Start David Garrard this week (1 Viewer)

[Wadsworth]

Why do I feel like this thread is a joke?

I love Chase. He's put out many very interesting articles and quizzes and blog posts (Pro Football Reference) with lots of food for thought. He loves looking back at historical numbers and great players in football history. Some really interesting stuff, many many times.But IMO there's a disconnect here. IMO Chase (as well as lots of other guys) rely too much on looking back at numbers, especially averages, and translating those into predictions. Those are a piece of the puzzle, but more important are the facts and circumstances that led to the past numbers, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the upcoming game we are trying to evaluate, and adjusting accordingly. Especially with a small sample size, you often end up talking yourself into out out of things by looking too much at numbers rather than looking at roles and matchups and team philosophies.

Ditto on having great respect for Chase, but I also don't get the Garrard love. Here is the review of his week 1 game versus the Colts:Some of the blame for Garrard's poor day belongs at the feet of his rookie duo of offensive tackles, and some belongs to the receivers, but some has to be owned by Garrard himself. He didn't seem willing to test defense deep very often when he did have time, settling for short passes. Garrard was harassed a lot early and late in the game, and he also suffered a few key drops by receivers. He did escape a few times against steep odds, including one snap that should have been a safety, but Garrard was settling instead of attacking and playing his typical game manager style.

That's David. He had a magic season in 2007, but the rest of his career he's been the same game manager, checkdown machine. In 2008 way too much was made of the offensive line issues. The Jags lost 2 guards, which is bad but guards are arguably the easiest position to replace in football. David was 7th in attempts, which is not the norm for Jaguar QBs and yet was barely starter worthy as a fantasy QB if at all(Points per game were not that impressive). He is lucky that L. McCown, another quick to checkdown QB, is the only other option in Jacksonville. Because the Jaguars are in the middle of a rebuild with a 31 year old less than impressive QB. Rebuilds and old QBs don't normally go together. I'm just saying, this years late round QB darling might not even last the season as a starter if the Jags had a back up with more potential.

 

[Ghoti]

As somebody who is currently feeling that I may have put too much stock into Dodds' "perfect draft" article this year, I really hope you are right.

 

[gonzobill5]

Is Holt only receiving option worth starting this week? What about the TE? If Garrard is really going to blow up, through whom will he explode?

But yes, if Garrard goes for 320/3, some of these Jags are going to be worth starting.

Q: how many times has garrard thrown for 320 yds in his last 39 starts?A: once

Q: how many times has garrard thrown for 3 TD in his last 39 starts?

A: twice

tall odds there to pull a game like that out of his ###...is arizona really THAT bad?

This sums it up. Those of us that drafted Garrard should have done it for his consistency. He doesn't turn the ball over much and he contributes a few extra points on the ground. But just the same, he probably isn't going to throw for 3 TDs or 300 yards, even against a bad pass defense. Whoever said 250 total yards and 2 TDs had it about right IMO. And after all, aren't those QB1 numbers? I'm starting him over Palmer in one league and over Orton in the other, no brainers.

I don't believe there's such a thing as QB consistency, at least in a predictive sense. You can predict a QB's average production, but you can't predict a QB's consistency. Over the course of a season or several seasons, individual QBs will have consistent or inconsistent results; but that does not mean that going forward, those QBs will maintain their consistency.The short of it is, Garrard's a good QB and a good fantasy QB. He'll have some really great weeks and some clunkers. Home against Arizona should be a great week. I say he'll be in the top five among QBs this week.

Of course you can predict a QB's consistency, and I don't see why you can't do it just as accurately as you can predict their production. There are a ton of variables that go into whether a QB is consistent - things like injuries, strength of opposing defenses, offensive line play, reliance on one receiver, completion %, presence of an extremely strong defense or running game, offensive philosophy, presence of a pass catching running back, and so on. Notice that Garrard looks favorable in a lot of these categories.

