Philip Rivers Discussion (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

FBG staffers recently posted thoughts on Rivers in the Rivers Faceoff and in the Underrated/Overrated article. I posted my thoughts on them in the Philip Rivers Bandwagon thread rather than starting a new topic. Then Jeff Pasquino suggested a new thread:

Hi Just Win Baby,I'm perfectly fine discussing the merits of Philip Rivers, but you seem to have already made up your mind on the topic. Your recent posts seem to defend your guy as if there can be no downside to Rivers. If you want to take this to a different thread, we can discuss it there. Discussions like that are what make the Shark Pool the great place that it often is.Talking about the downsides of Rivers in his bandwagon thread is like talking about animal rights at an NRA conference. You may have valid points, but few will listen.

Hence, this thread.I admit I'm probably the most biased Rivers poster in this forum. I watched his entire college career, and there is just nothing not to like. He basically upheld my view last season, despite all the difficulties normally faced by first year starters. And based on his history, I still expect him to get a lot better than he was last year.

 

[Tau837]

My first post that led to this:

Wasn't sure where to comment on Faceoffs, so figured I'd comment on Rivers' faceoff here. Here is Jeff Pasquino's writeup for downside:

Philip Rivers enters his second season as the starter for the Chargers, and I don’t expect much once again out of him. Sure, he finished as the ninth best QB last season, but is he the type of quarterback that you would want on your fantasy squad? Right now, the current Footballguys projections have a large number of QBs slated to perform all about the same – less than 20 fantasy points separate #6 (Jon Kitna) from #17 (Michael Vick), and Rivers is right in that pack at #15. What about the expert rankings? Many have Rivers in the 10-15 neighborhood, and even a few have him in the Top 10. I, on the other hand, put him at #21, and here’s why. If I were to pick a quarterback (or two) from this batch, I would want someone with solid upside and big play potential so that I could go after certain matchups during the season. Well, let’s start with Rivers and his history. We only have one year to go on, which is scary in of itself, but let’s see how many times he has had a stellar game. In 2006 he had 20-25 fantasy points four times and 25+ once, three touchdowns just once and 300+ yards only twice. Not exactly setting the world on fire, so then certainly you would expect him to have a minimal downside then, correct? Unfortunately that is not true, as he had three games (and a playoff game) without a touchdown and he also had three games with fewer than 10 fantasy points and four more (including the postseason game) with less than 12 fantasy points. So it seems that Rivers, based purely on 2006 numbers, has limited upside and quite a bit more downside risk. Let’s see what else there is to make me want to avoid him. Start with his supporting cast. Of the mid-range quarterbacks, nearly all of them have big play receivers (at least one). Rivers has TE Antonio Gates and a bunch of young and unproven WRs along with Eric Parker, who doesn’t keep any NFL defensive coordinator up at night. That role belongs to Gates and RB LaDainian Tomlinson, who is the Charger offense. Looking at San Diego, every team game plans to stop Tomlinson and force Rivers to beat them – yet he still doesn’t make any defense pay for that. Even if Tomlinson lost time to injury, Michael Turner is regarded as a stud backup and the Chargers would still emphasize the run game. Not only does Rivers rely on Tomlinson and the run game, he also doesn’t bring much to the table as a runner himself. Rivers has never scored a rushing TD and averaged under a yard per carry last year. Let me bring up two more reasons to look elsewhere for a QB – the Chargers and their schedule. First, San Diego is a very good team, which is bad for your fantasy football QB. Why? Well, it will be a very rare occasion where the Chargers are down by two or more scores and be forced to throw – there will be no “garbage time” benefits to the passing game. Just like Week 1 last year when Rivers threw just 11 times (and they won), San Diego is perfectly content to take the air out of the ball. The Chargers should win a number of games and their defense should also keep them in close contests, reducing Rivers’ opportunity to post great fantasy numbers. Compounding this issue is the schedule. San Diego plays eight games against either a Top 10 defense or a Top 2 pass defense from 2006. Only two teams that were in the bottom ten (Houston and Minnesota) are on the docket before Thanksgiving, meaning that Rivers will struggle your entire fantasy regular season to perform. Things do improve for December with games in Weeks 14 (Tennessee) and 15 (Detroit), but in order to be playing for anything in those weeks you better have another QB to get you to the playoffs.

First off, to put Rivers at #21 without assuming injury is pretty much enough reason to stop reading. He was #9 last year in his first season, and the offense around him appears to have improved, not gotten worse. He as extremely durable in college and has not missed time in the NFL at this point.Jeff uses Rivers' 2006 numbers as justification that he has little upside and a lot of downside. This is puzzling, since Rivers' numbers ranked him #9 and earned him a Pro Bowl spot. And apparently, Jeff makes no allowance for Rivers to improve in his second year as a starter.Jeff entered the upside/downside discussion by saying he prefers big play potential. To me, it seems the Chargers WR corps will have more of that this year, with increased roles for Jackson and Floyd and the addition of Davis. The only loss is McCardell, not one for a lot of big plays. He says he prefers QBs with a big play WR. I agree San Diego doesn't have a Steve Smith/Chad Johnson caliber WR, but I think the collective group should be just fine. Besides, look at Rivers' ypa last year... it was right there with the best in the league... 5th best among QBs with 350 or more pass attempts.Jeff admits that teams focus on Tomlinson but then discounts that by saying Rivers doesn't make them pay. I guess 3388/22 wasn't enough.Jeff cites that the Chargers are content to run. But he doesn't mention that these aren't the Martyball Chargers any more. I don't think there will be any more 11 attempt games this year.Jeff finishes off by contradicting himself. He says the Chargers are so good that they won't need much passing. Then he immediately follows up by saying that they play a tough schedule, which is also a disadvantage. Well, if they play a tough schedule, then it seems they will have to pass to win after all, eh?And Jeff finishes off by pointing out that Rivers has an appealing playoff schedule.All in all, I think this is about as poorly written a downside for Rivers as there could be.

 

[Tau837]

My second post that led to this:

So 3 FBG staffers think Rivers is overrated. Comments from the overvalued QBs article:

Sigmund Bloom - The high-powered San Diego offense will go from boring to a flat-out snoozefest under Norv Turner. Rivers might have the skills to be a top 10 fantasy QB, but he won't get the opportunity to use them very often in San Diego. This team is going to rely on LaDainian Tomlinson and a scary front seven to win games.

I don't really understand this line of thinking. Didn't they rely on LT and the front seven last year? As for the Turner comment, they have gone from Marty to Norv. I don't see how that can hurt a QB's performance. Turner has been a NFL OC or HC for the past 16 years. He has had some notable QB performances:Aikman QB4 in 1992 - best fantasy performance of Aikman's careerAikman QB10 in 14 games in 1993 - 2nd best fantasy performance of Aikman's careerFrerotte QB11 in 1996 - best fantasy performance of Frerotte's careerTrent Green QB7 in 1998 as a first year starter - 3rd best fantasy performance of Green's careerBrad Johnson QB5 in 1999 - best fantasy performance of Johnson's careerKerry Collins QB9 in 15 games in 2005 - 2nd best fantasy performance of Collins's careerAlex Smith QB18 in 2006 - up from QB46 in 2005 without TurnerIMO Rivers is more talented than Frerotte, Green, Johnson, Collins, and Smith, and on a par with Aikman in terms of talent. I don't see anything in Norv's history that shows he can't or won't have a top 10 QB.

Jeff Pasquino - I wrote up a pretty extensive downside of Philip Rivers in a face-off in June, so allow me to just summarize the reasons that I do not like Rivers as a primary fantasy quarterback for this season. Defenses facing the Chargers gameplan to stop RB LaDainian Tomlinson first and TE Antonio Gates second, inviting Rivers and the San Diego passing game to make them pay for overplaying the run and the middle of the field. Yet with all that single coverage and opportunity for Rivers and his wide receivers, little was accomplished last season.

This is a curious statement. From a fantasy perspective, Rivers "accomplished" a ranking of QB9 last season. Here are the other things he accomplished:1. He threw 22 TDs, which was the 8th best total in the NFL.2. He threw for 3388 passing yards, which was the 9th best total in the NFL. His ypa of 7.37 was 8th best.3. He threw only 9 interceptions, which was tied for the 5th lowest total among qualifiers. And 3 of those ahead of him threw 316 or fewer passes.4. He had the 8th best QB rating (92.0).I'd like to know what he would have to have done in order for Jeff to think he "accomplished" something notable, especially considering he was a first year starter who was held back early by the gameplan.

Jeff Pasquino - Rivers just does not have a playmaker to help him at wide receiver.

Well, he has the best playmaker in the NFL at RB and TE, a fact Jeff conveniently ignores. And, in fact, his WR corps should be improved this season, with Vincent Jackson potentially emerging as a playmaker. Basically, this is a fluff point, because Rivers was a top 10 QB last season with essentially the same supporting cast.

Jeff Pasquino - It is also often the case that a second year starter regresses from their first year performances as teams develop better gameplans and an improved library of game film for that signal caller.

First off, I'd like to see some evidence that shows this to be a likely result. I'm sure this has happened in some cases, but does it happen most of the time? I doubt it.Secondly, just think back to last offseason, when most people were underrating Rivers using similar logic, like "first year starters usually suck". Rivers obviously blew that notion away. Just as he was (a) more talented than most first year QBs and (b) in a better situation than most first year QBs, both of the same things are true about him in comparison to most second year starters.

