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!
5 of 15 games less than 200 yards passingChase's fave AY/A was a disgusting 1,3 and 4 some weeks, even he's gotta admit that's rough #s.
Sugarcoating doesn't do anyone any good when re-evaluating a season. yes Brady and Palmer stunk those weeks then.(previous post)A 3rd of his starts he didn't throw for 200 yards. Half his starts he didn't throw for a TD.I don't get the QB2 stuff, seems like a backhanded concession to me
You know, he's scoring less per game than Byron Leftwich, too! What a crappy player Garrard is!Won my 2 QB league with Garrard alternating with Orton as the #2, and I really can't complain. His end of the year numbers are almost exactly what I projected and will be almost identical to last year after next week.missing the boat 4 different weeks, could be a real killer to a fantasy season.
how badly did he miss 15 fantasy pts in those games, are we talking 5 pts/gm or 12 pts/gm?
Garrard is far too up-n-down for any fantasy team to rely on week in/week out..he's a great stop-gap,bye week/matchup filler, but not an every week starter...
in my league ( 1 pt per 40 passing yards, 4 pts/TD ( up to 6 pts depending on length of TD), 1 pt for every 2 completions, 1 pt per 10 yards rushing), Garrard is currently ranked 16th, a mere .3 pts ahead of ,*cough*, Jason Campbell.
He's averaging less per game then Matt Ryan, and Ryan has missed how many games?!
he's also behind Carson Palmer under this scoring format.
in 6 games this season, he's failed to score 15 or more fantasy pts..of those 6 games, he's failed to score more than 10 fantasy pts in 5 of them...not very good at all.
He's QB12. He scored 15 pts or more in all but 4 weeks. You're ignoring his rushing totals. He's never been a high yardage or high TD QB. What he's been is a consistent low end QB1, high end QB2 for three straight years. Not sure what's to debate when the guy was ranked ~QB20 and once again has finished higher than his ranking and could be counted on as a solid start for all but 4 games this year. You may need to reread the original article that this thread was based on. No one was predicting a top 5 finish for Garrard. He was touted as a good late pickup to platoon with other QBs. He was exactly that. Not sure what the sugar coating comment is about or where the confusion is.
Dodds needs to switch up that perfect draft article angle on the late round QB to target for sure.
That might have something to do with waiting on a QB as I got Garrard in the 10th. Was there a better option below his ADP other than Flacco? That's the only guy I'd rather have had.
This guy has never and will never even be on my draft board. It's as if he never existed.
Why the negativity in your post? Why is someone a poo sap because they drafted a particular QB. So if a poor sap went Chris Johnson, Frank Gore, Roddy White, Desean Jackson, Cedric Benson in that order and ended up with Garrard they are a poor sap? Drink some egg nogg or something.Carver said:
This is a very interesting point. Was picking Garrard the primary mistake, or was the primary mistake in the strategy itself of waiting on a QB? I'm leaning towards the latter. The problem with Garrard wasnt that he was QB #12; it was that the per-game point difference between the #12 QB and the top tier QBs was materially larger than the comparative point spread at the WR position and RB position. In other words, if you had Rodgers at the expense of a top tier WR you probably won vs. someone with Garrard and a top tier WR. Same at RB (unless you had Chris Johnson).So, I think we should at least consider that the "wait on a QB strategy" is flawed.bicycle_seat_sniffer said:FavreCo said:Dodds needs to switch up that perfect draft article angle on the late round QB to target for sure.
He wasn't a disaster but he wasn't the key to anyone's draft. If you had to say it was a good or bad one, Garrard as the key to your draft has to be on the bad side. I targeted a couple guys that missed myself, like Eddie Royal. However, if you took Garrard in the 10th round and somehow that wrecked your draft, you have bigger problems than Garrard.
What scoring system is that? Using 1 per 20 yards, 6 per touch and 1 per 10 rushing with -2 for turnovers, Garrard is 17th(total points) and 19th (ppg) with 5 games (1/3 of his schedule) under 15 points. I also think using 15 points as the cutoff is selective use of stats. The 12th ranked QB's average points in a 12 man league may be a decent number to use. in the scoring system above that would be Eli Manning in PPG of 21.48. Garrard had 9 performances less than 21.48 points.Maybe you could even take the top 30 player's averages and average those numbers. That puts you at 19.48 ppg. He had 8 games with < 19.48 points. Plain and simple, this guy lost you more games than he won you.gianmarco said:
You know what that means? Jack ####. It means you could have won with any hack that was on waivers too.
