Philip Rivers not *so* bad, eh? (1 Viewer)

[BoltBacker]

But from a fantasy standpoint, he remains well out of the Top 12.

He's number 9 as of right now, although not every QB has played five games.

I don't have the projections at my fingertips, but IIRC Rivers was projected as outside of the Top 20 the last 3 weeks in Dodds' projections.Rivers will likely finish in the Top 12 this year because of the flawed view of his total annual points.It is much better to look at a "quality start" for fantasy purposes for QBs rather than an annualized average.What would you rather have, a QB who plays 10 games and puts up 20 pts on average, or a QB who puts up 15 a week for 16 weeks?I'll take the guy with 10 games and 20 and then find a QB2/3 combo to replace his 7 games missed.As for Rivers, IIRC I said a "good start" was 20+ FP, a "bad start" was 12 or under. So far Rivers has 2 of each and one in-between. That works ok as long as you picked the right 2 or 3 weeks or had a best ball option.Remember many deemed Rivers as a Top 12 / QB1 in preseason, which I vehemently disagreed with and still do.

and the backpedaling begins.

and the homerism continues.Good luck starting Rivers the rest of the way.

You also said part of the reason you were so down on Rivers was his schedule(CHI/NE/GB/KC/DEN defenses thus far).So if he's the #9 QB(let's use that flawed measure for now that's based on..... the fantasy points he's scored) against the defenses you predicted he'd struggle against then against average defenses he'd be what... the #6 QB?People are really spinning hard in this thread. The LHUCKS "... well, he may eventually win a SuperBowl BUT...." is probably my new favorite post of '07. I'll buy you a beer one day LHUCKS if we eventually get to the point you're posting "Rivers: Worst HOF QB ever!?". It's been a long and winding road from.... he's no Chris Simms.... hasn't it?Even HK gave up the notion Gates sucks. I dunno what's fueling the Rivers bashers. "He's not attacking the strength of the defense"???? WTF? LT also sucks.... he tries to run around and away from defenders instead of running through/over 11 guys on every play. Cheating *******.

 

[SSOG]

Even HK gave up the notion Gates sucks. I dunno what's fueling the Rivers bashers. "He's not attacking the strength of the defense"???? WTF? LT also sucks.... he tries to run around and away from defenders instead of running through/over 11 guys on every play. Cheating *******.

I wasn't downgrading Rivers because he didn't attack the strength of the defense, I'm merely not ready to upgrade him because the part of the defense that he did attack was so weak that it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from the results. I mean, if Rivers went 24/24 for 700 yards and 12 scores in a game against a high school team, would you upgrade him? You wouldn't DOWNGRADE him, because there was no possible way for him to play any better, but the opposition was so weak that you can't give him an upgrade, either. Same thing here.

 

[Tau837]

Even HK gave up the notion Gates sucks. I dunno what's fueling the Rivers bashers. "He's not attacking the strength of the defense"???? WTF? LT also sucks.... he tries to run around and away from defenders instead of running through/over 11 guys on every play. Cheating *******.

I wasn't downgrading Rivers because he didn't attack the strength of the defense, I'm merely not ready to upgrade him because the part of the defense that he did attack was so weak that it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from the results. I mean, if Rivers went 24/24 for 700 yards and 12 scores in a game against a high school team, would you upgrade him? You wouldn't DOWNGRADE him, because there was no possible way for him to play any better, but the opposition was so weak that you can't give him an upgrade, either. Same thing here.

So... you're comparing Denver's LBs and Safeties to a high school team...

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Did you watch the game this past Sunday? Rivers displayed a great arm with great touch on several passes. Sure, a few of his games this year he hasn't looked that good, no doubt. But I wouldn't say his problem has to do with his arm or his touch. From what I've seen this season, his poor performances have had much more to do with having trouble performing well under heavy pressure at times, and his failure to make some correct reads.

I saw it, and I'm still not enthralled with his arm. But, just like last time, it isn't about his arm. Arm strength is WAY overrated for a QB.If I were a Rivers backer I would be more concerned with his timing on throws rather than his arm strength.

The timing may appear off on his throws because of two things:

his release is ULTRA quick - like Marino

his release is 3/4 - sidearm, so it looks ugly.

he has no known problems with timing, dating back to his days with NCState. What he does have is an unusual release. He doesn't have to rare back to throw in a natural throwing motion. He can flick the ball and still get it there on time. that's why it appears to be a late read. 70% career completion rate in college doesn't lie.

Gotta disagree here, Big Mex. I know you and I talked about this last time, and I'll bring up the same example from the playoffs last season.Gates was WIDE open, and I mean no defenders for 10 yards, and running a crossing route. Rivers delivered the ball LATE and Gates had to toe tap at the sideline to stay in bounds but his momentum took him OB. Had the throw been earlier, he turns it upfield for at least 15 more yards and maybe a TD.

If I have time I might bump the thread, but you get the point anyway.

Go back and watch the tape, I know you have it .

Oh, so you have one example from last year... I could have sworn I asked you specifically about Sunday's game and you responded that his timing isn't good. So I ask again: since I know you watched Sunday's game, are you saying his timing looked poor in that game?

This is all from memory, and the SD/DEN game was the least interesting of the 3 at 4PM, so I didn't watch it as intently....Rivers looked fine that game, and Gates made him look even better as usual. The benefits of having the #1 TE in the game.

IIRC the only throw I questioned as far as timing (without reviewing every one, which I'm not about to do) is the TD that he threw at the back of the EZ - I think to VJax?

It looked late, but still resulted in the score.

Overall - I'm giving you that he looked good against Denver.

Now go and do it again. And again.

I still believe he isn't worth starting in FF on a regular basis, and I'm not about to change my mind on that - in 2007.

Long term I still believe he is in a position to improve as a QB, and if they ever get better at WR in SD he may become a Top 10 QB. For me and for now he's a ways off.

 

[SSOG]

Even HK gave up the notion Gates sucks. I dunno what's fueling the Rivers bashers. "He's not attacking the strength of the defense"???? WTF? LT also sucks.... he tries to run around and away from defenders instead of running through/over 11 guys on every play. Cheating *******.

I wasn't downgrading Rivers because he didn't attack the strength of the defense, I'm merely not ready to upgrade him because the part of the defense that he did attack was so weak that it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from the results. I mean, if Rivers went 24/24 for 700 yards and 12 scores in a game against a high school team, would you upgrade him? You wouldn't DOWNGRADE him, because there was no possible way for him to play any better, but the opposition was so weak that you can't give him an upgrade, either. Same thing here.