Jeff Pasquino - Lastly, the Chargers are a good team and are happy to take the air out of the ball with the lead. They face stiff competition and are unlikely to have situations where Rivers can pad his stats in garbage time. I am steering clear of Rivers this season.

This is a contradictory argument. If the Chargers are content to take the air out of the ball when leading, then Rivers never padded his stats at garbage time, did he? So what has changed?

Mark Wimer - Philip Rivers made the NFL Pro Bowl last season, but he wasn't a top-5 fantasy QB. With 284/460 for 3388 yards, 22 TDs and 9 interceptions, he landed at #9 among fantasy signal callers as of year's end.

None of this makes him overrated. His current FBG expert ranking is 12. His ADP is QB10.

Mark Wimer - Now, there's a new coaching staff in town, and a host of young and/or lackluster WRs that will be asked to snag Rivers' passes this year. Vincent Jackson, with 2 years NFL experience and a career best 27/453/6 last year figures to be the #1 WR; #2 belongs to 5-year veteran Eric Parker, whose best season came in 2005 with 57/725/3. (Parker did not catch a TD last season (48/659/0)). Antonio Gates is an all-world TE, but he can't generate a top-10 passing offense single-handed. I look for Rivers to regress during 2007, finishing out of the top 10 (I have him at #15 as of mid-June).

The only thing in this entire paragraph that has changed is the coaching staff. The supporting cast is essentially the same. So if he could finish at QB9 last year with these teammates, why is he suddenly QB15?---All I can say is that I hope other fantasy owners in my leagues think along the same lines as these FBG staffers.

 

[Tau837]

Now, in response to Jeff's comment above:

I'm perfectly fine discussing the merits of Philip Rivers, but you seem to have already made up your mind on the topic. Your recent posts seem to defend your guy as if there can be no downside to Rivers.

I want to discuss the merits. IMO most of what was posted in the Faceoff and overrated comments are not valid merits. I see three possible reasons for downside to Rivers:1. New coaching staff. The thing is, we don't know if it will be a positive or a negative (or essentially remain the same). It could go either way. Turner has produced some great offenses and great fantasy QBs. I don't understand why people would assume the worst here.2. Schedule. The schedule is more difficult, to be sure. I can see people thinking this will be a negative. However, consider that last season Rivers attempted only 460 passes. IMO the negative created by playing tougher defenses will be offset by more attempts. That is, while each attempt may be less efficient, he will have more of them and thus stand to produce similar or better totals.3. Injury. Some people do projections by assuming QBs will miss some time, since average QBs do. IMO Rivers is likely to be more durable than other QBs, based on his track record to date. In college, he set an NCAA record for number of starts, starting 51 of 51 possible games. That included playing through various injuries, including a separated shoulder and a broken toe. And he missed no time thus far as an NFL starter. And his size helps him to withstand the punishment of sacks and hits. So I think he is less of an injury risk than any QB other than maybe Brett Favre.In addition, I could see the argument having nothing to do with Rivers and more to do with other QBs. For example, McNabb was hurt last year and could finish ahead of Rivers, pushing him down a spot in the rankings. IMO it is clear that Peyton Manning, Palmer, Brady, Brees, and Bulger should be ranked ahead of him. I can see Young and Vick (assuming he is playing) being ranked ahead of Rivers, depending on scoring system. I can see McNabb being ranked ahead of him, depending on McNabb's health. After that, I don't see anyone else who should clearly be ranked higher. And I think it is probable that Rivers will play 16 games, while one or more of these others will miss time... so even though I can see those 8 ranking ahead of him, I think he'll finish ahead of one or more of them.He only had 3 bad games last year, one of which was in the playoffs. However, anyone who watched the game saw several passes dropped, and a TD catch blown because Jackson didn't get his second foot down in the end zone. Rivers really didn't play as bad as the numbers looked, and the Chargers gameplan was a bit overly conservative. That said, Rivers didn't lift them to victory, either. I think he'll learn from that and be better.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

The only thing that will hold Rivers back is lack of weapons at the WR position. They are young and developing (Jackson, Davis, Floyd) but not a go to guy in the group.

However, he does have the best RB, TE, and one of the best O-lines in the league, which should combat that issue.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

I'll try to make this as simple as I can. LaDainian Tomlinson scored 31 touchdowns last season yet Philip Rivers was still a top 10 quarterback. Who here really thinks that Tomlinson is scoring over 30 touchdowns this season? Not me.

Philip Rivers will get his in the Chargers high powered offense. With the best tight end, running back, and offensive line in the league along with his incredible skills how can he be denied? Then again Norv Turner is the head coach...

 

[jurb26]

I'll try to make this as simple as I can. LaDainian Tomlinson scored 31 touchdowns last season yet Philip Rivers was still a top 10 quarterback. Who here really thinks that Tomlinson is scoring over 30 touchdowns this season? Not me.

I also don't expect SD to score 30.8 points a game again in 2007.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Will the Chargers score 492 points this upcoming season? Probably not. They should still score well over 400 again as they have the last 3 seasons. Cam Cameron's gone but the personnel is still intact so they should still be among the best offenses in the league.

As a result I see Philip Rivers continuing the tradition of the San Diego Chargers quarterback being a very attractive fantasy option. He won't throw for 4,000 yards but high touchdown production with modest yardage production along with few interceptions makes for at least a top 10 qb this season.

 

[OCC]

I'll try to make this as simple as I can. LaDainian Tomlinson scored 31 touchdowns last season yet Philip Rivers was still a top 10 quarterback. Who here really thinks that Tomlinson is scoring over 30 touchdowns this season? Not me.

I also don't expect SD to score 30.8 points a game again in 2007.

Which means most of the drop will come from LT, not Rivers. Rivers was better then VY/Cutler/Leinart. But I see Rivers ranked below all those 3. I fail to see how Rivers hit his ceiling in his 1st year, and Leinart/Cutler/VY have this huge upside that Rivers doesn't have.

Rivers is simply a better QB then all those 3. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Having success, and having lots of weapons around you I guess are a bad thing. Having a top 5 oline I guess is a bad thing. Take VY, his crappy oline, and no weapons all day long. I'll sit with Rivers thanks.

 

[Tau837]

Bumping this in case Jeff missed it the first time.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Now, in response to Jeff's comment above:

I'm perfectly fine discussing the merits of Philip Rivers, but you seem to have already made up your mind on the topic. Your recent posts seem to defend your guy as if there can be no downside to Rivers.

I want to discuss the merits. IMO most of what was posted in the Faceoff and overrated comments are not valid merits. I see three possible reasons for downside to Rivers:

1. New coaching staff. The thing is, we don't know if it will be a positive or a negative (or essentially remain the same). It could go either way. Turner has produced some great offenses and great fantasy QBs. I don't understand why people would assume the worst here.

2. Schedule. The schedule is more difficult, to be sure. I can see people thinking this will be a negative. However, consider that last season Rivers attempted only 460 passes. IMO the negative created by playing tougher defenses will be offset by more attempts. That is, while each attempt may be less efficient, he will have more of them and thus stand to produce similar or better totals.

3. Injury. Some people do projections by assuming QBs will miss some time, since average QBs do. IMO Rivers is likely to be more durable than other QBs, based on his track record to date. In college, he set an NCAA record for number of starts, starting 51 of 51 possible games. That included playing through various injuries, including a separated shoulder and a broken toe. And he missed no time thus far as an NFL starter. And his size helps him to withstand the punishment of sacks and hits. So I think he is less of an injury risk than any QB other than maybe Brett Favre.

In addition, I could see the argument having nothing to do with Rivers and more to do with other QBs. For example, McNabb was hurt last year and could finish ahead of Rivers, pushing him down a spot in the rankings. IMO it is clear that Peyton Manning, Palmer, Brady, Brees, and Bulger should be ranked ahead of him. I can see Young and Vick (assuming he is playing) being ranked ahead of Rivers, depending on scoring system. I can see McNabb being ranked ahead of him, depending on McNabb's health. After that, I don't see anyone else who should clearly be ranked higher. And I think it is probable that Rivers will play 16 games, while one or more of these others will miss time... so even though I can see those 8 ranking ahead of him, I think he'll finish ahead of one or more of them.

He only had 3 bad games last year, one of which was in the playoffs. However, anyone who watched the game saw several passes dropped, and a TD catch blown because Jackson didn't get his second foot down in the end zone. Rivers really didn't play as bad as the numbers looked, and the Chargers gameplan was a bit overly conservative. That said, Rivers didn't lift them to victory, either. I think he'll learn from that and be better.

Hi Just Win,Thanks for bringing this out to another thread. Really didn't want to discuss a player on his bandwagon thread - this is about a discussion either way.

Only one of the 3 reasons you listed above made my list (and I actually ran long with my faceoff - so I couldn't even discuss coaching changes). I certainly agree with the schedule issue, and as Clayton Gray just pointed out in his SOS article, SD isn't just bad - it's terrible. 31st schedule for QBs. Ouch.