Most of these are worthless, or at least, difficult to quantify - which is probably what you were getting at. But difficult doesn't mean impossible. I'm currently compiling data trying to find out if quarterbacks who spread the ball around more tend to be more reliable. Results are encouraging but not mind-blowing - which is to be expected when you look at one out of twenty variables in isolation.

You say "he'll have some really great weeks and he'll have some clunkers" which ignores the facts - he just hasn't had many, if any, really great weeks in his entire career so far.

 

[GoBirds]

Is Holt only receiving option worth starting this week? What about the TE? If Garrard is really going to blow up, through whom will he explode?

But yes, if Garrard goes for 320/3, some of these Jags are going to be worth starting.

Q: how many times has garrard thrown for 320 yds in his last 39 starts?A: once

Q: how many times has garrard thrown for 3 TD in his last 39 starts?

A: twice

tall odds there to pull a game like that out of his ###...is arizona really THAT bad?

This sums it up. Those of us that drafted Garrard should have done it for his consistency. He doesn't turn the ball over much and he contributes a few extra points on the ground. But just the same, he probably isn't going to throw for 3 TDs or 300 yards, even against a bad pass defense. Whoever said 250 total yards and 2 TDs had it about right IMO. And after all, aren't those QB1 numbers? I'm starting him over Palmer in one league and over Orton in the other, no brainers.

I don't believe there's such a thing as QB consistency, at least in a predictive sense. You can predict a QB's average production, but you can't predict a QB's consistency. Over the course of a season or several seasons, individual QBs will have consistent or inconsistent results; but that does not mean that going forward, those QBs will maintain their consistency.The short of it is, Garrard's a good QB and a good fantasy QB. He'll have some really great weeks and some clunkers. Home against Arizona should be a great week. I say he'll be in the top five among QBs this week.

God I hope you're right.

 

[tomarken]

As somebody who is currently feeling that I may have put too much stock into Dodds' "perfect draft" article this year, I really hope you are right.

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.Chase touted the strength of Arizona's secondary and picked them in his DBC article and is now saying a middle of the pack QB is a top 5 start this week because he's playing against Arizona.What exactly am I paying for here?(Other than the subscriber contest, which is awesome.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of course you can predict a QB's consistency, and I don't see why you can't do it just as accurately as you can predict their production.

No, I don't think you can.I've studied the issue a lot. Doug Drinen and Maurile Tremblay have studied the issue a lot. No one has ever shown that "consistency" is a trait that players actually have. Perhaps you can found the hidden key as to how to predict which QBs will be consistent and which ones won't be consistent; if so, I'd like to see your results.Until then, if I project two guys with the same average FP/G, I will expect each of them to have the same number of boom and bust games.

 

[PewterFan]

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said the QB's were being drafted much earlier than expected, thus he had to readjust his strategy.

 

[Philo]

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said the QB's were being drafted much earlier than expected, thus he had to readjust his strategy.

Who was being drafted ahead of Brady and Brees?

 

[Philo]

As somebody who is currently feeling that I may have put too much stock into Dodds' "perfect draft" article this year, I really hope you are right.

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.Chase touted the strength of Arizona's secondary and picked them in his DBC article and is now saying a middle of the pack QB is a top 5 start this week because he's playing against Arizona.What exactly am I paying for here?

Well, one of the opinions is bound to be right, so...

 

[None_More_Black]

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said the QB's were being drafted much earlier than expected, thus he had to readjust his strategy.

I think it was the opposite. He felt that they dropped and that "at some point you have to pick these guys". I don't know when he got the qbs so I can't really comment on whether or not he made a significant deviation from his article.

 

[gonzobill5]

Of course you can predict a QB's consistency, and I don't see why you can't do it just as accurately as you can predict their production.