So... you're comparing Denver's LBs and Safeties to a high school team...

No, I'm illustrating a point that the quality of the defense faced matters. I'm not saying you have to downgrade a player after a good game against a weak defense, I'm simply saying that you shouldn't necessarily upgrade him, either, and then I provided an extreme example to illustrate my point (because points are easier to conceptualize through extreme examples).

 

[jonessed]

Even HK gave up the notion Gates sucks. I dunno what's fueling the Rivers bashers. "He's not attacking the strength of the defense"???? WTF? LT also sucks.... he tries to run around and away from defenders instead of running through/over 11 guys on every play. Cheating *******.

I wasn't downgrading Rivers because he didn't attack the strength of the defense, I'm merely not ready to upgrade him because the part of the defense that he did attack was so weak that it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from the results. I mean, if Rivers went 24/24 for 700 yards and 12 scores in a game against a high school team, would you upgrade him? You wouldn't DOWNGRADE him, because there was no possible way for him to play any better, but the opposition was so weak that you can't give him an upgrade, either. Same thing here.

So... you're comparing Denver's LBs and Safeties to a high school team...

That's ridiculous. They are better than any D2 defense I've ever seen.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Regardless, total pts don't matter when it's boom or bust. Something should be said for consistency (see Willis McGahee quietly in the top 5... with one game barely over 100 yards, much less rushing TDs (he has zero, by the way).

Rivers putting up single digits then 25 pts at random wll end up screwing owners.... unless you use a cumulative format (very rare, these days).

I'd rather have David Garrad (right next to Rivers...actually much higher if you average out his bye week)... a QB who puts up 17, 19, 15, 16 vs 4, 5, 25, 5, 26 ...that's a 2-3 record... per se.

I know many will take issue with this statement, especially since I am known as a Rivers fan, but I think he he will play well from here forward. Not that he won't have a bad game or two, but I expect him to have about 8 good to great games from here forward. If he does, that would bring him to 10 good to great games on the season. Not too many fantasy QBs will have more than that.

Someone posted he'd rather have Garrard than Rivers. I couldn't disagree more. I would love it if the Rivers owner in my league would trade him to me for Garrard, who I have.

That someone was me... and points are points, and consistency is consistency. I wouldn't personally take Garrard... but his output has been surely better than Rivers... moreover, you know what you are going to get week in/week out. Thusly the point of my comment.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07stuart_goose6.php

 

[greyone]

Great Article in subcribers content. Choosing between Garrard and Rivers. Depends on your scoring strategy. **Question I always pose to owners in Assistant coach forum** Summation, Are you looking for steady points or the home run? My next quesiton would be about your roster. If your homerun qb(rivers) doesn't play steady or hit the homerun, can your team sustain the >10 point game? If yes start Rivers. If not start Garrard who has been solid at 14-18 points a game.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Can we really draw these conclusions after 5 games, specifically two bad ones for Rivers?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Great Article in subcribers content. Choosing between Garrard and Rivers. Depends on your scoring strategy. **Question I always pose to owners in Assistant coach forum** Summation, Are you looking for steady points or the home run? My next quesiton would be about your roster. If your homerun qb(rivers) doesn't play steady or hit the homerun, can your team sustain the >10 point game? If yes start Rivers. If not start Garrard who has been solid at 14-18 points a game.

What amusing is that Rivers really isn't a "bust or boom" play. At the end of the season, I bet we'll look back and see him as one of the safer QB plays. The 5 week sample size we're examining now is far too small to make "consistency" evaluations.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Great Article in subcribers content. Choosing between Garrard and Rivers. Depends on your scoring strategy. **Question I always pose to owners in Assistant coach forum** Summation, Are you looking for steady points or the home run? My next quesiton would be about your roster. If your homerun qb(rivers) doesn't play steady or hit the homerun, can your team sustain the >10 point game? If yes start Rivers. If not start Garrard who has been solid at 14-18 points a game.

What amusing is that Rivers really isn't a "bust or boom" play. At the end of the season, I bet we'll look back and see him as one of the safer QB plays. The 5 week sample size we're examining now is far too small to make "consistency" evaluations.

To date he has been exactly that - bust or boom.

It is much better to look at a "quality start" for fantasy purposes for QBs rather than an annualized average.

What would you rather have, a QB who plays 10 games and puts up 20 pts on average, or a QB who puts up 15 a week for 16 weeks?

I'll take the guy with 10 games and 20 and then find a QB2/3 combo to replace his 7 games missed.

As for Rivers, IIRC I said a "good start" was 20+ FP, a "bad start" was 12 or under. So far Rivers has 2 of each and one in-between. That works ok as long as you picked the right 2 or 3 weeks or had a best ball option.

and from the Philip Rivers Faceoff this past June:

Downside - by Jeff Pasquino

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.

So he "boomed" 5 times last year in 17 games and "busted" 7 times, including the playoff game.So 7 out of 17 "busts" means he is not a safe play in my book......

 

[Moe Green]

Great Article in subcribers content. Choosing between Garrard and Rivers. Depends on your scoring strategy. **Question I always pose to owners in Assistant coach forum** Summation, Are you looking for steady points or the home run? My next quesiton would be about your roster. If your homerun qb(rivers) doesn't play steady or hit the homerun, can your team sustain the >10 point game? If yes start Rivers. If not start Garrard who has been solid at 14-18 points a game.

What amusing is that Rivers really isn't a "bust or boom" play. At the end of the season, I bet we'll look back and see him as one of the safer QB plays. The 5 week sample size we're examining now is far too small to make "consistency" evaluations.

To date he has been exactly that - bust or boom.

It is much better to look at a "quality start" for fantasy purposes for QBs rather than an annualized average.

What would you rather have, a QB who plays 10 games and puts up 20 pts on average, or a QB who puts up 15 a week for 16 weeks?

I'll take the guy with 10 games and 20 and then find a QB2/3 combo to replace his 7 games missed.

As for Rivers, IIRC I said a "good start" was 20+ FP, a "bad start" was 12 or under. So far Rivers has 2 of each and one in-between. That works ok as long as you picked the right 2 or 3 weeks or had a best ball option.

and from the Philip Rivers Faceoff this past June:

Downside - by Jeff Pasquino

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.

So he "boomed" 5 times last year in 17 games and "busted" 7 times, including the playoff game.So 7 out of 17 "busts" means he is not a safe play in my book......

Great posting. Rivers is anything but "consistent."