Now, here's the crux of my argument which you seem to have glossed over:

If I were to pick a quarterback (or two) from this batch, I would want someone with solid upside and big play potential so that I could go after certain matchups during the season. Well, let’s start with Rivers and his history. We only have one year to go on, which is scary in of itself, but let’s see how many times he has had a stellar game. In 2006 he had 20-25 fantasy points four times and 25+ once, three touchdowns just once and 300+ yards only twice. Not exactly setting the world on fire, so then certainly you would expect him to have a minimal downside then, correct? Unfortunately that is not true, as he had three games (and a playoff game) without a touchdown and he also had three games with fewer than 10 fantasy points and four more (including the postseason game) with less than 12 fantasy points.

When I want a FANTASY FOOTBALL quarterback to lead my team, I want him to have a good shot at either 2 or 3 TDs and 200-300 yards, giving him a good chance of 20 or more points (in FBG scoring, .05 / yard, 4 / TD pass). He broke 300 yards twice.

He threw for 3 TDs once.

He topped 20 fantasy points 5 times in 16 starts.

In fact, of the Top 12 QBs from last year, Rivers was one of only two QBs (Eli) that had what I would consider less than a 50% success rate for posting a good score.

What I did was define an average performance for a QB to be 16 fantasy points. That's 240 yards and 2 TDs, give or take.

It also works with PPG and projections to be roughly an average performance.

Now define a winning performance (for fantasy) to be 25% better than average. That's where I come up with 20 fantasy points. That's enough for me to say that my fantasy QB can win the game for me (and possibly make up for other team issues). Conversely, a losing performance is 25% worse than average - 12 points.

Rivers had 5 winning performances and 6 losing performances (same as Eli). Every other quearterback (even the volatile and controversial Rex Grossman) was 50% or better.

That's just the Top 12 from last year. McNabb, Hasselbeck, Romo, Cutler - all not in that group.

Again, it is not about a football performance, but a fantasy football performance. Troy Aikman comes to mind as the perfect example of this.

 

[Tau837]

Now, in response to Jeff's comment above:

I'm perfectly fine discussing the merits of Philip Rivers, but you seem to have already made up your mind on the topic. Your recent posts seem to defend your guy as if there can be no downside to Rivers.

I want to discuss the merits. IMO most of what was posted in the Faceoff and overrated comments are not valid merits. I see three possible reasons for downside to Rivers:

1. New coaching staff. The thing is, we don't know if it will be a positive or a negative (or essentially remain the same). It could go either way. Turner has produced some great offenses and great fantasy QBs. I don't understand why people would assume the worst here.

2. Schedule. The schedule is more difficult, to be sure. I can see people thinking this will be a negative. However, consider that last season Rivers attempted only 460 passes. IMO the negative created by playing tougher defenses will be offset by more attempts. That is, while each attempt may be less efficient, he will have more of them and thus stand to produce similar or better totals.

3. Injury. Some people do projections by assuming QBs will miss some time, since average QBs do. IMO Rivers is likely to be more durable than other QBs, based on his track record to date. In college, he set an NCAA record for number of starts, starting 51 of 51 possible games. That included playing through various injuries, including a separated shoulder and a broken toe. And he missed no time thus far as an NFL starter. And his size helps him to withstand the punishment of sacks and hits. So I think he is less of an injury risk than any QB other than maybe Brett Favre.

In addition, I could see the argument having nothing to do with Rivers and more to do with other QBs. For example, McNabb was hurt last year and could finish ahead of Rivers, pushing him down a spot in the rankings. IMO it is clear that Peyton Manning, Palmer, Brady, Brees, and Bulger should be ranked ahead of him. I can see Young and Vick (assuming he is playing) being ranked ahead of Rivers, depending on scoring system. I can see McNabb being ranked ahead of him, depending on McNabb's health. After that, I don't see anyone else who should clearly be ranked higher. And I think it is probable that Rivers will play 16 games, while one or more of these others will miss time... so even though I can see those 8 ranking ahead of him, I think he'll finish ahead of one or more of them.

He only had 3 bad games last year, one of which was in the playoffs. However, anyone who watched the game saw several passes dropped, and a TD catch blown because Jackson didn't get his second foot down in the end zone. Rivers really didn't play as bad as the numbers looked, and the Chargers gameplan was a bit overly conservative. That said, Rivers didn't lift them to victory, either. I think he'll learn from that and be better.

Hi Just Win,Thanks for bringing this out to another thread. Really didn't want to discuss a player on his bandwagon thread - this is about a discussion either way.

Only one of the 3 reasons you listed above made my list (and I actually ran long with my faceoff - so I couldn't even discuss coaching changes). I certainly agree with the schedule issue, and as Clayton Gray just pointed out in his SOS article, SD isn't just bad - it's terrible. 31st schedule for QBs. Ouch.

Now, here's the crux of my argument which you seem to have glossed over:

If I were to pick a quarterback (or two) from this batch, I would want someone with solid upside and big play potential so that I could go after certain matchups during the season. Well, let’s start with Rivers and his history. We only have one year to go on, which is scary in of itself, but let’s see how many times he has had a stellar game. In 2006 he had 20-25 fantasy points four times and 25+ once, three touchdowns just once and 300+ yards only twice. Not exactly setting the world on fire, so then certainly you would expect him to have a minimal downside then, correct? Unfortunately that is not true, as he had three games (and a playoff game) without a touchdown and he also had three games with fewer than 10 fantasy points and four more (including the postseason game) with less than 12 fantasy points.

When I want a FANTASY FOOTBALL quarterback to lead my team, I want him to have a good shot at either 2 or 3 TDs and 200-300 yards, giving him a good chance of 20 or more points (in FBG scoring, .05 / yard, 4 / TD pass). He broke 300 yards twice.

He threw for 3 TDs once.

He topped 20 fantasy points 5 times in 16 starts.

In fact, of the Top 12 QBs from last year, Rivers was one of only two QBs (Eli) that had what I would consider less than a 50% success rate for posting a good score.

What I did was define an average performance for a QB to be 16 fantasy points. That's 240 yards and 2 TDs, give or take.

It also works with PPG and projections to be roughly an average performance.

Now define a winning performance (for fantasy) to be 25% better than average. That's where I come up with 20 fantasy points. That's enough for me to say that my fantasy QB can win the game for me (and possibly make up for other team issues). Conversely, a losing performance is 25% worse than average - 12 points.

Rivers had 5 winning performances and 6 losing performances (same as Eli). Every other quearterback (even the volatile and controversial Rex Grossman) was 50% or better.

That's just the Top 12 from last year. McNabb, Hasselbeck, Romo, Cutler - all not in that group.

Again, it is not about a football performance, but a fantasy football performance. Troy Aikman comes to mind as the perfect example of this.

Before I respond to this fully, can you clear up the bolded part above? You appear to say 16 fantasy points is roughly 240 yards and 2 TDs, but using the scoring system you cited above, 240/2 is 20 fantasy points. I assume you meant 240/1.Also, to be clear, are you saying you want to have more peak performances because you plan to use QBBC? You didn't specifically say that. If not, I'm not sure I get why you care how the points are distributed if they add up the same at the end of the year. If you have two players with the same total points, and one player has a larger standard deviation, I agree he will help you more on his good weeks, but isn't it obvious that he hurts you more on his bad weeks?

 

[ImTheScientist]

After seeing the SOS for Rivers I will be avoiding him unless he slips a lot in my draft.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

What I did was define an average performance for a QB to be 16 fantasy points. That's 240 yards and 2 TDs, give or take.

Before I respond to this fully, can you clear up the bolded part above? You appear to say 16 fantasy points is roughly 240 yards and 2 TDs, but using the scoring system you cited above, 240/2 is 20 fantasy points. I assume you meant 240/1.Also, to be clear, are you saying you want to have more peak performances because you plan to use QBBC? You didn't specifically say that. If not, I'm not sure I get why you care how the points are distributed if they add up the same at the end of the year. If you have two players with the same total points, and one player has a larger standard deviation, I agree he will help you more on his good weeks, but isn't it obvious that he hurts you more on his bad weeks?

OK, 240 yards = 12 points (20 yards = 1 point, .05/yard)

2 TDs = 8 points (4 pts / TD passing)

So 240 / 2.

As for having a peak performance / QBBC approach, I think that's the most often employed method of any QB fantasy approach unless you have a super QB like Peyton or McNabb (when healthy) who puts up 20+ per week. Otherwise, you should have 2 starters and be starting them based upon matchups.

This is the downside of ranking players based on year end performance when you're making 16 decisions all year - once a week - on who to start.

I could say that if I choose a Top 12 QB at random, however, regardless of schedule, he better be more likely to post a "20" than post a "12", otherwise I question why I would slate him as a fantasy QB1 in the first place.

 

[kensat30]

Are you predicting a Vincent Jackson breakout in San Diego? Or is it Floyd? Because I think Parker can pretty much be written in for about 600-700 yards at this point in his career. And San Diego just can't produce a stud QB with LT's(500), Gates'(1000), and Parker's(600) numbers alone. Complimentary WRs just aren't going to cut it. They need another 1,000+ yard WR from somewhere to take Rivers to the next level. And considering that Jackson scored 6 Tds last year, is there a lot higher for him to climb in that department? Rivers can be a borderline top10 QB fairly easily IMO, but there is not much value to a player like that especially if he is being drafted right around the 10-15 range already anyways.

We all saw what Drew Brees did in his first year in New Orleans. The guy was basically the same player there that he was in San Diego the previous couple seasons, yet he threw for about an extra 1,000 yards. The system does mean something. The players do mean something.