No, I don't think you can.I've studied the issue a lot. Doug Drinen and Maurile Tremblay have studied the issue a lot. No one has ever shown that "consistency" is a trait that players actually have. Perhaps you can found the hidden key as to how to predict which QBs will be consistent and which ones won't be consistent; if so, I'd like to see your results.Until then, if I project two guys with the same average FP/G, I will expect each of them to have the same number of boom and bust games.

It's obvious - each player is a random variable and every random variable possesses variance. Saying it can't be done is pretty foolish, and analogous to saying we can't predict production - which is precisely what you did at the start of this thread. I don't have the free time to study it to its fullest extent, but I do like to tinker. If you are truly interested in how the # of receivers analysis turns out I'll gladly pass it on.

 

[thehornet]

This is hilarious. If anyone other than Chase said to start Garrard and that he would be a top 5 option this week, then that person would get FLAMED. Bunch of followers around here.....Im out.

 

[bostonfred]

This is hilarious. If anyone other than Chase said to start Garrard and that he would be a top 5 option this week, then that person would get FLAMED. Bunch of followers around here.....Im out.

You read this thread and thought that everyone was agreeing with Chase?

 

[SuperGreen]

This is hilarious. If anyone other than Chase said to start Garrard and that he would be a top 5 option this week, then that person would get FLAMED. Bunch of followers around here.....Im out.

pretty much everyone but the people FORCED to start garrard are disagreeing here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of course you can predict a QB's consistency, and I don't see why you can't do it just as accurately as you can predict their production.

No, I don't think you can.I've studied the issue a lot. Doug Drinen and Maurile Tremblay have studied the issue a lot. No one has ever shown that "consistency" is a trait that players actually have. Perhaps you can found the hidden key as to how to predict which QBs will be consistent and which ones won't be consistent; if so, I'd like to see your results.Until then, if I project two guys with the same average FP/G, I will expect each of them to have the same number of boom and bust games.

It's obvious - each player is a random variable and every random variable possesses variance. Saying it can't be done is pretty foolish, and analogous to saying we can't predict production - which is precisely what you did at the start of this thread. I don't have the free time to study it to its fullest extent, but I do like to tinker. If you are truly interested in how the # of receivers analysis turns out I'll gladly pass it on.

This has been studied many times over here at FBG. I'm truly interested in seeing anything to shed new light on this; until then, I'll believe that you can't predict consistency.

 

[brindrod]

Not drinking the Garard Kool-aid for now.

Gunning for Flacco on the WW.

 

[thehornet]

This is hilarious. If anyone other than Chase said to start Garrard and that he would be a top 5 option this week, then that person would get FLAMED. Bunch of followers around here.....Im out.

You read this thread and thought that everyone was agreeing with Chase?

No you're right, but i was directing it at the people saying they are gonna try it.

 

[Captain Hook]

Why do I feel like this thread is a joke?

The thread is not a joke. Strongly advise starting Garrard this week.

Well Chase if YOU are starting him on your NFFC team, THEN people can have confidence starting him......

 

[gonzobill5]

Of course you can predict a QB's consistency, and I don't see why you can't do it just as accurately as you can predict their production.

No, I don't think you can.I've studied the issue a lot. Doug Drinen and Maurile Tremblay have studied the issue a lot. No one has ever shown that "consistency" is a trait that players actually have. Perhaps you can found the hidden key as to how to predict which QBs will be consistent and which ones won't be consistent; if so, I'd like to see your results.Until then, if I project two guys with the same average FP/G, I will expect each of them to have the same number of boom and bust games.

It's obvious - each player is a random variable and every random variable possesses variance. Saying it can't be done is pretty foolish, and analogous to saying we can't predict production - which is precisely what you did at the start of this thread. I don't have the free time to study it to its fullest extent, but I do like to tinker. If you are truly interested in how the # of receivers analysis turns out I'll gladly pass it on.

This has been studied many times over here at FBG. I'm truly interested in seeing anything to shed new light on this; until then, I'll believe that you can't predict consistency.

Am I right to assume that you think Waldman's crank scores are worthless?