 

[Tau837]

Great Article in subcribers content. Choosing between Garrard and Rivers. Depends on your scoring strategy. **Question I always pose to owners in Assistant coach forum** Summation, Are you looking for steady points or the home run? My next quesiton would be about your roster. If your homerun qb(rivers) doesn't play steady or hit the homerun, can your team sustain the >10 point game? If yes start Rivers. If not start Garrard who has been solid at 14-18 points a game.

What amusing is that Rivers really isn't a "bust or boom" play. At the end of the season, I bet we'll look back and see him as one of the safer QB plays. The 5 week sample size we're examining now is far too small to make "consistency" evaluations.

To date he has been exactly that - bust or boom.

It is much better to look at a "quality start" for fantasy purposes for QBs rather than an annualized average.

What would you rather have, a QB who plays 10 games and puts up 20 pts on average, or a QB who puts up 15 a week for 16 weeks?

I'll take the guy with 10 games and 20 and then find a QB2/3 combo to replace his 7 games missed.

As for Rivers, IIRC I said a "good start" was 20+ FP, a "bad start" was 12 or under. So far Rivers has 2 of each and one in-between. That works ok as long as you picked the right 2 or 3 weeks or had a best ball option.

and from the Philip Rivers Faceoff this past June:

Downside - by Jeff Pasquino

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.

So he "boomed" 5 times last year in 17 games and "busted" 7 times, including the playoff game.So 7 out of 17 "busts" means he is not a safe play in my book......

That's fine, so far he has 22 games since being installed as the full time starter. He has 9 "busts" and 7 "booms" per your somewhat arbitrary point cutoffs of below 12 points being a "bust" and above 20 points being a "boom", using FBG scoring. The implication of being a "safe" play means to me that he has been a safe or better play 13 times in 22 games. Agree that you would ideally want better, no doubt.I stand behind my recent postings that he will play better the rest of the season. I predict he will end up this season with no more than 4 games with 12 or fewer fantasy points, and will have 7 or more games with 20+, using FBG scoring. That implies another 5 "safe" games. I also predict he will stay healthy all season, which is more than will be said for a number of others. If he upholds my predictions, he will indeed have been an excellent play for the season as a whole.

I think he is a great buy low value right now.

 

[BoltBacker]

Great posting. Rivers is anything but "consistent."

Brady 5 boom 0 bustManning 2 boom 0 bustPalmer 1 boom 0 bustMcNabb 1 boom 1 bustRivers 2 boom 2 bustBulger 1 boom 2 bustBrees 0 boom 3 bust????Seems like he isn't much more inconsistent that the other top QB's in the league to me. He's no Manning/Brady but I don't think anyone claimed he would be. If you would have told me before the season began he''d be in the middle of the 2nd tier pack of Palmer/McNabb/Bulger/Brees it wouldn't have bothered me at all. Still doesn't.

 

[Tau837]

Great posting. Rivers is anything but "consistent."

Brady 5 boom 0 bustManning 2 boom 0 bustPalmer 1 boom 0 bustMcNabb 1 boom 1 bustRivers 2 boom 2 bustBulger 1 boom 2 bustBrees 0 boom 3 bust????Seems like he isn't much more inconsistent that the other top QB's in the league to me. He's no Manning/Brady but I don't think anyone claimed he would be. If you would have told me before the season began he''d be in the middle of the 2nd tier pack of Palmer/McNabb/Bulger/Brees it wouldn't have bothered me at all. Still doesn't.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Great posting. Rivers is anything but "consistent."

Brady 5 boom 0 bustManning 2 boom 0 bustPalmer 1 boom 0 bustMcNabb 1 boom 1 bustRivers 2 boom 2 bustBulger 1 boom 2 bustBrees 0 boom 3 bust????Seems like he isn't much more inconsistent that the other top QB's in the league to me. He's no Manning/Brady but I don't think anyone claimed he would be. If you would have told me before the season began he''d be in the middle of the 2nd tier pack of Palmer/McNabb/Bulger/Brees it wouldn't have bothered me at all. Still doesn't.

Actually I've got McNabb with 1 boom 3 busts

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

That's fine, so far he has 22 games since being installed as the full time starter. He has 9 "busts" and 7 "booms" per your somewhat arbitrary point cutoffs of below 12 points being a "bust" and above 20 points being a "boom", using FBG scoring. The implication of being a "safe" play means to me that he has been a safe or better play 13 times in 22 games. Agree that you would ideally want better, no doubt.

The reasoning here is that the Top 12 QBs in PPG last year had ~16 PPG. Also, on an annualized basis, QB12 last year averaged between 11 and 12 points per 16 games.I used a 25% up or down rule to determine a "boom" or "bust" game, which made the lines at 20 or 12.

 

[shakeybarn]

That's fine, so far he has 22 games since being installed as the full time starter. He has 9 "busts" and 7 "booms" per your somewhat arbitrary point cutoffs of below 12 points being a "bust" and above 20 points being a "boom", using FBG scoring. The implication of being a "safe" play means to me that he has been a safe or better play 13 times in 22 games. Agree that you would ideally want better, no doubt.

The reasoning here is that the Top 12 QBs in PPG last year had ~16 PPG. Also, on an annualized basis, QB12 last year averaged between 11 and 12 points per 16 games.I used a 25% up or down rule to determine a "boom" or "bust" game, which made the lines at 20 or 12.

I just take my league's week by week numbers... has all the QBs in rows for the last x years.... and plop em in Excel... run the standard deviation... do that historically as well. Rivers is high.. plain and simple.

 

[Tau837]

That's fine, so far he has 22 games since being installed as the full time starter. He has 9 "busts" and 7 "booms" per your somewhat arbitrary point cutoffs of below 12 points being a "bust" and above 20 points being a "boom", using FBG scoring. The implication of being a "safe" play means to me that he has been a safe or better play 13 times in 22 games. Agree that you would ideally want better, no doubt.

The reasoning here is that the Top 12 QBs in PPG last year had ~16 PPG. Also, on an annualized basis, QB12 last year averaged between 11 and 12 points per 16 games.I used a 25% up or down rule to determine a "boom" or "bust" game, which made the lines at 20 or 12.