Is Craig Davis the next Marques Colston? Can Vincent Jackson be the next great 3rdd year WR? Or is Malcolm Floyd going to be the out of nowhere surprise WR that we are all picking up on the waiver wire in week 2? Something has gotta give if what you are predicting comes to pass. Otherwise Rivers is just another in a long line of ho-hum QBs that can finish right around QB10 and keep your head above water week to week.

 

[cstu]

I can see both sides of the argument, but the bottom line is that Rivers is in a great offense and his first year starting was arguably the best from a QB drafted in the last 3 years. There's a lot of faith in Young, Leinart and Cutler improving, yet Rivers is expected to regress? I don't really get that.

And Romo ahead of Rivers in both redraft and dynasty?

 

[Tau837]

What I did was define an average performance for a QB to be 16 fantasy points. That's 240 yards and 2 TDs, give or take.

Before I respond to this fully, can you clear up the bolded part above? You appear to say 16 fantasy points is roughly 240 yards and 2 TDs, but using the scoring system you cited above, 240/2 is 20 fantasy points. I assume you meant 240/1.Also, to be clear, are you saying you want to have more peak performances because you plan to use QBBC? You didn't specifically say that. If not, I'm not sure I get why you care how the points are distributed if they add up the same at the end of the year. If you have two players with the same total points, and one player has a larger standard deviation, I agree he will help you more on his good weeks, but isn't it obvious that he hurts you more on his bad weeks?

OK, 240 yards = 12 points (20 yards = 1 point, .05/yard)

2 TDs = 8 points (4 pts / TD passing)

So 240 / 2.

As for having a peak performance / QBBC approach, I think that's the most often employed method of any QB fantasy approach unless you have a super QB like Peyton or McNabb (when healthy) who puts up 20+ per week. Otherwise, you should have 2 starters and be starting them based upon matchups.

This is the downside of ranking players based on year end performance when you're making 16 decisions all year - once a week - on who to start.

I could say that if I choose a Top 12 QB at random, however, regardless of schedule, he better be more likely to post a "20" than post a "12", otherwise I question why I would slate him as a fantasy QB1 in the first place.

OK, still confused about the originally bolded sentence, which appeared to equate 16 points to 20 points... but I understand you are saying 12 points is bad, 16 points is average, and 20 points is good.Not sure why it matters how the top 12 QBs compare to Rivers. I mean, how is it valuable to say that Peyton Manning performs well more often than Rivers? That is stating the obvious and everyone would clearly rank and draft Manning ahead of Rivers.

IMO it is pretty clear that Peyton Manning, Palmer, Brady, Brees, and Bulger should all be ranked ahead of Rivers. And so should McNabb, assuming he is healthy. And, using FBG scoring, I think it is reasonable to put Young and Vick above him (assuming Vick is playing), primarily due to their rushing numbers.

So I think the real question with Rivers is where he ranks among the rest of the QBs. Jeff has ranked him at QB21. The FBG consensus ranking has him at QB12, with the highest individual ranking as Jason Wood's at QB8. So let's look at Jeff's grading system for the QBs I didn't name above who are in the FBG top 20:

Rivers - 16 games - 6 bad, 5 average, 5 good

Kitna - 16 games - 3 bad, 7 average, 6 good

Hasselbeck - 14 games - 5 bad, 8 average, 3 good

Leinart - 11 games (not counting his first game with 9 attempts) - 3 bad, 5 average, 3 good

Romo - 11 games (not counting his first game with 2 attempts) - 2 bad, 4 average, 5 good

Roethlisberger - 15 games - 4 bad, 6 average, 5 good

Eli - 16 games - 6 bad, 6 average, 4 good

Cutler - 5 games - 0 bad, 4 average, 1 good

Favre - 16 games - 4 bad, 8 average, 4 good

Losman - 16 games - 7 bad, 6 average, 3 good

Delhomme - 13 games - 4 bad, 7 average, 2 good

Smith - 16 games - 7 bad, 6 average, 3 good

Jeff, you have all of the players named thus far in my post ranked ahead of Rivers, in addition to Schaub. Yet by this bad/average/good criteria you defined, Rivers was better last year than Hasselbeck, Eli, Losman, Delhomme, and Smith.

And I have no idea how you can project Schaub, with no track record, to be better. In his career, Schaub has played 4 games in which he got 20+ passing attempts. 2 were bad, 1 was average, 1 was good.

Rivers finished as QB9 last year, but was QB14 in ppg. Given this bad/average/good analysis, last year he was no worse than QB15. So to me Rivers' baseline should be no lower than QB14. From there, I'd add other factors. To me, he has more pros than cons, so I'd adjust upward. I guess you must have seen all cons and adjusted downward.

I understand your reasoning better after this discussion, though I still don't agree with it.

 

[Tau837]

Are you predicting a Vincent Jackson breakout in San Diego? Or is it Floyd? Because I think Parker can pretty much be written in for about 600-700 yards at this point in his career. And San Diego just can't produce a stud QB with LT's(500), Gates'(1000), and Parker's(600) numbers alone. Complimentary WRs just aren't going to cut it. They need another 1,000+ yard WR from somewhere to take Rivers to the next level. And considering that Jackson scored 6 Tds last year, is there a lot higher for him to climb in that department? Rivers can be a borderline top10 QB fairly easily IMO, but there is not much value to a player like that especially if he is being drafted right around the 10-15 range already anyways. We all saw what Drew Brees did in his first year in New Orleans. The guy was basically the same player there that he was in San Diego the previous couple seasons, yet he threw for about an extra 1,000 yards. The system does mean something. The players do mean something.Is Craig Davis the next Marques Colston? Can Vincent Jackson be the next great 3rdd year WR? Or is Malcolm Floyd going to be the out of nowhere surprise WR that we are all picking up on the waiver wire in week 2? Something has gotta give if what you are predicting comes to pass. Otherwise Rivers is just another in a long line of ho-hum QBs that can finish right around QB10 and keep your head above water week to week.

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Ok, yeah, I bumbled that math example - 20 is "Good", not average.

16 is average, so that'd be about 160 yards and 2 TDs or 240 yards and 1 TD, correct.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

OK, still confused about the originally bolded sentence, which appeared to equate 16 points to 20 points... but I understand you are saying 12 points is bad, 16 points is average, and 20 points is good.Not sure why it matters how the top 12 QBs compare to Rivers. I mean, how is it valuable to say that Peyton Manning performs well more often than Rivers? That is stating the obvious and everyone would clearly rank and draft Manning ahead of Rivers.IMO it is pretty clear that Peyton Manning, Palmer, Brady, Brees, and Bulger should all be ranked ahead of Rivers. And so should McNabb, assuming he is healthy. And, using FBG scoring, I think it is reasonable to put Young and Vick above him (assuming Vick is playing), primarily due to their rushing numbers.So I think the real question with Rivers is where he ranks among the rest of the QBs. Jeff has ranked him at QB21. The FBG consensus ranking has him at QB12, with the highest individual ranking as Jason Wood's at QB8. So let's look at Jeff's grading system for the QBs I didn't name above who are in the FBG top 20:Rivers - 16 games - 6 bad, 5 average, 5 goodKitna - 16 games - 3 bad, 7 average, 6 goodHasselbeck - 14 games - 5 bad, 8 average, 3 goodLeinart - 11 games (not counting his first game with 9 attempts) - 3 bad, 5 average, 3 goodRomo - 11 games (not counting his first game with 2 attempts) - 2 bad, 4 average, 5 goodRoethlisberger - 15 games - 4 bad, 6 average, 5 goodEli - 16 games - 6 bad, 6 average, 4 goodCutler - 5 games - 0 bad, 4 average, 1 goodFavre - 16 games - 4 bad, 8 average, 4 goodLosman - 16 games - 7 bad, 6 average, 3 goodDelhomme - 13 games - 4 bad, 7 average, 2 goodSmith - 16 games - 7 bad, 6 average, 3 goodJeff, you have all of the players named thus far in my post ranked ahead of Rivers, in addition to Schaub. Yet by this bad/average/good criteria you defined, Rivers was better last year than Hasselbeck, Eli, Losman, Delhomme, and Smith.And I have no idea how you can project Schaub, with no track record, to be better. In his career, Schaub has played 4 games in which he got 20+ passing attempts. 2 were bad, 1 was average, 1 was good.Rivers finished as QB9 last year, but was QB14 in ppg. Given this bad/average/good analysis, last year he was no worse than QB15. So to me Rivers' baseline should be no lower than QB14. From there, I'd add other factors. To me, he has more pros than cons, so I'd adjust upward. I guess you must have seen all cons and adjusted downward.I understand your reasoning better after this discussion, though I still don't agree with it.

Of that list, I see 4 players with 6 or more "bad" games last year. That can hurt, for sure.I mentioned Eli. Losman - yes, you can make a good argument for Rivers over Losman, but at least Losman has a #1 WR in Lee Evans and also a questionable run game, which should help his passing stats.Smith - Another one you can argue. Lots of offensive weapons with DJax, Battle and VDavis. Wash one out with Gates (ok, maybe VDavis and Battle) and striker Gore for LT2 as far as passing attack, and you still have DJax on Alex Smith's side of the table. Given the WR issues, the schedule, the unlikelihood (is that a word?) of a big game from Rivers, and the good San Diego run game and defense, I just don't see how you can have Rivers that high on your fantasy radar.