 

[Stryker]

I'm on board - Schaub to the bench this week

I am in the same boat as you. Except I have the option of Schaub who faces a Titans defense that he did okay against last year, but also a team that gave up 363 yards through the air to Big Ben?? Or Kyle Orton against the Browns? Of these 3, I think Schaub is the most likely to bounce back, but...

 

[TwinTurbo]

Garrard will be this week's Joe Flacco. Start him if you got him.

 

[Buffaloes]

Garrard will be this week's Joe Flacco. Start him if you got him.

Do you just mean he will have a good game or is there some other connection I'm missing here?

 

[PewterFan]

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said the QB's were being drafted much earlier than expected, thus he had to readjust his strategy.

Who was being drafted ahead of Brady and Brees?

Good point. NMB in Post #60 is probably right then. QB's were dropping further than expected.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

tough to pass on Brady and Brees in the 4th round. There were some drafts where Brady went in the 1st (1.12) or 2nd.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Of course you can predict a QB's consistency, and I don't see why you can't do it just as accurately as you can predict their production.

No, I don't think you can.I've studied the issue a lot. Doug Drinen and Maurile Tremblay have studied the issue a lot. No one has ever shown that "consistency" is a trait that players actually have. Perhaps you can found the hidden key as to how to predict which QBs will be consistent and which ones won't be consistent; if so, I'd like to see your results.Until then, if I project two guys with the same average FP/G, I will expect each of them to have the same number of boom and bust games.

It's obvious - each player is a random variable and every random variable possesses variance. Saying it can't be done is pretty foolish, and analogous to saying we can't predict production - which is precisely what you did at the start of this thread. I don't have the free time to study it to its fullest extent, but I do like to tinker. If you are truly interested in how the # of receivers analysis turns out I'll gladly pass it on.

This has been studied many times over here at FBG. I'm truly interested in seeing anything to shed new light on this; until then, I'll believe that you can't predict consistency.

Have you studied how often, over here at FBG, staff members have strategy articles and money drafts that completely contradict each other?

 

[wudaben]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back.

He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

 

[dickey moe]

As a McNabb owner I endorse this message.

As a McNabb owner, Garrard is currently my only hope.

 

[Wadsworth]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

 

[wudaben]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

At the end of 2006 he showed that promise. Last year was just a train wreck for the whole team (not just the O Line) considering the expectations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Jax comes out of nowhere in that division this year given the overall improvement!

 

[ttea]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

And I think that season is fresh in all the Garrard lovers minds. Whether he can reclaim (I don't think he can) that remains to be seen.But he still doesn't throw interceptions which can really hurt your team (see Jake Delhomme), and he can score you points on foot, he's the ultimate bye week, spot start, back up QB in my opinion.

 

[John Mamula]

Lots of people doubted that Garrard could be a legitimate QB1 this season, and he didn't exactly put those doubts to rest with his week one performance. I urge you, if you drafted him as part of your committee, to put him in your lineup this week. Why?

He's playing Arizona, who allowed a league-leading 22.5 FP/G to opposing QBs in 2008.

He's playing Arizona at home, who allowed 24.0 FP/G in road games to opposing QBs in '08. To opposing QBs outside of the NFC West, in five games, the Cardinals allowed 31.3 FP/G last year.

He's playing Arizona at home, at 1 P.M. His rookie tackles will look much better playing against the Cardinals than the Colts. Holt looks good, and MJD looks great. I expect, at a minimum, 200/2 by Garrard. Upside? QB1 for the week.

I'm getting as many of my Jaguars into my lineup as I can. I'm even thinking about playing Troy Williamson, although I'll probably go with someone safer like Mark Clayton. I know a lot of people doubt Garrard, but I'm willing to bank on him having a huge game this week. So, please, start him if you got him.

This thread is going to end badly for you.

