs too.

History stinks, no hope or promise for 2009=bad idea

 

[Bri]

Personally, I'd rather have Edwards this year, but Garrard is a very good strategic move considering where you can get him.

He's a great #2 if you take an injury prone guy like Warner, McNabb, or Schaub as your #1. But I can't see how anyone that walks out of a draft with Garrard as their #1 can claim they had a perfect draft.

It's a good point, but I look at it this way. QBs generally have the smallest separation in Fpts compared to their peer offensive positions

I don't know if that's true it sounds "off" but...benefit of the doubt here.We're talking about a QB not in the top 12 most weeks. There was a significant gap there.Seems far different than the difference/gap between QB1 and QB5, don't you think?

 

[Bri]

Really some of you guys should look at the actual numbers and not what you think you remember12.95 Wk 110,458.1525.9015.2018.50bye28.0512.7520.907.3518.9518.7513.0023.0026.35 Wk 1612.35Total 272.60 avg = 17.04 (and if you take out Week 17 since most of us don't play that week, slighly higher)

annual weekly average doesn't account for anything in a week to week hobby

 

[Wadsworth]

I can't trade him for crap in a dynasty league

Wonder if those rookies will help him out enough to get him over the hump? Zach Miller and Mike Thomas certainly have the athletic ability to make plays. Was ridiculous how many times I saw Marcedes Lewis drop TD passes

Chase's point about Garrard from 2007 is excellent and I hardly think Reggie Williams and Matt Jones are loses. From a potential standpoint they were excellent. In reality, they were mostly disappointing. The Jags held onto them long enough. Considering neither of them were willing to work and knew consistently where they were supposed to be, I'd say Walker and Holt will make up for their lack of 1st round athleticism (which Walker arguably has) with work ethic and rapport with their QB. Same with the two rookie WRs. Personally, I'd rather have Edwards this year, but Garrard is a very good strategic move considering where you can get him.

Jimmy Smith and pretty much every Jaguars coach would disagree with you on this statement. Jimmy repeatedly praised Reggie Williams' work ethic and Jack Del Rio and basically every OC and WR position coach has commented on what a dedicated and hard worker Reggie Williams was. As far as Matt Jones, he was repeatedly praised over the last year for his work ethic(not so much before) and was on pace for an 80 catch, 1,000 yard season. That's more than just potential and suggests at least decent rapport with Garrard.As far Mike Walker, he's not a rookie. If he was so hard working and had such great rapport, where's he been? He was injured, just like he is again now. Until he is actually able to play a few NFL games without he knee acting up I have a hard time putting much faith in his future production. The kid has skills, but he's had them since he showed up in Jax, his knee just can't seem to stay right.

As far as the 2 rookie WRs, I'm assuming you are talking about Dillard and Thomas. I'd recommend that you also keep and eye on Underwood and even Nate Hughes has had enough moments in camp to push for a roster spot.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I disagree on Garrard, don't even think he's top 12.

I agree. In the past two seasons, Garrard has thrown for 200 yards or less in 12 of 28 games. That's 42% of the time he puts up terrible passing yardage numbers. Last season, he threw for more than 1 TD in a game just three times. And for all the talk about how he helps with rushing numbers, he gained 20 yards or less in 10 games last season. Garrard rarely has the type of game you need from a QB1 and it happens so infrequently that if you guess wrong and he drops a 170-yard/1 TD/8 yard rushing game on you, it's going to be a significant detriment to your chances of winning that week.

If you draft a stud QB and only need to use Garrard once, then I think he's a decent QB2. But if you're going the QBBC route, he is not someone I would want on my roster in that role. He simply is far too inconsistent and not a strong enough passer to make me feel comfortable having to start him with any regularity.

Check his '07 game logs: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/GarrDa00-3.phpCan you really get more consistent than that? In all but one game he played (and didn't get hurt in), he scored 17 FP or more.

Garrard has had some very difficult schedules the psat two years. Don't you think that's a significant part of why he hasn't been regularly dropping big fantasy games? With an easy schedule this year, he's much more likely to have those 25 and 30 point fantasy games.

huh?what's good about it?

the six games less than 200? the one game where he didn't even throw for 100 yards? the zero 300 yard games he's had?

that was his career best season by far and if you want to project more improvement, that's gutsy but I guess it's fine. He has improved fairly steadily.

I don't see it though.

He has seven years in the league and five of them he didn't even throw for 2000 yards.

(We did this dance last summer)

Last year he was the 12th QB according to (had to pick one) one of my league's scoring. That means you had the worst starter in a 12 team league IF the league was total scoring.