Not sure why it matters how the top 12 QBs compare to Rivers. I mean, how is it valuable to say that Peyton Manning performs well more often than Rivers? That is stating the obvious and everyone would clearly rank and draft Manning ahead of Rivers.

Argue me on 15-21 ranking, sure, but given his ADP of a Top 10 pick, IIRC, and there's no way I'm taking that kind of draft risk to pick Rivers. Let someone else make that decision. That's why I compare him to the Top 12 - Rivers will be your #1 QB in most leagues if you pick him at or near his ADP. No thanks.

 

[Tau837]

By the way, one of Rivers' bad games was a fluke. He only attempted 11 passes in game 1 last year because they were winning and Marty/Cam played ultra-conservative. He had double those attempts in every other game.

I know it's only one game, but if we're splitting hairs to compare him to others, IMO it is more fair to say he had 5 bad games, since that scenario won't be repeated and wasn't about Rivers' own play.

 

[Tau837]

Losman - yes, you can make a good argument for Rivers over Losman, but at least Losman has a #1 WR in Lee Evans and also a questionable run game, which should help his passing stats.

Then why did Losman have so many bad games last year? He had Evans and a shaky run game last year, too.

Smith - Another one you can argue. Lots of offensive weapons with DJax, Battle and VDavis. Wash one out with Gates (ok, maybe VDavis and Battle) and striker Gore for LT2 as far as passing attack, and you still have DJax on Alex Smith's side of the table.

This is a poorly done comparison IMO. Looking at the offenses as a whole, SD's was one of the best in the league last season and SF's was one of the worst. What has changed? SF added DJax. And suddenly that will elevate Smith above Rivers? Come on.Gates > DJaxVincent Jackson > BattleParker > DavisTomlinson > Gore

Given the WR issues

Question. Do you think San Diego's WRs as a group will be better, the same, or worse than last season? Last season, the Chargers' passing offense was 16th in yardage and 10th in TDs. If they will be better or the same, what exactly is the WR issue? I personally expect them to be collectively better.

Given the WR issues, the schedule, the unlikelihood (is that a word?) of a big game from Rivers, and the good San Diego run game and defense, I just don't see how you can have Rivers that high on your fantasy radar.

Addressed WRs above. The San Diego run game and defense are the same as last year. Actually, if anything, it is likely that the run game will be at least a bit less effective this year. That would be true even if the schedule was the same, due to regression to the mean... but the schedule is harder, making it likely the Chargers will attempt more passes this year. (Last year they attempted 466, 25th in the league.)IMO the schedule and maybe the point about big games are valid. WRs, running game, and defense are just piling on without merit.

Not sure why it matters how the top 12 QBs compare to Rivers. I mean, how is it valuable to say that Peyton Manning performs well more often than Rivers? That is stating the obvious and everyone would clearly rank and draft Manning ahead of Rivers.

Argue me on 15-21 ranking, sure, but given his ADP of a Top 10 pick, IIRC, and there's no way I'm taking that kind of draft risk to pick Rivers. Let someone else make that decision. That's why I compare him to the Top 12 - Rivers will be your #1 QB in most leagues if you pick him at or near his ADP. No thanks.

Sure, it's true that if Rivers is a starter in a 12 team league, he'll be one of the worst starters. I'm not disputing that. Of course, the implication is that you will have built a better team around him than the teams with better starters.I was really questioning your ranking. In terms of delving into the ranking, it is not relevant to compare him to Manning, other than to say he is ranked lower. What is relevant is when you get to the point of the QBs who are not obvious... and that is the group to whom he should be compared.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was really questioning your ranking. In terms of delving into the ranking, it is not relevant to compare him to Manning, other than to say he is ranked lower. What is relevant is when you get to the point of the QBs who are not obvious... and that is the group to whom he should be compared.

Pardon the edits as I think lengthy posts get unwieldy.Yes I have him 21st. That's the lowest of anyone on the staff.

Given all the issues I have with him aside from me not liking his abilities, I ranked him low.

I'll try not to miss any, but here we go:

Terrible schedule - 31st in the league for QBs - and two of his best matchups don't happen until December (fantasy playoffs time). (This should be enough to stop you right there from drafting him in the Top 10).
No real #1 WR.
An offense that focuses more on the run than the pass.
A good team and a good defense, so they can afford to have a quiet game from their QB (see Week 1, 2006 for "Example A".)
More bad games (12 or fewer FPs) than good games (20 or more FPs) in 2006.
A lack of running ability.
Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).
Coaching change. I didn't get into it, but this could make him less valuable. I only mention it as others have as well - I don't see it as that big a deal.Ok, of the 20 QBs I have above him, how many have at least 5 or 6 of these?

I'll be lenient and just say a "bottom third / bottom 10" for Item 1.

We went over #5 - and those who failed that case were Eli, who has a true #1 and will likely have to pass more without Tiki Barber. I'd put his WR1 / TE1 combo ahead of SD any day. The Chargers win at tailback, but that's true of most any comparison.

Alex Smith and Matt Schaub are two that may have enough of the same issues here to warrant being ranked under Rivers, but I state that Rivers is beneath both because he has ALL of these issues. The rankings are, after all, a reflection of my opinion. That's why FBG has 20 staffers ranking redraft leagues.

Everyone is welcome to think differently, but I do appreciate those who listened to my reasoning.

Regardless of what you may think, I cannot see how people can draft Rivers where they are drafting him at this point - which is at QB1.

 

[Tau837]

Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).

OK, Jeff, I disagree with a lot of your thinking, so I generally agree to disagree. On this point, I too think it's too bad there is no study on this. I suspect it wouldn't validate your view, at least not when you weed out injuries and situational changes.Furthermore, do you remember all of the similar statements about first year starters last year? Most people around here were saying Rivers would be lucky to be top 20, and regularly cited how often first year starters struggle. Those people ignored the fact that Rivers' situation was among the best ever for a first year starter. So even if your contention above is true, I think the same exception holds. Rivers' situation is better than those of almost all second year starters. So I doubt such a study would offer much in the way of predictive value for him.

 

[Bri]

one of the better rookie/first year starting QBs I've seen.

I'm still waiting for growing pains

 

[cstu]

Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).

OK, Jeff, I disagree with a lot of your thinking, so I generally agree to disagree. On this point, I too think it's too bad there is no study on this. I suspect it wouldn't validate your view, at least not when you weed out injuries and situational changes.Furthermore, do you remember all of the similar statements about first year starters last year? Most people around here were saying Rivers would be lucky to be top 20, and regularly cited how often first year starters struggle. Those people ignored the fact that Rivers' situation was among the best ever for a first year starter. So even if your contention above is true, I think the same exception holds. Rivers' situation is better than those of almost all second year starters. So I doubt such a study would offer much in the way of predictive value for him.

Yet Jeff has Leinart, Young, and Cutler at #9, #11 and #14, respectively.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Regardless of what you may think, I cannot see how people can draft Rivers where they are drafting him at this point - which is at QB1.

Like he was last year?

 

[Pack43]

Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).

OK, Jeff, I disagree with a lot of your thinking, so I generally agree to disagree. On this point, I too think it's too bad there is no study on this. I suspect it wouldn't validate your view, at least not when you weed out injuries and situational changes.Furthermore, do you remember all of the similar statements about first year starters last year? Most people around here were saying Rivers would be lucky to be top 20, and regularly cited how often first year starters struggle. Those people ignored the fact that Rivers' situation was among the best ever for a first year starter. So even if your contention above is true, I think the same exception holds. Rivers' situation is better than those of almost all second year starters. So I doubt such a study would offer much in the way of predictive value for him.

Yet Jeff has Leinart, Young, and Cutler at #9, #11 and #14, respectively.

Was thinking the same thing on the other rookie QBs from last year.Don't really agree with the ranking, but I appreciate JP's points about Rivers' SOS and his reasons for the rankings (vs. say LHucks' threads from last year). OTH, I think JWB's Parker>V. Davis opinion won't be too popular by season's end.

 

[AB in DC]

Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).

OK, Jeff, I disagree with a lot of your thinking, so I generally agree to disagree. On this point, I too think it's too bad there is no study on this. I suspect it wouldn't validate your view, at least not when you weed out injuries and situational changes.

I don't know where Jeff gets this, either. I've found that QBs tend to improve significantly from year one to year two.Some examples from your list of QBs:Kitna1999 249 fp2000 205 fpHasselbeck2001 135 fp2002 230 fp2003 306 fpRoethlisberger2004 208 fp (14 g)2005 203 fp (13 g)Eli2004 71 fp (8+ g)2005 281 fp2006 242 fpFavre1992 246 fp (15 g)1993 245 fp (16 g)Losman2005 106 fp (9 g)2006 235 fpDelhomme2003 231 fp2004 308 fpSmith2005 47 fp (8+ g)2006 212 fpThe only QBs on this list who declined in year two are Kitna and Favre, and Favre only dropped by a small amount.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).

OK, Jeff, I disagree with a lot of your thinking, so I generally agree to disagree. On this point, I too think it's too bad there is no study on this. I suspect it wouldn't validate your view, at least not when you weed out injuries and situational changes.