 

[None_More_Black]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

And I think that season is fresh in all the Garrard lovers minds. Whether he can reclaim (I don't think he can) that remains to be seen.But he still doesn't throw interceptions which can really hurt your team (see Jake Delhomme), and he can score you points on foot, he's the ultimate bye week, spot start, back up QB in my opinion.

He had 13 picks last year vs 15 tds. His longest completion last year was 41 yards. Not a fantasy goldmine.

 

[John Mamula]

The Cards have allowed just 209 yards passing and only one passing TD this year.

Quiet you.

 

[John Mamula]

Why do I feel like this thread is a joke?

The thread is not a joke. Strongly advise starting Garrard this week.

Seriously, you might as well be Joe T right now.Just change advise to advice and you're golden.

 

[Philo]

This thread is going to end badly for you.

 

[ttea]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

And I think that season is fresh in all the Garrard lovers minds. Whether he can reclaim (I don't think he can) that remains to be seen.But he still doesn't throw interceptions which can really hurt your team (see Jake Delhomme), and he can score you points on foot, he's the ultimate bye week, spot start, back up QB in my opinion.

He had 13 picks last year vs 15 tds. His longest completion last year was 41 yards. Not a fantasy goldmine.

Along with 400 yards rushing (4.4 avg) and 2 TDs. Like I said I'll take it for a back up QB on my team. Rather then living with the Delhommes, Orton and Penningtons.I haven't read the perfect draft article, but I pretty much get the gist of it. And I guess it pretty much states what I've stated to a larger degree.If you draft Garrard late, you'll have a QB that won't you hurt, so it will enable you to better players at other positions, or am I off on this?I subscribe to that theory to a degree, since I don't think he'll come close to touching 2007. But Garrard of last year is not as awful as some are making it.

 

[Wadsworth]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back.

He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

At the end of 2006 he showed that promise. Last year was just a train wreck for the whole team (not just the O Line) considering the expectations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Jax comes out of nowhere in that division this year given the overall improvement!

Garrard was replaced in the last game of the 2006 season for poor play. His poor play down the stretch likely cost the Jags a trip to the play offs that season. The last half of that season he had 7 TDs and 9 INTs and no games over 250 yards. So I'll respectfully disagree that he showed promise at the end of the 2006 season.

 

[wudaben]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

And I think that season is fresh in all the Garrard lovers minds. Whether he can reclaim (I don't think he can) that remains to be seen.But he still doesn't throw interceptions which can really hurt your team (see Jake Delhomme), and he can score you points on foot, he's the ultimate bye week, spot start, back up QB in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong... Garrard isn't my #1QB but I fully believe the QBBC article has it's merit and if/when Schaub dies I'll gladly plug Garrard in there. To use a fantasy baseball analogy.... Garrard is the Ted Lilly of QBs, he's not flashy but you can get him for a buck at the end of the draft and he consistently produces decent numbers.

 

[wudaben]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back.

He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

At the end of 2006 he showed that promise. Last year was just a train wreck for the whole team (not just the O Line) considering the expectations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Jax comes out of nowhere in that division this year given the overall improvement!

Garrard was replaced in the last game of the 2006 season for poor play. His poor play down the stretch likely cost the Jags a trip to the play offs that season. The last half of that season he had 7 TDs and 9 INTs and no games over 250 yards. So I'll respectfully disagree that he showed promise at the end of the 2006 season.

You're probably right... was it the 2005 season that he took over for Lefty and they finished the season fairly well but ran into the Patriots in the playoffs?

 

[ttea]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

And I think that season is fresh in all the Garrard lovers minds. Whether he can reclaim (I don't think he can) that remains to be seen.But he still doesn't throw interceptions which can really hurt your team (see Jake Delhomme), and he can score you points on foot, he's the ultimate bye week, spot start, back up QB in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong... Garrard isn't my #1QB but I fully believe the QBBC article has it's merit and if/when Schaub dies I'll gladly plug Garrard in there. To use a fantasy baseball analogy.... Garrard is the Ted Lilly of QBs, he's not flashy but you can get him for a buck at the end of the draft and he consistently produces decent numbers.