Understand. One of Rivers' "bust" games last year happened to be 11.9 points in FBG scoring. So the choice of cutoff happened to barely add one bust.Furthermore, I posted quite a few times in the offseason about the significant difference between Rivers' first 3 games last season and the rest of his season. Examples:

I don't think anyone can dispute that Marty/Cam were overly conservative to start the season and held Rivers back during games 1 and 3 last season. In game 1, he played well but was allowed to attempt only 11 passes. In game 3, he played well again early - 8/10 for 82 yards, 1 TD, 1 interception in the first quarter - but Marty/Cam went into a shell, attempting only 5 more passes before the 4th quarter. The difference is that they won game 1, but the overly conservative play cost them a win in game 3. So after that they opened up the offense a bit. Rivers averaged 22.7 attempts per game in the first 3 games last year, 30.2 per game the rest of the way.

Anyway, the San Diego team QB ranked #11 in the remaining 13 games of the season. IMO that is more indicative of his Rivers' performance last season. I am pretty sure some will disagree and say you can't exclude games. Fine... I just don't expect him to be held back this season like he was early last year, which IMO limits the predictive value of those first few games last year.

He finished #14 in ppg, but #12 if you look only at QBs with 200+ attempts. To be fair, scanning the FBG final PPG list, I think this ranking shorts Romo, so that might bump Rivers down a notch...

And as I already posted in this thread, his ppg went up after the first 3 games when the Chargers opened up the offense (12.2 ppg in first 3 games; 16.7 fppg the rest of the season). 16.7 fppg in 13 games... those are top 10 PPG numbers.

Using your boom/bust criteria, he had 2 of his 7 busts and no booms within that season opening conservative period... so he had 5 booms, 5 busts, and 4 safe games the rest of the way. Of the 5 busts, 3 were above 10 points, so they were at least close.

 

[BoltBacker]

Hey Pasquino,

Are you sure the data in your blog article is even correct....

http://blog.footballguys.com/

Preseason . Help Hold Hurt

Rank Player (20+) - (12-)

1 Manning,Peyton 2 3 0

2 Palmer,Carson 1 3 0

3 Brady,Tom 5 0 0

4 Brees,Drew 0 1 3

5 Bulger,Marc 2 1 1

6 McNabb,Donovan 1 2 1

7 Kitna,Jon 3 1 1

8 Young,Vince 0 2 2

9 Romo,Tony 4 1 0

10 Roethlisberger,Ben 2 3 0

11 Hasselbeck,Matt 2 2 1

12 Rivers,Philip 2 1 2

What are the two games Bulger "helped" STL win?

I also, not surprisingly, don't agree with your analysis of the data. Rivers is "killing" SD.... by having(at the time of the article) 2-1-2 but McNabb should be ranked higher with a 1-2-1??? I'd be curious what rounds each was being drafted at and which player is actually "killing" his team. Ditto with Marc Bulger.

I guess imo if a guy isn't hurting you but also isn't helping you much and is being drafted much higher then I'd take the "killer" in the middle to low rounds and a WR where Bulger/McNabb were being drafted instead of the opposite.

 

[Tau837]

Hey Pasquino,

Are you sure the data in your blog article is even correct....

http://blog.footballguys.com/

Preseason . Help Hold Hurt

Rank Player (20+) - (12-)

1 Manning,Peyton 2 3 0

2 Palmer,Carson 1 3 0

3 Brady,Tom 5 0 0

4 Brees,Drew 0 1 3

5 Bulger,Marc 2 1 1

6 McNabb,Donovan 1 2 1

7 Kitna,Jon 3 1 1

8 Young,Vince 0 2 2

9 Romo,Tony 4 1 0

10 Roethlisberger,Ben 2 3 0

11 Hasselbeck,Matt 2 2 1

12 Rivers,Philip 2 1 2

What are the two games Bulger "helped" STL win?

I also, not surprisingly, don't agree with your analysis of the data. Rivers is "killing" SD.... by having(at the time of the article) 2-1-2 but McNabb should be ranked higher with a 1-2-1??? I'd be curious what rounds each was being drafted at and which player is actually "killing" his team. Ditto with Marc Bulger.

I guess imo if a guy isn't hurting you but also isn't helping you much and is being drafted much higher then I'd take the "killer" in the middle to low rounds and a WR where Bulger/McNabb were being drafted instead of the opposite.

Yes, Bulger should have been 1-1-2 and added to the list of QBs "killing" their teams. Unfortunately, Rivers went to 2-1-3 this past weekend. It had more to do with Tomlinson's great play than Rivers' poor play, though his interception was a bad play. I remain confident that Rivers will have good numbers and will have been a good fantasy QB and good draft value by the end of the fantasy season.I'd be interested to see Jeff apply this criteria to the 20 QBs he ranked above Rivers in the preseason in addition to the consensus preseason top 12 above.

 

[BoltBacker]

I remain confident that Rivers will have good numbers and will have been a good fantasy QB and good draft value by the end of the fantasy season.

I guess my criticism is more of the entire premise that Rivers is killing his team with 2-1-2 while McNabb is better at 1-2-1 when you compare the draft slot of those guys. McNabb/Bulger were going in the 40's while Rivers was going in the 80's. That's a huge difference.Let's compare the WR's going in the 40's to the WR's going in the 80's;44 Randy Moss42 Donald Driver45 Andre Johnson47 Plaxico Burres85 Jericho Cotchery86 Terry Glenn89 Vincent JacksonI'll admit it's a small sample but if Pasquino is saying you would have been better off with McNabb/80's WR then Rivers/40's WR then I just think he's dead wrong. Sure Johnson is hurt but he was lighting it up before being hurt. And sure Glenn was hurt but that's the reason he was a 80's WR in the first place. My point is there is a definite drop-off between that first group and that second group of WR's...... the real losers in all this are the people that took Brees/Bulger/McNabb too early. Rivers may not be lighting the league up but without taking into consideration what you had to give up to acquire Rivers you aren't really comparing apples to apples.

 

[TwinTurbo]

The problem with Rivers is that his only two "boom" games happened when most owners had him on the bench. Very few owners probably started him at Denver. He wasn't that high in the rankings for the Green Bay game either. Then he lays an egg against easier matchups like KC and Oakland. And the schedule doesn't get much easier for him either after the bye. The Lions matchup in Week 15 looks good but that's about it. Maybe the Colts game ends up being a shootout. But I just don't like his outlook for the rest of the season.

 

[BoltBacker]

The problem with Rivers is that his only two "boom" games happened when most owners had him on the bench. Very few owners probably started him at Denver. He wasn't that high in the rankings for the Green Bay game either. Then he lays an egg against easier matchups like KC and Oakland. And the schedule doesn't get much easier for him either after the bye. The Lions matchup in Week 15 looks good but that's about it. Maybe the Colts game ends up being a shootout. But I just don't like his outlook for the rest of the season.