I don't know where Jeff gets this, either. I've found that QBs tend to improve significantly from year one to year two.Some examples from your list of QBs:Kitna1999 249 fp2000 205 fpHasselbeck2001 135 fp2002 230 fp2003 306 fpRoethlisberger2004 208 fp (14 g)2005 203 fp (13 g)Eli2004 71 fp (8+ g)2005 281 fp2006 242 fpFavre1992 246 fp (15 g)1993 245 fp (16 g)Losman2005 106 fp (9 g)2006 235 fpDelhomme2003 231 fp2004 308 fpSmith2005 47 fp (8+ g)2006 212 fpThe only QBs on this list who declined in year two are Kitna and Favre, and Favre only dropped by a small amount.

Some QBs are different than others, as they learned on the sidelines (the classic approach) rather than the on-the-job training that is the current trend (playing some at least in year 1). I'm also more interested in more recent history (i.e. Favre's rookie performances 10+ years ago don't matter as much as more recent performances).You omitted one in Daunte Culpepper. He put up 402 FPs in 2000 (25+ PPG) in his first year starting (one game in 1999), but only 245 in 2001 (in 11 games, 22+PPG).I could be completely incorrect here, which is why I think we should look at it. There are several starters this year that are in their 2nd year with some playing time in 2006 (VY, Leinart, Cutler, Jason Campbell, Tarvaris Jackson, .....).Rivers falls in that "other" category where he was a first year starter but not a first year player. Losman, Delhomme, Kitna, Hasselbeck are in that category.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I'll try not to miss any, but here we go:

Terrible schedule - 31st in the league for QBs - and two of his best matchups don't happen until December (fantasy playoffs time). (This should be enough to stop you right there from drafting him in the Top 10).
No real #1 WR.
An offense that focuses more on the run than the pass.
A good team and a good defense, so they can afford to have a quiet game from their QB (see Week 1, 2006 for "Example A".)
More bad games (12 or fewer FPs) than good games (20 or more FPs) in 2006.
A lack of running ability.
Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).
Coaching change. I didn't get into it, but this could make him less valuable. I only mention it as others have as well - I don't see it as that big a deal.Ok, of the 20 QBs I have above him, how many have at least 5 or 6 of these?

1. a) has anybody looked at the correlation between previous year SOS and next year SOS? b) how about the correlation between previous year SOS and current year performance for individual QBs? 2. a) same as last year, when Rivers was QB1, b) antonio gates is a substitute for a #1 WR, c) Brady has rarely had a real #1 WR, and it hasn't stopped him from producing

3. same as last year

4. same as last year

5. this concerns me too

6. same as last year

7. would love to see a statistical analysis. since i distrust anecdotal evidence, your subjective view on this is not compelling

8. this concerns me too; last time norv had a hall of fame RB (dallas), aikman was an average fantasy QB -- not a starter

so looking at your list, only 5 and 8 present enough info that i'm concerned. the strength of schedule argument COULD worry me too -- provided that someone can demonstrate statistically that SOS based on previous year's stats is an indicator of future year performance.

good list though, it's helpful to think through the pluses/minuses on rivers in such a structured manner

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

SOS is so overrated in July I dont know where to begin.

That being said, I dont see me drafting rivers as a fantasy starting QB. He's a reserve/backup IMO.

 

[Tau837]

8. this concerns me too; last time norv had a hall of fame RB (dallas), aikman was an average fantasy QB -- not a starter

This is false.Norv was the Dallas OC from 1991 to 1993. Aikman over that span (LINK):

1991 - QB18 in 12 games

1992 - QB4

1993 - QB10 in 14 games

Furthermore, Norv was also the SD OC in 2001 and had the same HOF RB he'll have this year. His QB was Flutie, who finished as QB17. I agree he was average or worse... but IMO it is obvious that Rivers is much more like Aikman than Flutie, and this year's Chargers team is much more like the 1991-1993 Cowboys than the 2001 Chargers.

So to me the coaching change is a non-issue. I have certainly seen others cite it, I just don't agree that it is a negative.

From my point of view, it is more likely a positive if it is a factor at all, because I don't expect Turner to be as conservative as last year's coaching staff. Last year's first game is a perfect example -- I don't see any 11 attempt games for Rivers this year.

ETA: Michael J. Fox

 

[Tau837]

Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).

OK, Jeff, I disagree with a lot of your thinking, so I generally agree to disagree. On this point, I too think it's too bad there is no study on this. I suspect it wouldn't validate your view, at least not when you weed out injuries and situational changes.

I don't know where Jeff gets this, either. I've found that QBs tend to improve significantly from year one to year two.Some examples from your list of QBs:Kitna1999 249 fp2000 205 fpHasselbeck2001 135 fp2002 230 fp2003 306 fpRoethlisberger2004 208 fp (14 g)2005 203 fp (13 g)Eli2004 71 fp (8+ g)2005 281 fp2006 242 fpFavre1992 246 fp (15 g)1993 245 fp (16 g)Losman2005 106 fp (9 g)2006 235 fpDelhomme2003 231 fp2004 308 fpSmith2005 47 fp (8+ g)2006 212 fpThe only QBs on this list who declined in year two are Kitna and Favre, and Favre only dropped by a small amount.

Some QBs are different than others, as they learned on the sidelines (the classic approach) rather than the on-the-job training that is the current trend (playing some at least in year 1). I'm also more interested in more recent history (i.e. Favre's rookie performances 10+ years ago don't matter as much as more recent performances).You omitted one in Daunte Culpepper. He put up 402 FPs in 2000 (25+ PPG) in his first year starting (one game in 1999), but only 245 in 2001 (in 11 games, 22+PPG).I could be completely incorrect here, which is why I think we should look at it. There are several starters this year that are in their 2nd year with some playing time in 2006 (VY, Leinart, Cutler, Jason Campbell, Tarvaris Jackson, .....).Rivers falls in that "other" category where he was a first year starter but not a first year player. Losman, Delhomme, Kitna, Hasselbeck are in that category.

Those who did not start until after their first year, from 1999 forward:Brady - better in second year startingBulger - betterCulpepper - worse (hurt, missed 5 games)Delhomme - betterHasselbeck - betterKitna - worseLosman - betterPalmer - betterPennington - worse (hurt, missed 6 games)I doubt this is a complete list; I just scanned last year's QB list at PFR.Still, looks like a 2 to 1 ratio of players who, like Rivers, learned from the sidelines before starting and got better in their second year rather than worse. And 2 of the 3 players who got worse missed at least 5 games due to injury.ETA:Aaron Brooks - betterOlder:Blake - betterBrunell - betterFavre - essentially the sameFiedler - betterFrerotte - betterGannon - betterBrian Griese - betterBrad Johnson - betterMcNair - betterMaybe I'm missing something... I'm not trying to pull all good cases, that's just what I found in a cursory search.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Second season QBs tend to do worse than their first season as a starter (I wish I had a study on this - this is a subjective statement, but I believe there is sufficient case studies to back me up on this).

OK, Jeff, I disagree with a lot of your thinking, so I generally agree to disagree. On this point, I too think it's too bad there is no study on this. I suspect it wouldn't validate your view, at least not when you weed out injuries and situational changes.

I don't know where Jeff gets this, either. I've found that QBs tend to improve significantly from year one to year two.Some examples from your list of QBs:Kitna1999 249 fp2000 205 fpHasselbeck2001 135 fp2002 230 fp2003 306 fpRoethlisberger2004 208 fp (14 g)2005 203 fp (13 g)Eli2004 71 fp (8+ g)2005 281 fp2006 242 fpFavre1992 246 fp (15 g)1993 245 fp (16 g)Losman2005 106 fp (9 g)2006 235 fpDelhomme2003 231 fp2004 308 fpSmith2005 47 fp (8+ g)2006 212 fpThe only QBs on this list who declined in year two are Kitna and Favre, and Favre only dropped by a small amount.

Some QBs are different than others, as they learned on the sidelines (the classic approach) rather than the on-the-job training that is the current trend (playing some at least in year 1). I'm also more interested in more recent history (i.e. Favre's rookie performances 10+ years ago don't matter as much as more recent performances).You omitted one in Daunte Culpepper. He put up 402 FPs in 2000 (25+ PPG) in his first year starting (one game in 1999), but only 245 in 2001 (in 11 games, 22+PPG).I could be completely incorrect here, which is why I think we should look at it. There are several starters this year that are in their 2nd year with some playing time in 2006 (VY, Leinart, Cutler, Jason Campbell, Tarvaris Jackson, .....).Rivers falls in that "other" category where he was a first year starter but not a first year player. Losman, Delhomme, Kitna, Hasselbeck are in that category.

Those who did not start until after their first year, from 1999 forward:Brady - better in second year startingBulger - betterCulpepper - worse (hurt, missed 5 games)Delhomme - betterHasselbeck - betterKitna - worseLosman - betterPalmer - betterPennington - worse (hurt, missed 6 games)I doubt this is a complete list; I just scanned last year's QB list at PFR.Still, looks like a 2 to 1 ratio of players who, like Rivers, learned from the sidelines before starting and got better in their second year rather than worse. And 2 of the 3 players who got worse missed at least 5 games due to injury.ETA:Aaron Brooks - betterOlder:Blake - betterBrunell - betterFavre - essentially the sameFiedler - betterFrerotte - betterGannon - betterBrian Griese - betterBrad Johnson - betterMcNair - betterMaybe I'm missing something... I'm not trying to pull all good cases, that's just what I found in a cursory search.

