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!
I think that may be the problem.
I still don't get how you're starting Rivers and calling Vick your backup. Just me, but I have Vick firmly on the list of guys I'll take as my starter but then my priority for backup is a guy like Eli or Ben - I believe in a mix of risk/reward with a hedge at most positions, but especially QB.
It's true, Vick is a bit of an outlier here. Because I think he's possibly one of the only true injury risk at QB. I'd love to have him as my starter, but then would require a solid #2 if I wanted to protect against injury - which is why he's #7 on my base list. But as a "backup", or at least a situation where I'm not worrying about his risk, he grades out at #2. It's really just academic whether or not you'd start him. Obviously you would as long as he's healthy.FUBAR said:
Makes sense I guess, we just do it differently. Let's say you got Vick as your starter if he's your #7 guy on that list, are you taking Stafford this high as a backup?
Probably not Stafford. I think I'd probably rather have someone like a Roethlisberger/Eli/Flacco behind him. But Vick is kind of a strange bird, as I'm more concerned about him missing time than any other QB.If I had a Rodgers/Rivers/Brady/Peyton/Brees type at #1, I'd be fine with Stafford as my #2.I see what you're getting at, and I hinted at it, but didn't exactly spell it out in my first post: that I think you might look for the same things in your #1 (starter) & #2 (backup) guys - though obviously it's likely you'll usually get those traits to a far lesser degree in your #2. A lot of that is individual comfort level though. I rode Peyton Manning for three seasons without a reliable "backup" because I felt 100% secure that he was going to start every game for me except for his bye. I simply loaded my bench with long-shots if I hadn't already used those slots to work on other positions.Vick, on the other hand, almost requires a reasonable backup, because I think it's highly likely he misses 1-5 games due to injury. but may be worth it because of the huge advantage he provides when he plays.Does that make sense?
Because I thought, once explained, that people would inherently understand that we should be using different criteria for evaluating players once we get past our starters (and maybe our backup). There are plenty of rankings out there that focus on the criteria that serve well for evaluating starters and backups, but I've never seen a list that focuses on the criteria best suited for deeper bench players.So... to that end, I thought it would be interesting to present an early edition ranking that supports that proposition and discuss it. Instead I'm stuck with people telling me I don't have Manning and Brady high enough.I think that may be the problem.
Why bother putting out a secondary ranking list that is somehow trying to make some grand statement on how you value roster spots?
Why not just state that you think teams that roster a backup QB should go for high upside or boom/bust types rather than waste the spot on some boring dependable backup like Eli Manning or David Garrard?
I don't. Steve Young was a running QB who started a little half the games when he was 30 but did not get the full time job until he was 31. He did not miss a game in the next 3 seasons and continued to start for 7 years while missing only 9 starts and as far as I can recall one or two of those starts might have been the 49'ers resting him in the final week. Either way 9 missed games in 7 years is not bad.Everyone says Vick is injury prone but I don't really see that either. He's basically had two injuries in his entire career that cost him more than a week. The pre-season injury in 2003 that resulted in him only starting 5 games and the rib injury this season. He's not Favre but in his 6 years as a starting QB he's started 15,5,15,15, 16 and 12 out of 15 possible starts this year since he did not have the job in week one and if they needed him he probably could have started the season finale which means he might have only missed two starts. I don't see that as being overly injury prone.Now if you want to make the point the Philly QB, whoever he might be, is injury prone I'd probably agree with that. I think Reid puts to much on the shoulders of the QB and it's one of the reasons they are worn out by season's end. Speaking of running QB's I think everyone is asleep on Tebow. He'll AVERAGE over 10 TD's rushing a year and I think surpass 15 some seasons. In the passing game he'll only need to average around 200 yards and a TD and he'll be a QB1.