Well again, I have to ask what you are comparing him to? If he's on the bench during most of his boom games then is he your backup QB? If so, which isn't surprising if he's being drafted several rounds later than the Brees/Bulger/McNabbs of the world, then why are we directly comparing the production of your backup QB vs a starting QB? If he's your starting QB(and I would feel comfortable with him as my QB1) then you're getting his boom games.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Hey Pasquino, Are you sure the data in your blog article is even correct....

Hey Backer,Yes, there is an error. I will fix it.

What are the two games Bulger "helped" STL win?I also, not surprisingly, don't agree with your analysis of the data. Rivers is "killing" SD.... by having(at the time of the article) 2-1-2 but McNabb should be ranked higher with a 1-2-1??? I'd be curious what rounds each was being drafted at and which player is actually "killing" his team. Ditto with Marc Bulger.I guess imo if a guy isn't hurting you but also isn't helping you much and is being drafted much higher then I'd take the "killer" in the middle to low rounds and a WR where Bulger/McNabb were being drafted instead of the opposite.

You're clearly mixing two thoughts here. The "help" vs "hurt" is a FANTASY football designation, not helping or hurting one's own team.Rivers would have had a "hurt" last week against the Raiders when he did next to nothing yet SD won the game. For FANTASY purposes, he would have hurt fantasy owners who had them in their lineups.As for your "who to draft", I personally avoided all of the Top 6 QBs from the preseason rankings in nearly all drafts and grabbed Kitna or Romo or Big Ben in most drafts, so I did exactly as you were mentioning.Only Peyton and Brady seem to have lived up to their Top 6 preseason ranking.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I remain confident that Rivers will have good numbers and will have been a good fantasy QB and good draft value by the end of the fantasy season.

I guess my criticism is more of the entire premise that Rivers is killing his team with 2-1-2 while McNabb is better at 1-2-1 when you compare the draft slot of those guys. McNabb/Bulger were going in the 40's while Rivers was going in the 80's. That's a huge difference.Let's compare the WR's going in the 40's to the WR's going in the 80's;

44 Randy Moss

42 Donald Driver

45 Andre Johnson

47 Plaxico Burres

85 Jericho Cotchery

86 Terry Glenn

89 Vincent Jackson

I'll admit it's a small sample but if Pasquino is saying you would have been better off with McNabb/80's WR then Rivers/40's WR then I just think he's dead wrong. Sure Johnson is hurt but he was lighting it up before being hurt. And sure Glenn was hurt but that's the reason he was a 80's WR in the first place. My point is there is a definite drop-off between that first group and that second group of WR's...... the real losers in all this are the people that took Brees/Bulger/McNabb too early. Rivers may not be lighting the league up but without taking into consideration what you had to give up to acquire Rivers you aren't really comparing apples to apples.

No, not what I am saying at all.I've stated over and over and over that Rivers should not have been drafted in the first 12 QBs at all in any redraft situation this season, whatsoever. I had him rated at #20 or #21 all pre-season.

He was the #8-12 QB off the draft board in many drafts. His ADP put him right about 10th or 11th.

If anything, I'm saying that the 3-6 guys after him on the ADP list were better options and could have been had even cheaper than an overpriced Rivers. (Eli/Favre/Big Ben/Cutler are 13-16).

 

[PahtyTom]

Can we really draw these conclusions after 5 games, specifically two bad ones for Rivers?

na not really

 

[BoltBacker]

If anything, I'm saying that the 3-6 guys after him on the ADP list were better options and could have been had even cheaper than an overpriced Rivers. (Eli/Favre/Big Ben/Cutler are 13-16).

That's fair. Let's explore this further.Here's your list of guy after Rivers ADP that were better options and could have been had even cheaper than Rivers...Leinart -Hasselbeck +Cutler =Favre +Eli +Grossman -Losman -Smith -Schaub +Delhomme +... seems to me it's about a 50/50 crap shoot. People that drafted the Eli's and Favre's agree that Rivers was overpriced and are probably happy they didn't spend the pick on him. Those that drafted Leinart's and Grossman's probably aren't nearly as pleased they avoided the overpriced Rivers.

 

[BoltBacker]

What are the two games Bulger "helped" STL win?I also, not surprisingly, don't agree with your analysis of the data. Rivers is "killing" SD.... by having(at the time of the article) 2-1-2 but McNabb should be ranked higher with a 1-2-1??? I'd be curious what rounds each was being drafted at and which player is actually "killing" his team. Ditto with Marc Bulger.I guess imo if a guy isn't hurting you but also isn't helping you much and is being drafted much higher then I'd take the "killer" in the middle to low rounds and a WR where Bulger/McNabb were being drafted instead of the opposite.

You're clearly mixing two thoughts here. The "help" vs "hurt" is a FANTASY football designation, not helping or hurting one's own team.

Yeah, I was talking about FANTASY football as well. In your blog article you directly compared Rivers performance thus far to the other 11 QB's taken directly ahead of him..... which is why it was unclear to me that you were trying to demonstrate the guys behind him were a better value. In fact you went so far as to say Brees/Young/Rivers were "killing" their teams(I took this to mean FF teams) and have posted here that it doesn't seem accurate to me if you drafted McNabb in the 40's(again..... this is fantasy) and some random WR in the 80's where Rivers was drafted you'd come away with a worse combo than if you drafted some WR in the 40's(fantasy) and Rivers in the 80's. I stand by that.So who is "killing" his FANTASY team? McNabb(1-2-1) drafted in the 40's or Rivers(2-1-2) drafted in the 80's?

 

[Tau837]

I remain confident that Rivers will have good numbers and will have been a good fantasy QB and good draft value by the end of the fantasy season.

I guess my criticism is more of the entire premise that Rivers is killing his team with 2-1-2 while McNabb is better at 1-2-1 when you compare the draft slot of those guys. McNabb/Bulger were going in the 40's while Rivers was going in the 80's. That's a huge difference.Let's compare the WR's going in the 40's to the WR's going in the 80's;

44 Randy Moss

42 Donald Driver

45 Andre Johnson

47 Plaxico Burres

85 Jericho Cotchery

86 Terry Glenn

89 Vincent Jackson

I'll admit it's a small sample but if Pasquino is saying you would have been better off with McNabb/80's WR then Rivers/40's WR then I just think he's dead wrong. Sure Johnson is hurt but he was lighting it up before being hurt. And sure Glenn was hurt but that's the reason he was a 80's WR in the first place. My point is there is a definite drop-off between that first group and that second group of WR's...... the real losers in all this are the people that took Brees/Bulger/McNabb too early. Rivers may not be lighting the league up but without taking into consideration what you had to give up to acquire Rivers you aren't really comparing apples to apples.