Regardless of the findings, it's worth looking at, especially with the QB changes in recent years.My concern over this (and we're past the Rivers-centric discussion here) is the conditions of the study. Rookies / sophomores only (e.g. Leinart, Cutler) or 1st year / 2nd year (i.e. Romo, Rivers, etc.)? Does a portion of a year count, and if so how much?Rivers was on a roster for 2 years and never played - a game. He practiced and learned the SD system. That's a big difference.If we could figure out, FF wise, if Year 2 of a rookie who started some / all of his rookie year and the 2nd year was predictable in one direction or another, that would help quite a bit in 2007 and beyond (Quinn and Russell for '08?).

 

[kensat30]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

From the gist of this thread, the feeling I'm getting is that you think Rivers is underrated. From this quote, you are saying that he should be ranked in the 8-10 range, but his ADP is QB12? Personally, I believe that there is little upside to Rivers despite where he finished last year and there is little to no value at drafting at guy slightly past where you expect him to finish. A borderline top10 QB is worth very little to me, unless I can draft him very late in my draft. Even with Jackson and Floyd both improving, and Davis chipping in, that still is not enough to push Rivers into the "value" category for me. They lost their vet WR McCarddell (even if he didn't do much last year) and the improvement from other WRs should help to offset that. BUT, only if one of them is a "breakout" will there be a bigtime value in Rivers, and I don't see that happening. From the gist of this thread you seem to be presenting Rivers as major value, yet you're not willing to project a breakout only "better" play from all the WRs. How much is better? And why is Rivers such a great value? Help me to understand. Parker is not getting any better. So either Jackson, or Floyd, or Davis, or other is going to have to step up to not only replace McCarddell's presence, but also to help Rivers reach the next level. If two or more of these guys get "better", I could easily see it having an effect on Parker's playing time and numbers as well.Where is the upside?

 

[The Man with the Plan]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

Where is the upside?

I can't speak for Just Win Baby but what I see in Philip Rivers is a player who was a top 10 quarterback last year. This was despite being limited by his head coach and seeing LT score 31 touchdowns. I think that he'll throw for more yards and also throw for more touchdowns and altogether have a better year in 2007. It's that simple really.It's not the upside that has me intrigued about him but his relative lack of downside. When i'm drafting I want players that are good. Players that I know can play. Philip Rivers certainly qualifies in that area. As much hype as been distributed for Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Jay Cutler, I can't say that i'm as confident about them. Overall in the Fantasy Football world it seems that Philip Rivers has been somewhat of a forgotten man. And for a proven player with a proven supporting cast playing in a proven offensive system that just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Tau837]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

Where is the upside?

I can't speak for Just Win Baby but what I see in Philip Rivers is a player who was a top 10 quarterback last year. This was despite being limited by his head coach and seeing LT score 31 touchdowns. I think that he'll throw for more yards and also throw for more touchdowns and altogether have a better year in 2007. It's that simple really.It's not the upside that has me intrigued about him but his relative lack of downside. When i'm drafting I want players that are good. Players that I know can play. Philip Rivers certainly qualifies in that area. As much hype as been distributed for Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Jay Cutler, I can't say that i'm as confident about them.

Overall in the Fantasy Football world it seems that Philip Rivers has been somewhat of a forgotten man. And for a proven player with a proven supporting cast playing in a proven offensive system that just doesn't make sense to me.

Great post. Especially the bolded part.

 

[Tau837]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

From the gist of this thread, the feeling I'm getting is that you think Rivers is underrated. From this quote, you are saying that he should be ranked in the 8-10 range, but his ADP is QB12? Personally, I believe that there is little upside to Rivers despite where he finished last year and there is little to no value at drafting at guy slightly past where you expect him to finish. A borderline top10 QB is worth very little to me, unless I can draft him very late in my draft. Even with Jackson and Floyd both improving, and Davis chipping in, that still is not enough to push Rivers into the "value" category for me. They lost their vet WR McCarddell (even if he didn't do much last year) and the improvement from other WRs should help to offset that. BUT, only if one of them is a "breakout" will there be a bigtime value in Rivers, and I don't see that happening. From the gist of this thread you seem to be presenting Rivers as major value, yet you're not willing to project a breakout only "better" play from all the WRs. How much is better? And why is Rivers such a great value? Help me to understand. Parker is not getting any better. So either Jackson, or Floyd, or Davis, or other is going to have to step up to not only replace McCarddell's presence, but also to help Rivers reach the next level. If two or more of these guys get "better", I could easily see it having an effect on Parker's playing time and numbers as well.Where is the upside?

First off, here were McCardell's numbers last season: 36/437/0. Excuse me if I'm not concerned about replacing that production.As a collective group, the Chargers WRs had 126/1759/9 last season. That was 26th in the NFL in terms of fantasy points (FBG scoring). IMO they will definitely exceed that this year. I don't know for sure if it will be because Jackson or Floyd or Davis breaks out, but I don't necessarily have to know... I think they will improve as a group. So there is some upside.I think Gates could be better. His targets were down last year, but his performance improved in the second half of the season. I think that could carry over. So there is a little upside.I think Rivers will be better this season, showing what I think is normal improvement from first year to second year, and I think he will throw more passes. There is some upside.I'm not saying I think Rivers is a top 5 QB. I was more reacting initially to Jeff ranking him at #21. His ADP is 12, and I think his upside is in the 7-10 range, with minimal downside. It's not screaming value, but there is value there.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

Where is the upside?

I can't speak for Just Win Baby but what I see in Philip Rivers is a player who was a top 10 quarterback last year. This was despite being limited by his head coach and seeing LT score 31 touchdowns. I think that he'll throw for more yards and also throw for more touchdowns and altogether have a better year in 2007. It's that simple really.It's not the upside that has me intrigued about him but his relative lack of downside. When i'm drafting I want players that are good. Players that I know can play. Philip Rivers certainly qualifies in that area. As much hype as been distributed for Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Jay Cutler, I can't say that i'm as confident about them.

Overall in the Fantasy Football world it seems that Philip Rivers has been somewhat of a forgotten man. And for a proven player with a proven supporting cast playing in a proven offensive system that just doesn't make sense to me.

Great post. Especially the bolded part.

See, I knew you weren't listening. (I say this as half-kidding, but really it is as if you're discrediting everything we've said about his downside). There is a TON of downside, starting with his schedule.Go ahead and draft Rivers as your QB1 - don't say you weren't warned.

 

[Tau837]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

Where is the upside?

I can't speak for Just Win Baby but what I see in Philip Rivers is a player who was a top 10 quarterback last year. This was despite being limited by his head coach and seeing LT score 31 touchdowns. I think that he'll throw for more yards and also throw for more touchdowns and altogether have a better year in 2007. It's that simple really.It's not the upside that has me intrigued about him but his relative lack of downside. When i'm drafting I want players that are good. Players that I know can play. Philip Rivers certainly qualifies in that area. As much hype as been distributed for Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Jay Cutler, I can't say that i'm as confident about them.

Overall in the Fantasy Football world it seems that Philip Rivers has been somewhat of a forgotten man. And for a proven player with a proven supporting cast playing in a proven offensive system that just doesn't make sense to me.

Great post. Especially the bolded part.

See, I knew you weren't listening. (I say this as half-kidding, but really it is as if you're discrediting everything we've said about his downside). There is a TON of downside, starting with his schedule.Go ahead and draft Rivers as your QB1 - don't say you weren't warned.

I didn't ignore the downsides you presented, I discussed them and the reasons why I think they don't have merit and/or will be offset by positives. It's as if you're discrediting everything we've said about his upside.Go ahead and ignore him. Don't say you weren't warned.

Half kidding.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

Where is the upside?

I can't speak for Just Win Baby but what I see in Philip Rivers is a player who was a top 10 quarterback last year. This was despite being limited by his head coach and seeing LT score 31 touchdowns. I think that he'll throw for more yards and also throw for more touchdowns and altogether have a better year in 2007. It's that simple really.It's not the upside that has me intrigued about him but his relative lack of downside. When i'm drafting I want players that are good. Players that I know can play. Philip Rivers certainly qualifies in that area. As much hype as been distributed for Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Jay Cutler, I can't say that i'm as confident about them.

Overall in the Fantasy Football world it seems that Philip Rivers has been somewhat of a forgotten man. And for a proven player with a proven supporting cast playing in a proven offensive system that just doesn't make sense to me.

Great post. Especially the bolded part.

See, I knew you weren't listening. (I say this as half-kidding, but really it is as if you're discrediting everything we've said about his downside). There is a TON of downside, starting with his schedule.Go ahead and draft Rivers as your QB1 - don't say you weren't warned.

I didn't ignore the downsides you presented, I discussed them and the reasons why I think they don't have merit and/or will be offset by positives. It's as if you're discrediting everything we've said about his upside.Go ahead and ignore him. Don't say you weren't warned.

Half kidding.

So let's boil this down - where would you draft him? QB10? 12? 14?I could see me possibly raising him 1-3 spots in my rankings, but in reality that won't matter, as he's apparently not lasting past the Top 12.

Either of us could be wrong here, but I try to be a little more conservative from a QB1 than a QB2 standpoint. If I had a great QB1, I could see the argument for having Rivers as your #2, but I don't think his draft position would present value. I also don't know what teams I'd feel confident starting him against from Weeks 1-13.