I've come around to this thinking and I have no stats and only anecdotal evidence to back it up.This is a very interesting point. Was picking Garrard the primary mistake, or was the primary mistake in the strategy itself of waiting on a QB? I'm leaning towards the latter. The problem with Garrard wasnt that he was QB #12; it was that the per-game point difference between the #12 QB and the top tier QBs was materially larger than the comparative point spread at the WR position and RB position. In other words, if you had Rodgers at the expense of a top tier WR you probably won vs. someone with Garrard and a top tier WR. Same at RB (unless you had Chris Johnson).bicycle_seat_sniffer said:FavreCo said:Dodds needs to switch up that perfect draft article angle on the late round QB to target for sure.
So, I think we should at least consider that the "wait on a QB strategy" is flawed.
I've been going with the QBBC/"wait on a QB" theory touted by many of the staff around here for the past few years and have found myself working the wire trying to find a QB to start.
I stand by this strategy and it's worked every time I've done it. I was able to go Chris Johnson, Randy Moss, Ronnie Brown, Anquan Boldin, Dallas Clark, Hines Ward, before I even though about a QB. Standard scoring 12 team league. Ended up with Roethlisberger and Garrard as my qbs. Just won a title.This is a very interesting point. Was picking Garrard the primary mistake, or was the primary mistake in the strategy itself of waiting on a QB? I'm leaning towards the latter.bicycle_seat_sniffer said:FavreCo said:Dodds needs to switch up that perfect draft article angle on the late round QB to target for sure.
FBG scoring systemHe's now 13th after this week. I've checked some other leagues and that's about where he is also. He's averaging 17.3 ppg.
it means exactly what i said. I couldn't have won with any hack off waivers. I won with the #13 QB in my FF league. I'll leave it at that, since going back and forth with you is pointless.
Not trying to be a smart ###. I thought my scoring system was pretty standard but the link you provided has rankings but not the actual scoring system. In the scoring system I quoted he did not outproduce Flacco, Palmer, Ryan (in ppg, prob would have not otproduced him if Ryan plays all games) and will be about = with Cutler.
Well Flacco is ranked 15th in my scoring and Garrard 13th. So how would Flacco be better? Schaub and Big Ben were going A LOT earlier that Garrard in the drafts I was in. 1pt for 20yds, 4pts TD. 1 pt 10 yds rushing, 6pts TD. -2 for INTS. Is that scoring that much different than others?
Well, from what little I followed of Garrard this year, his big performances were difficult to predict, and he laid some eggs when the matchup suggested otherwise. The only time I can think of when Garrard had a big game when he should have was against Tennessee when their secondary was decimated with injuries.Flacco, on the other hand, started off hot and could be started with confidence, and then when the offense went through growing pains he was an easy bench, the offense seemed to get it back together the last few weeks, making Flacco a confident start again. I don't think I started Flacco on many of his off games.I know Schaub went a couple rounds earlier, but Big Ben didn't, Schaub was around 10-12 most places, Big Ben around 15, and Flacco/Garrard immediately after Big Ben.Just what i seemed to notice, I wasn't a Garrard owner but talking to some I know how frustrated they were with him throughout the season. Guys like Garrard are why I don't rely much on math when making decisions, the math suggested he was a good play, his play on the field suggested otherwise.