No, not what I am saying at all.I've stated over and over and over that Rivers should not have been drafted in the first 12 QBs at all in any redraft situation this season, whatsoever. I had him rated at #20 or #21 all pre-season.

He was the #8-12 QB off the draft board in many drafts. His ADP put him right about 10th or 11th.

If anything, I'm saying that the 3-6 guys after him on the ADP list were better options and could have been had even cheaper than an overpriced Rivers. (Eli/Favre/Big Ben/Cutler are 13-16).

Jeff, this confuses me. I don't remember you saying this... I remember you saying that you'd draft 20 QBs ahead of Rivers. And your success with that so far is quite underwhelming. As much as you are inclined to cite Rives as performing poorly, only a handful of the QBs you ranked ahead of him have turned out to be better picks so far. And I think that is only going to swing in Rivers' favor, ont the other way as you would have had us believe in preseason.

 

[BoltBacker]

I remember you saying that you'd draft 20 QBs ahead of Rivers. And your success with that so far is quite underwhelming. As much as you are inclined to cite Rives as performing poorly, only a handful of the QBs you ranked ahead of him have turned out to be better picks so far.

I'd call it four; Hass/Favre/Eli/Schaub. He ranked Rivers about ten spots lower than his ADP and those are the guys that most people would rather have right now instead of Rivers imo. To be completely honest I actually agreed with him on Favre/Eli. I thought both of those teams would need to lean on their QB's more than SD would need to lean on Rivers this season. I was very skeptical with regard to Schaub though and was still concerned with Hass's health and receivers so I would have taken Rivers over both those guys for sure. Those were nice calls by Pasquino.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Jeff, this confuses me. I don't remember you saying this... I remember you saying that you'd draft 20 QBs ahead of Rivers. And your success with that so far is quite underwhelming. As much as you are inclined to cite Rives as performing poorly, only a handful of the QBs you ranked ahead of him have turned out to be better picks so far. And I think that is only going to swing in Rivers' favor, ont the other way as you would have had us believe in preseason.

Wow, you keep trying with this, don't you?Which way do you want it, based on what he has done, or what you think he will do over the next 8-10 weeks?

The facts are that he has been ranked this way for the past 6 weeks on his performances:

24-21-6-25-1-23.

That's four weeks where I was correct in saying that not only was he not a Top 12 QB, but he wasn't a Top 20 QB.

Even with the rash of injuries in the NFL to date with QBs, I think that is still really good.

I don't believe that any other FBG staff member has been more adamant about Rivers in saying that you should have considered MANY other QBs ahead of him for your preseason draft.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Face it Just Win, Rivers is a Backup FFL QB, he just is. Not cause of talent, but scheme/opportunity.

 

[Koya]

Well, Chambers is a heck of a receiver imo. This team should still run run run, but between teams having to totally focus on the best RB of our generation and a very good target in Chambers, there are no excuses for Rivers at this point.

 

[Tau837]

Jeff, this confuses me. I don't remember you saying this... I remember you saying that you'd draft 20 QBs ahead of Rivers. And your success with that so far is quite underwhelming. As much as you are inclined to cite Rives as performing poorly, only a handful of the QBs you ranked ahead of him have turned out to be better picks so far. And I think that is only going to swing in Rivers' favor, ont the other way as you would have had us believe in preseason.

Wow, you keep trying with this, don't you?Which way do you want it, based on what he has done, or what you think he will do over the next 8-10 weeks?

The facts are that he has been ranked this way for the past 6 weeks on his performances:

24-21-6-25-1-23.

That's four weeks where I was correct in saying that not only was he not a Top 12 QB, but he wasn't a Top 20 QB.

Even with the rash of injuries in the NFL to date with QBs, I think that is still really good.

I don't believe that any other FBG staff member has been more adamant about Rivers in saying that you should have considered MANY other QBs ahead of him for your preseason draft.

My point is less about Rivers himself than the 20 QBs you ranked above him. Obviously it is true that Rivers has had only 2 good weeks so far. But how many of the 20 QBs you ranked above him were better to draft above him? For example, are you happy today if you drafted these QBs above him?Brees

Bulger

Leinart

Young

Cutler

Grossman

Losman

Smith

Delhomme

All of them were higher in your preseason ranking. I mean, are you giving yourself credit for ranking Peyton Manning, Brady, Palmer, and McNabb ahead of him? Weren't those generally considered nobrainers? So just how good was your ranking?

 

[Tau837]

Face it Just Win, Rivers is a Backup FFL QB, he just is. Not cause of talent, but scheme/opportunity.

I disagree. He was a valid fantasy starter last season after Marty took the leash off, and I stand by my opinion that he will prove to be so again when all is said and done this season. If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow, but I'm not ready to concede after 6 games.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Face it Just Win, Rivers is a Backup FFL QB, he just is. Not cause of talent, but scheme/opportunity.

I disagree. He was a valid fantasy starter last season after Marty took the leash off, and I stand by my opinion that he will prove to be so again when all is said and done this season. If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow, but I'm not ready to concede after 6 games.

he's a borderline starter in 12 man leagues. I figure him to finish in the 10 -12 range. Jeffs ranking was off, I'll agree there.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

BreesBulgerLeinartYoungCutlerGrossmanLosmanSmithDelhomme

So taking out the injury factor (which we DON'T attempt to predict in our rankings) just how "bad" is that list?Also consider how "off" was my ranking on any of those given the rest of the FBG staff, exactly?Can you at least admit that I stuck my neck out on Rivers, supported my position repeatedly, and that TO THIS POINT I have been justified?

 

[BoltBacker]

BreesBulgerLeinartYoungCutlerGrossmanLosmanSmithDelhomme

So taking out the injury factor (which we DON'T attempt to predict in our rankings) just how "bad" is that list?Also consider how "off" was my ranking on any of those given the rest of the FBG staff, exactly?Can you at least admit that I stuck my neck out on Rivers, supported my position repeatedly, and that TO THIS POINT I have been justified?

Here's your list of guy after Rivers ADP that were better options and could have been had even cheaper than Rivers...Leinart -Hasselbeck +Cutler =Favre +Eli +Grossman -Losman -Smith -Schaub +Delhomme +Like I already said in a post earlier... it's about 50/50. Those that listened to you and drafted Favre are pretty happy right now. Those that listened to you and drafted Grossman probably aren't.NOTE the +/- is based on the ratio of bad games to good games so injuries have no effect. For instance I'd much rather have Delhomme right now but gave you a "+" for Delhomme because of what he was doing when healthy.