Sep 9 Chicago

Sep 16 @New England

Sep 23 @Green Bay

Sep 30 Kansas City

Oct 7 @Denver

Oct 14 Oakland

Week 7 BYE

Oct 28 Houston

Nov 4 @Minnesota

Nov 11 Indianapolis

Nov 18 @Jacksonville

Nov 25 Baltimore

Dec 2 @Kansas City

Dec 9 @Tennessee

Dec 16 Detroit

Dec 24 Denver

Dec 30 @Oakland

I see maybe 5 viable starts (@GB, KC, Hou, @Min, @KC) in the first 13 weeks of the year.

That's not many.

Clear "bench" games are Chicago, @NE, @Den, Oak, Indy, @Jax, and Baltimore. That's 7 games.

That's too many.

 

[Tau837]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

Where is the upside?

I can't speak for Just Win Baby but what I see in Philip Rivers is a player who was a top 10 quarterback last year. This was despite being limited by his head coach and seeing LT score 31 touchdowns. I think that he'll throw for more yards and also throw for more touchdowns and altogether have a better year in 2007. It's that simple really.It's not the upside that has me intrigued about him but his relative lack of downside. When i'm drafting I want players that are good. Players that I know can play. Philip Rivers certainly qualifies in that area. As much hype as been distributed for Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Jay Cutler, I can't say that i'm as confident about them.

Overall in the Fantasy Football world it seems that Philip Rivers has been somewhat of a forgotten man. And for a proven player with a proven supporting cast playing in a proven offensive system that just doesn't make sense to me.

Great post. Especially the bolded part.

See, I knew you weren't listening. (I say this as half-kidding, but really it is as if you're discrediting everything we've said about his downside). There is a TON of downside, starting with his schedule.Go ahead and draft Rivers as your QB1 - don't say you weren't warned.

I didn't ignore the downsides you presented, I discussed them and the reasons why I think they don't have merit and/or will be offset by positives. It's as if you're discrediting everything we've said about his upside.Go ahead and ignore him. Don't say you weren't warned.

Half kidding.

So let's boil this down - where would you draft him? QB10? 12? 14?I could see me possibly raising him 1-3 spots in my rankings, but in reality that won't matter, as he's apparently not lasting past the Top 12.

Either of us could be wrong here, but I try to be a little more conservative from a QB1 than a QB2 standpoint. If I had a great QB1, I could see the argument for having Rivers as your #2, but I don't think his draft position would present value. I also don't know what teams I'd feel confident starting him against from Weeks 1-13.

Sep 9 Chicago

Sep 16 @New England

Sep 23 @Green Bay

Sep 30 Kansas City

Oct 7 @Denver

Oct 14 Oakland

Week 7 BYE

Oct 28 Houston

Nov 4 @Minnesota

Nov 11 Indianapolis

Nov 18 @Jacksonville

Nov 25 Baltimore

Dec 2 @Kansas City

Dec 9 @Tennessee

Dec 16 Detroit

Dec 24 Denver

Dec 30 @Oakland

I see maybe 5 viable starts (@GB, KC, Hou, @Min, @KC) in the first 13 weeks of the year.

That's not many.

Clear "bench" games are Chicago, @NE, @Den, Oak, Indy, @Jax, and Baltimore. That's 7 games.

That's too many.

I'd consider drafting him in the 10-12 range. It would depend on preseason, draft position, what teams around me have QBs and what I know about the other teams' tendencies, etc.Of course, drafting him as QB10 means I have drafted a good team around him at other positions. It also means I can draft another QB within the next two rounds to platoon with him for some of the games you cite.

But I have confidence that I could draft a team around him to make the playoffs. And his playoff matchups are excellent.

Incidentally, while I agree most of the tough matchups you cite will indeed be tough matchups for him, he did quite well against Denver last season - 39.3 fantasy points in 2 games. I think they only gave up 11.9 per game in their other 14 regular season games (FBG scoring). I'd still plan to start him against Chicago (home opener) and Indy (new cornerbacks and stats from last year deceiving). And maybe against Oakland and Baltimore, but I'd have time to think about that and see how those teams are playing first. Remember, he played well against both Oakland and Baltimore last year, but was held back by overly conservative game plans.

 

[AB in DC]

Clear "bench" games are Chicago, @NE, @Den, Oak, Indy, @Jax, and Baltimore. That's 7 games.

I agree with benching @NE, @Den, and vs. BaltimoreChicago D is not looking as strong as they were in 2005 and early 2006. This is a home game in September against a cold weather team, and a season opener to boot. Rivers should be fine.Indy D lost both starting corners and looks as porous as ever...why bench him there?Oakland seems like a maybe -- not many teams can sustain that kind of defensive performance for two years in a row, without a track record for great D. I'm a bit agnostic here.Jax D lost both starting safeties from 2006 and will probably decline somewhat as a result. Again, not the greatest matchup, but not as tough as it looks.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Schedule, schmedule. With parity these days you never who's gonna be any good from year to year. One year a team has a great defense (Redskins, Bucs) and the next season they're one of the worst in the league. It's way too early to put any credence into strength of schedule. Besides I've never ever seen a player bust because the schedule was too hard.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Incidentally, while I agree most of the tough matchups you cite will indeed be tough matchups for him, he did quite well against Denver last season - 39.3 fantasy points in 2 games. I think they only gave up 11.9 per game in their other 14 regular season games (FBG scoring). I'd still plan to start him against Chicago (home opener) and Indy (new cornerbacks and stats from last year deceiving). And maybe against Oakland and Baltimore, but I'd have time to think about that and see how those teams are playing first. Remember, he played well against both Oakland and Baltimore last year, but was held back by overly conservative game plans.

Last year Denver didn't have Champ Bailey AND Dre Bly.I don't think that there is a more formidable CB duo out there right now.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Incidentally, while I agree most of the tough matchups you cite will indeed be tough matchups for him, he did quite well against Denver last season - 39.3 fantasy points in 2 games. I think they only gave up 11.9 per game in their other 14 regular season games (FBG scoring). I'd still plan to start him against Chicago (home opener) and Indy (new cornerbacks and stats from last year deceiving). And maybe against Oakland and Baltimore, but I'd have time to think about that and see how those teams are playing first. Remember, he played well against both Oakland and Baltimore last year, but was held back by overly conservative game plans.

Last year Denver didn't have Champ Bailey AND Dre Bly.I don't think that there is a more formidable CB duo out there right now.

A team can have the best corners in the NFL but if they have a bad pass rush (like the Denver Broncos) it really doesn't matter. Offenses will eventually pick them apart. Even with great cornerbacks (Dre Bly's a little overrated) i'm not sure how they hurt Philip Rivers that much. Especially seeing as how his top 2 receiving options are the tight end and the running back.LT and Gates are just matchup nightmares for teams. Cornerbacks are too weak to play them. Safeties and linebackers are too slow to cover them.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't know how I missed this thread and am jumping in late.

For those using the "but his WR corps is putrid" argument, the Chargers last year did not have a WR rank in the Top 50. Only two WR had 30 receptions and only two WR caught TD passes.

Are we to expect WORSE from this group than they performed last year?

 

[Bri]

Jax D lost both starting safeties from 2006 and will probably decline somewhat as a result. Again, not the greatest matchup, but not as tough as it looks.

Jacksonville was the 2nd ranked D in 06 allowing only 36% of 3rd down passes to be completed. While the Safeties is a fair point, that is a "serious" D to be reckonned with. Amidst this pre-preseason start or not discussion, I think ya gotta give that one a don't start. Really difficult to think it'd be a decent matchup at all.

 

[Bri]

I assume you're addressing this to me. If you read my posts, you'll see that I think he should reasonably be ranked in the QB8-QB10 range. He finished QB9 last year without a 1000 yard WR, so I'm not sure why you think he'll need a boost at WR to finish where I am suggesting. That said, I do think Jackson and Floyd will be better, and Davis can't hurt, he can only help.

Where is the upside?

I can't speak for Just Win Baby but what I see in Philip Rivers is a player who was a top 10 quarterback last year. This was despite being limited by his head coach and seeing LT score 31 touchdowns. I think that he'll throw for more yards and also throw for more touchdowns and altogether have a better year in 2007. It's that simple really.

But that hasn't changedLT2 would get the ball 90 times a game if the Chargers could pull that off, coach and QB don't really matter there. They'd still call plays for Tomlinson.I think if Rivers throws it 30 times, they're losing so he's not doing well. I take for granted Tomlinson will do well but who doesn't? It's very hard for a QB in a Chargers style O to throw enough to be a warm N fuzzy fantasy option. It's not some Bill Walsh or Mike Martz or run and gun scheme, it's the Tomlinson show. When he comes out, is tired, is limping briefly, or the coach just is wacky, that's when the other guys get a chance to shine. Rivers, Gates, Jackson, Davis/Floyd, Turner are counted on to come thru when he doesn't. It's a very tough job for a QB and Rivers did it splendidly in 06 but he's getting a first on 3rd down so that LT2 can get the ball again.Top 10 #s aside, it's very hard to watch the Tomlinson show and think "I should get someone in the supporting cast."I'd concede Rivers is probably a good option if Tomlinson is struggling but good luck predicting that