QB12 in a 12 team league is the worst starting QB. I would say trying to make it seem like the worst starting QB in a 12 team league is a good player to have is exactly what people mean by sugarcoating.Not to mention that this is an especially good year for QBs with 9 going to finish with 4000+ and 25+ TDsgianmarco said:
Just looking through some numbers to get a more objective viewpoint (as its been a strategy that has worked well for me in the past), and I'd like to add some things to the argument. To see how Garrard fits into all of this, he's been good for about 280 fantasy points the past two years. In 2009, there are already twelve QBs who have eclipsed the 280 point barrier. Garrard, Flacco, and Palmer all have a realistic shot at 280. There could be FIFTEEN qbs that go over 280! The top ten QBs averaged 340 fantasy points, with one game left to play. In 2008, there were eight QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 330 fantasy points. In 2007, there were nine QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 342.5. This year looks comparable to 2009 - but it's not. The average is influenced by Brady's 496 point outlier (325 without him).In 2006, there were seven QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 302.5 fantasy points. In 2005, there were seven QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 293.5 fantasy points. Ok, let's go all the way to 2004 now, which is the last time we saw something comparable to 2009 in terms of the number of elite QBs and their average production. There were 11 QBs over 280 points. The top ten averaged 351 fantasy points. I guess I'm stating the obvious when I say that Garrard's ranking this year is a bit misleading. Yeah, he's just outside of the top 12, but he's about 3 ppg behind the 11th and 12th guys (Warner and McNabb) because the missed a few games, he's clustered with three or four other players that have been just as good as him. The thing that stands out most to me though, is that there are A LOT of elite QBs in the NFL right now and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon. Here are the top nine: Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Brady, Schaub, Rivers, Romo, Roethlisberger, Eli. Average age? 29. Hard to imagine that next year's top five don't come entirely from this group and most of these guys aren't going anywhere for half a decade.The next three are Favre, McNabb, and Warner who will be moving along soon. But there are lots of good, young, highly drafted QBs some of which will take the next step - Flacco, Ryan, Cutler, Stafford, Young, Sanchez, Kolb, Henne, Freeman...It used to be that two thirds of the league had crap at QB - which is exactly why grabbing a guy like Garrard who had a starting job and put up decent but unspectacular numbers was a good strategy. I have to think (regretfully) that this strategy is losing its luster.I stand by this strategy and it's worked every time I've done it. I was able to go Chris Johnson, Randy Moss, Ronnie Brown, Anquan Boldin, Dallas Clark, Hines Ward, before I even though about a QB. Standard scoring 12 team league. Ended up with Roethlisberger and Garrard as my qbs. Just won a title.This is a very interesting point. Was picking Garrard the primary mistake, or was the primary mistake in the strategy itself of waiting on a QB? I'm leaning towards the latter.bicycle_seat_sniffer said:FavreCo said:Dodds needs to switch up that perfect draft article angle on the late round QB to target for sure.
Here is what you're missing (yet again). He wasn't drafted to be a top 5 QB. If you're expecting that from all of this discussion, you're missing the point completely. This has been said over and over. So calling him the worst QB1 is demonstrating you're not understanding this. It's very rare you can wait until beyond round 8 or 9 and find an elite QB1. What Garrard is is a solid backup that can put up QB1 #'s or close to it. In other words, if you lose your top guy, you're not stuck starting a WW QB. The other part of the equation is using him as a QBBC. If you do so, that means you waited until later. If you did this, then hopefully the difference between Garrard and other top QB's is less than the difference between what you got in those early rounds and other teams at the same position. He was drafted later than QB13. He was drafted later than guys like Flacco and Ryan and Palmer and Cutler all of whom have performed below him. THAT is why he described as being good value. Finally, saying that QB12 is the worst starting QB in the league is assuming that every single one of the other 11 QBs ahead of him is evenly placed on every other team. Surely you don't need me to point out that the odds of that are ridiculously small. It's much more likely that, even if you started Garrard every week, you were more likely to have the 8th or 9th best starting QB as at least 3-4 teams likely had 2 of those 11 QBs ranked ahead of Garrard. Is the 8th best QB going to win you lots of games? Of course not, but he's also not going to lose a lot for you and hopefully you make up that difference elsewhere.I simply don't know how else to explain this. It's similar to advocating taking Ryan Grant in the 3rd round as your RB2, having him finish as RB13, and then complaining that he's the worst RB1 in the league. It wasn't the original expectation. Likewise the original expectation wasn't that Garrard would be an elite QB. Simply that you could get low end QB1, high end QB2 production at the cost of a low QB2 (drafted ~QB20). He's at QB13 with 1 week left to go. Where did he fail the expectations?
You don't maximize your chances of winning leagues by hitting singles, you maximize your chance of winning leagues by hitting home runs.Garrard is not a home run, he's a single, he's easily replaced. Draft upside for your bench, if it doesn't pan out then pluck an Alex Smith, Vince Young, or Chad Henne up and get similar production. If it does pan out then you end up with Miles Austin, Sidney Rice, or Brent Celek and if you end up needing a QB you've got entities at other positions to trade for quality QB's.I'm just throwing darts at the board here, my basic point being always draft for upside and mediocre players with average past success usually don't have any upside.