 

[Tau837]

BreesBulgerLeinartYoungCutlerGrossmanLosmanSmithDelhomme

So taking out the injury factor (which we DON'T attempt to predict in our rankings) just how "bad" is that list?Also consider how "off" was my ranking on any of those given the rest of the FBG staff, exactly?Can you at least admit that I stuck my neck out on Rivers, supported my position repeatedly, and that TO THIS POINT I have been justified?

I disagree that injuries should be ignored completely in this discussion. Though I agree that it is too hard to predict injuries to really attempt that, I frequently cited Rivers' durability as a positive in his favor in my postings during the preseason and offseason, since he set an NCAA record for starts in college and has not missed a start in the NFL. As a general rule, I expected a number of QBs to get hurt this year, and I didn't expect Rivers to be one of them.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I disagree that injuries should be ignored completely in this discussion. Though I agree that it is too hard to predict injuries to really attempt that, I frequently cited Rivers' durability as a positive in his favor in my postings during the preseason and offseason, since he set an NCAA record for starts in college and has not missed a start in the NFL. As a general rule, I expected a number of QBs to get hurt this year, and I didn't expect Rivers to be one of them.

I don't disagree that he is durable and is likely to start all 16 games.The point I would make (and why I'm looking at "quality starts") is that even if he puts up 16 games' of fantasy points, that doesn't make him a good option for 16 weeks.To put it another way (which I believe I've done before) - if he averages 10 points a game and finishes the year with 160 FF points, is he really any better than having two QBs that are hurt half the time but each put up 100 in 8 starts?That's another reason I don't like the end of year rankings. Rivers is 2-4 for good fantasy games, and that's what should be most important for fantasy purposes. I could care less if he is durable if he doesn't outscore 20 guys in a given week.

 

[Tau837]

I disagree that injuries should be ignored completely in this discussion. Though I agree that it is too hard to predict injuries to really attempt that, I frequently cited Rivers' durability as a positive in his favor in my postings during the preseason and offseason, since he set an NCAA record for starts in college and has not missed a start in the NFL. As a general rule, I expected a number of QBs to get hurt this year, and I didn't expect Rivers to be one of them.

I don't disagree that he is durable and is likely to start all 16 games.The point I would make (and why I'm looking at "quality starts") is that even if he puts up 16 games' of fantasy points, that doesn't make him a good option for 16 weeks.To put it another way (which I believe I've done before) - if he averages 10 points a game and finishes the year with 160 FF points, is he really any better than having two QBs that are hurt half the time but each put up 100 in 8 starts?That's another reason I don't like the end of year rankings. Rivers is 2-4 for good fantasy games, and that's what should be most important for fantasy purposes. I could care less if he is durable if he doesn't outscore 20 guys in a given week.

I understand that is your point. I don't agree with your approach, as you know, for reasons I have already described a number of times. We'll see how the numbers look at the end of the season.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I disagree that injuries should be ignored completely in this discussion. Though I agree that it is too hard to predict injuries to really attempt that, I frequently cited Rivers' durability as a positive in his favor in my postings during the preseason and offseason, since he set an NCAA record for starts in college and has not missed a start in the NFL. As a general rule, I expected a number of QBs to get hurt this year, and I didn't expect Rivers to be one of them.

I don't disagree that he is durable and is likely to start all 16 games.The point I would make (and why I'm looking at "quality starts") is that even if he puts up 16 games' of fantasy points, that doesn't make him a good option for 16 weeks.To put it another way (which I believe I've done before) - if he averages 10 points a game and finishes the year with 160 FF points, is he really any better than having two QBs that are hurt half the time but each put up 100 in 8 starts?That's another reason I don't like the end of year rankings. Rivers is 2-4 for good fantasy games, and that's what should be most important for fantasy purposes. I could care less if he is durable if he doesn't outscore 20 guys in a given week.

Durability itself presents value. As much as he's underachieved, Rivers is still a valuable commodity either to his owner or someone in need of a QB. Jake Delhomme, not so much.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I disagree that injuries should be ignored completely in this discussion. Though I agree that it is too hard to predict injuries to really attempt that, I frequently cited Rivers' durability as a positive in his favor in my postings during the preseason and offseason, since he set an NCAA record for starts in college and has not missed a start in the NFL. As a general rule, I expected a number of QBs to get hurt this year, and I didn't expect Rivers to be one of them.

I don't disagree that he is durable and is likely to start all 16 games.The point I would make (and why I'm looking at "quality starts") is that even if he puts up 16 games' of fantasy points, that doesn't make him a good option for 16 weeks.To put it another way (which I believe I've done before) - if he averages 10 points a game and finishes the year with 160 FF points, is he really any better than having two QBs that are hurt half the time but each put up 100 in 8 starts?That's another reason I don't like the end of year rankings. Rivers is 2-4 for good fantasy games, and that's what should be most important for fantasy purposes. I could care less if he is durable if he doesn't outscore 20 guys in a given week.

Durability itself presents value. As much as he's underachieved, Rivers is still a valuable commodity either to his owner or someone in need of a QB. Jake Delhomme, not so much.

QB durability is overrated in "start 1 QB" leagues with 12 or fewer teams.You should have 2 viable QBs on your roster after your draft, and if and when one goes down you can always get another - maybe not as good, but you'll have 2 starters. Should you have the misfortune to have two go down, well, there have been numerous waiver wire guys that have outperformed several QBs, not just Rivers.Now if we are talking about Dynasty, Rivers gets a bump (not too much) based on durability alone. He also gets a bump in start 2 QB leagues. However, if you were ever concerned about QB durability, Brett Favre should have been your QB2 pick, hands down.IIRC only half of the league used just one QB last season.

 

[TwinTurbo]

The problem with Rivers is that his only two "boom" games happened when most owners had him on the bench. Very few owners probably started him at Denver. He wasn't that high in the rankings for the Green Bay game either. Then he lays an egg against easier matchups like KC and Oakland. And the schedule doesn't get much easier for him either after the bye. The Lions matchup in Week 15 looks good but that's about it. Maybe the Colts game ends up being a shootout. But I just don't like his outlook for the rest of the season.