If it was week to week/head to head scoring:

He wasn't top 12 in weeks 1 thru 4 so that was a clearly worse QB than the rest of the FF league.

He was 6th in week 5.

week 6 15th.

Week 7 pfft.

Week 8 he was 3rd.

Week 9 pfft 22nd

Week 10 8th best QB

week 11 30th

week 12 20th

week 13 14th

only three times was he a good start and that includes an 8th best which is kinda nearer to the low side in a 12 team league but...three times he was a good start.

Show promise for 09?

Their line was terrible last year. They had several injuries on the interior of the offensive line(not that the starters were great). The replacements struggled and each of them returns to be backups this year. So they must have addressed it in the draft, right? Nah they grabbed two tackles even though it was the interior of the OL that needed the help.

Well there's continuity with the WRs?

Nope the only returning WRs have rarely played. Key players in the passing game include a WR that may be over the hill, two players that have never caught an NFL pass, and a third that has 16 catches and one start in two years in the league.

Further, it is quite likely that there are a large number of third downs that he doesn't have the reliable blocker saving his hide that he had last year(MJD) because MJD needs a breather at some point.

Oh and last year was the first time a Del Rio team had never ranked higher than 15th in passing yards. More often than not they're 20th ranked or worse in passing TDs too.

History stinks, no hope or promise for 2009=bad idea

sorry boys just dont see it w garrard

 

[Wadsworth]

Just to pull a few points floating around together; I agree with the idea of waiting on a QB in the perfect draft scenario. I also agree that David Garrard was a very good fantasy QB in 2007. But if you look at the rest of his career there's a lot more to suggest that 2007 was a fluke than to suggest that it will be the future norm. David is 31 years old and has played in 8 NFL seasons. So far only one of those seasons even suggested that he could be anything other than a good QB2. Jacksonville is a run first team with big time question marks at WR and TE. While I do think he's good value in the 9th round or around that area, I stand by my comment that I think anyone expecting more than 20 or so TDs and a little over 3,000 yards is in for a disappointment. As a Jags fan I sure hope I'm wrong, but I've seen very little from David to make me thinks he's anything but an average NFL starter at best.

 

[bmj87]

For everyone concerned with how many 250/300 yard games he’s had in the last two years, you’re looking at it wrong. A majority of the QBs who throw for 250+ don’t add any rushing totals. Unless you play in a league where rushing yards aren’t rewarded, Garrard’s rushing totals add to his fantasy stats. If you convert his rushing yards into passing yards (1pt/10 rushing, 1 pt/20 passing), his passing totals now look like this:

five 300+ weeks (4, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16)

three 250-299 weeks (6, 9, 10)

Over the course of the season, that’s 4264 passing yards, if you want to look at it that way.

While there may be other arguments against Garrard, arguing that he doesn’t throw for many yards doesn’t work.

 

[ajopiela]

I'll take Brady in the 2nd round of a 6 pt TD league ALL DAY

 

[Avery]

For everyone concerned with how many 250/300 yard games he’s had in the last two years, you’re looking at it wrong. A majority of the QBs who throw for 250+ don’t add any rushing totals. Unless you play in a league where rushing yards aren’t rewarded, Garrard’s rushing totals add to his fantasy stats. If you convert his rushing yards into passing yards (1pt/10 rushing, 1 pt/20 passing), his passing totals now look like this:five 300+ weeks (4, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16) three 250-299 weeks (6, 9, 10)Over the course of the season, that’s 4264 passing yards, if you want to look at it that way.While there may be other arguments against Garrard, arguing that he doesn’t throw for many yards doesn’t work.

Also in leagues where rushing/receiving TDs are worth more than passing TDs (say 6 points vs. 4 points) rushing QBs get a bump in scoring here as well.

 

[Gr00vus]

When waiting on qbs, the key is to take more than one when you strike. I like Hasselbeck better than Garrard this year - but I'll probably take both (or someone in the same ADP range like Eli or Edwards) with back to back picks. I think it's the concept of waiting that's important in Dave's article - you can substitute a different name in the same ADP range for Garrard and his article/strategy still works. I do like to take 2 in that range however to hedge my bet, have the opportunity to play match ups, or if things really work out have solid trade bait.

 

[millerarm]

I guarantee a VERY small percentage of teams with D.Garrard as their starting QB all year will win a championship. 15 tds in 08, and 19 in 07; doesn't run as much as you think. Yes, adding Holt is an upgrade over the anyone who's play WR for them since Jimmy Smith, but Holt is nothing special now. Garrard is a mediocre backup at best, with "upside" to be a good BACKUP.