Just looking through some numbers to get a more objective viewpoint (as its been a strategy that has worked well for me in the past), and I'd like to add some things to the argument. To see how Garrard fits into all of this, he's been good for about 280 fantasy points the past two years. In 2009, there are already twelve QBs who have eclipsed the 280 point barrier. Garrard, Flacco, and Palmer all have a realistic shot at 280. There could be FIFTEEN qbs that go over 280! The top ten QBs averaged 340 fantasy points, with one game left to play.I stand by this strategy and it's worked every time I've done it. I was able to go Chris Johnson, Randy Moss, Ronnie Brown, Anquan Boldin, Dallas Clark, Hines Ward, before I even though about a QB. Standard scoring 12 team league. Ended up with Roethlisberger and Garrard as my qbs. Just won a title.This is a very interesting point. Was picking Garrard the primary mistake, or was the primary mistake in the strategy itself of waiting on a QB? I'm leaning towards the latter.bicycle_seat_sniffer said:FavreCo said:Dodds needs to switch up that perfect draft article angle on the late round QB to target for sure.
In 2008, there were eight QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 330 fantasy points.
In 2007, there were nine QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 342.5. This year looks comparable to 2009 - but it's not. The average is influenced by Brady's 496 point outlier (325 without him).
In 2006, there were seven QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 302.5 fantasy points.
In 2005, there were seven QBs that eclipsed the 280 point barrier. The top ten averaged 293.5 fantasy points.
Ok, let's go all the way to 2004 now, which is the last time we saw something comparable to 2009 in terms of the number of elite QBs and their average production. There were 11 QBs over 280 points. The top ten averaged 351 fantasy points.
I guess I'm stating the obvious when I say that Garrard's ranking this year is a bit misleading. Yeah, he's just outside of the top 12, but he's about 3 ppg behind the 11th and 12th guys (Warner and McNabb) because the missed a few games, he's clustered with three or four other players that have been just as good as him. The thing that stands out most to me though, is that there are A LOT of elite QBs in the NFL right now and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon.
Here are the top nine: Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Brady, Schaub, Rivers, Romo, Roethlisberger, Eli. Average age? 29. Hard to imagine that next year's top five don't come entirely from this group and most of these guys aren't going anywhere for half a decade.
The next three are Favre, McNabb, and Warner who will be moving along soon. But there are lots of good, young, highly drafted QBs some of which will take the next step - Flacco, Ryan, Cutler, Stafford, Young, Sanchez, Kolb, Henne, Freeman...
It used to be that two thirds of the league had crap at QB - which is exactly why grabbing a guy like Garrard who had a starting job and put up decent but unspectacular numbers was a good strategy. I have to think (regretfully) that this strategy is losing its luster.
Especially the bolded parts. I did an analysis (which I'm not posting since scoring systems differ from league to league) which showed that getting the QB 12-15 and pairing him with a top tier RB and WR was LESS advantageous then getting a better QB and either WR/RB and waiting on the WR/RB. Because once Chris Johnson was off the board, the ppg difference between RBs was nearly as large as with QBs. And the reason is the one you pointed out -- there just many more quality QBs in the league now and by waiting past the first 8 or so you are in a deep hole if you don't hit the jackpot.I'm going to strongly disagree here - and this gets into the crux of why I like & have defended Dodds' article. If you know a guy is a solid pick, albeit a single, and you know he'll be available at a certain point, this allows you flexibility to take a chance on a homerun type player. This year there simply weren't many unpredictable upside QBs - but pairing Garrard with a guy like Schaub who was an injury risk, or Favre (maybe even before he signed) could easily win a league. I get that in those situations, it's not Garrard that wins it for you - but its the assurance that he won't lose it outright that allows you to take risks.
Schaub has 4400? yards already and had an ADP 7 picks higher than Garrard. (11 vs 18)
yeah I hated Schaub's ADP. I liked him too but he kept going earlier than expected.
so was Derek Anderson.
Cost me a "few" championships in some "gigantic" money leagues.Yeah... sounds pretty general... probably what I would say too if I were making something up.