Well again, I have to ask what you are comparing him to? If he's on the bench during most of his boom games then is he your backup QB? If so, which isn't surprising if he's being drafted several rounds later than the Brees/Bulger/McNabbs of the world, then why are we directly comparing the production of your backup QB vs a starting QB? If he's your starting QB(and I would feel comfortable with him as my QB1) then you're getting his boom games.

It didn't really matter if you drafted Rivers as a starter or a backup because by the week 5 Denver game, he was relegated to a backup for most owners. And based on his ADP, many owners (me included) drafted him as part of a QBBC. He was a low end #1 QB that you could pair with a decent #2 QB and go based on the matchups. By week 5, I'm sure many owners had turned to their #2 QB or the waiver wire instead of starting him against Denver. That was the only point I was trying to make. Even if he was initially drafted as their #1 QB, I bet the majority of owners benched him vs Denver. They probably did get the Packer game though.

 

[shakeybarn]

Given all the "you can't trust him each week" vs "whomever said he'd rather have Rivers than Garrard"

Rivers... at home vs OAK - 156 / 0 / 1

Nuff' said. He's not a top fantasy option.

Oh, and do the guy who said Garrard was *so* not as good (paraphrasing)

221 / 2 / 0 with 26 rushing...

course I'm guessing your league has some whacky system that has them only a few pts apart.

Garrard - 16.9 19.6 14.9 BYE 15.8 21.6 = 88.8 (106.6... bye adjusted)

Rivers - 4.4 9.5 24.2 2.5 25.2 4.9 = 70.7

Sing-a-long please... one of these... doesn't look like the other (consistency) la ... tra la la.

Give me the guy who scores more over the course of 6 games, as well as more stable consistent points.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I disagree that injuries should be ignored completely in this discussion. Though I agree that it is too hard to predict injuries to really attempt that, I frequently cited Rivers' durability as a positive in his favor in my postings during the preseason and offseason, since he set an NCAA record for starts in college and has not missed a start in the NFL. As a general rule, I expected a number of QBs to get hurt this year, and I didn't expect Rivers to be one of them.

I don't disagree that he is durable and is likely to start all 16 games.The point I would make (and why I'm looking at "quality starts") is that even if he puts up 16 games' of fantasy points, that doesn't make him a good option for 16 weeks.To put it another way (which I believe I've done before) - if he averages 10 points a game and finishes the year with 160 FF points, is he really any better than having two QBs that are hurt half the time but each put up 100 in 8 starts?That's another reason I don't like the end of year rankings. Rivers is 2-4 for good fantasy games, and that's what should be most important for fantasy purposes. I could care less if he is durable if he doesn't outscore 20 guys in a given week.

Durability itself presents value. As much as he's underachieved, Rivers is still a valuable commodity either to his owner or someone in need of a QB. Jake Delhomme, not so much.

QB durability is overrated in "start 1 QB" leagues with 12 or fewer teams.You should have 2 viable QBs on your roster after your draft, and if and when one goes down you can always get another - maybe not as good, but you'll have 2 starters. Should you have the misfortune to have two go down, well, there have been numerous waiver wire guys that have outperformed several QBs, not just Rivers.Now if we are talking about Dynasty, Rivers gets a bump (not too much) based on durability alone. He also gets a bump in start 2 QB leagues. However, if you were ever concerned about QB durability, Brett Favre should have been your QB2 pick, hands down.IIRC only half of the league used just one QB last season.

Not sure I agree. In competitive leagues, all QBs with potential are rostered, both for their value and to block those with QB problems from having WW options. For example, in one of my leagues, I drafted Rivers, Cutler, and Schaub. None have "broken out", as I had hoped, but I am in position to deal 1 of the 3 in a package deal to shore up another team weakness. If I had drafted Delhomme instead of Rivers, I wouldn't be in position to deal. So durability does allow for more options later in the season.If the season ended today, I'd admit that you were more right than wrong on Rivers, even though many of those you rated higher than Rivers have proven to be worse, either via performance or injury. But unfortunately like JWB, I think we've seen Rivers' floor, and think he'll be much, much better the remainder of the season and prove to be a valuable QB1.

 

[PahtyTom]

I have Garrard and Rivers as my QBs in one league, and I feel equally positive about both of them from this point on.

 

[Tau837]

I disagree that injuries should be ignored completely in this discussion. Though I agree that it is too hard to predict injuries to really attempt that, I frequently cited Rivers' durability as a positive in his favor in my postings during the preseason and offseason, since he set an NCAA record for starts in college and has not missed a start in the NFL. As a general rule, I expected a number of QBs to get hurt this year, and I didn't expect Rivers to be one of them.

I don't disagree that he is durable and is likely to start all 16 games.The point I would make (and why I'm looking at "quality starts") is that even if he puts up 16 games' of fantasy points, that doesn't make him a good option for 16 weeks.To put it another way (which I believe I've done before) - if he averages 10 points a game and finishes the year with 160 FF points, is he really any better than having two QBs that are hurt half the time but each put up 100 in 8 starts?That's another reason I don't like the end of year rankings. Rivers is 2-4 for good fantasy games, and that's what should be most important for fantasy purposes. I could care less if he is durable if he doesn't outscore 20 guys in a given week.

Durability itself presents value. As much as he's underachieved, Rivers is still a valuable commodity either to his owner or someone in need of a QB. Jake Delhomme, not so much.

QB durability is overrated in "start 1 QB" leagues with 12 or fewer teams.You should have 2 viable QBs on your roster after your draft, and if and when one goes down you can always get another - maybe not as good, but you'll have 2 starters. Should you have the misfortune to have two go down, well, there have been numerous waiver wire guys that have outperformed several QBs, not just Rivers.Now if we are talking about Dynasty, Rivers gets a bump (not too much) based on durability alone. He also gets a bump in start 2 QB leagues. However, if you were ever concerned about QB durability, Brett Favre should have been your QB2 pick, hands down.IIRC only half of the league used just one QB last season.

Not sure I agree. In competitive leagues, all QBs with potential are rostered, both for their value and to block those with QB problems from having WW options. For example, in one of my leagues, I drafted Rivers, Cutler, and Schaub. None have "broken out", as I had hoped, but I am in position to deal 1 of the 3 in a package deal to shore up another team weakness. If I had drafted Delhomme instead of Rivers, I wouldn't be in position to deal. So durability does allow for more options later in the season.If the season ended today, I'd admit that you were more right than wrong on Rivers, even though many of those you rated higher than Rivers have proven to be worse, either via performance or injury. But unfortunately like JWB, I think we've seen Rivers' floor, and think he'll be much, much better the remainder of the season and prove to be a valuable QB1.