Completely agree.He was awful last year, but that line was god awful, so were the receivers.He was great in 2007, so I believe he's somewhere in the middle.Edit: Typing that, makes me realize how awesome MJD is. So pissed when I lost him one pick before my slot.

 

[footballnerd]

As somebody who is currently feeling that I may have put too much stock into Dodds' "perfect draft" article this year, I really hope you are right.

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.Chase touted the strength of Arizona's secondary and picked them in his DBC article and is now saying a middle of the pack QB is a top 5 start this week because he's playing against Arizona.What exactly am I paying for here?The perfect draft strategy works really well but when you're getting great value on Brady Brees and Rodgers in a draft (taking them below their ADP) you don't pass them up.(Other than the subscriber contest, which is awesome.)

The perfect draft strategy works really well but when you're getting great value on Brady Brees and Rodgers in a draft (taking them below their ADP) you don't pass them up.

 

[Wadsworth]

You're probably right... was it the 2005 season that he took over for Lefty and they finished the season fairly well but ran into the Patriots in the playoffs?

In 2005 against the amazingly cupcake schedule of the Cards, Browns, Colts, 49ers, Texans and Titan(pretty bad that season), David had 4 TDs and 1 INT in 6 games. As is his style, he didn't do much to hurt the Jags, but other than the Browns game he also did not do much to help them. Again, this is David's 8th season, he is 31 years old and other than 2007 you really can't point to any stretch of games that make the 2007 season look like anything more than a lucky season were the Jags had an amazingly productive rushing attack.

 

[kutta]

Of course you can predict a QB's consistency, and I don't see why you can't do it just as accurately as you can predict their production.

No, I don't think you can.I've studied the issue a lot. Doug Drinen and Maurile Tremblay have studied the issue a lot. No one has ever shown that "consistency" is a trait that players actually have. Perhaps you can found the hidden key as to how to predict which QBs will be consistent and which ones won't be consistent; if so, I'd like to see your results.Until then, if I project two guys with the same average FP/G, I will expect each of them to have the same number of boom and bust games.

I'm not sure how that shows that you can't predict consistency. Example with made up numbers:Brady - avg 25 FPG - number of booms 5, number of busts 2Brees - avg 26 FPG - number of booms 5, number of busts 3Flacco - avg 20 FPG - number of booms 3, number of busts 10Garrard - avg 19 FPG - number of booms 2, number of busts 12Wouldn't you say that Brady and Brees are more consistent than Flacco and Garrard?Why do you have to compare two guys with the same FP/G in order to determine consistency? Why can't you compare Brady and Quinn?

 

[None_More_Black]

All I can say is that in 2007 I had Peyton & Garrard as my qb's and toward the end of the season I lost all my running backs to injury but was still in first place with only one loss in the season and during that season I realized how amazingly consistent Garrard could be... never less than 10 and never more than about 20, almost always in the 14-16 point range and I needed to make a move by our week 10 trade deadline to secure a running back and Peyton was my most valuable commodity so I dealt him for a couple running backs and ended up going 14-2 in a pretty tough league and losing in the title game because I lost another running back. He's not flashy at all but the consistency is why they have him listed as such a good play

2007 was really an amazing fantasy season for Garrard. If you go back and look, he never had a single week(other than injury) that his production was going to seriously hurt you, and he had some pretty good weeks as well. The problem is that no where in the rest of his career is there anything that supports 2007 as being anything other than a lucky run of games.

And I think that season is fresh in all the Garrard lovers minds. Whether he can reclaim (I don't think he can) that remains to be seen.But he still doesn't throw interceptions which can really hurt your team (see Jake Delhomme), and he can score you points on foot, he's the ultimate bye week, spot start, back up QB in my opinion.

He had 13 picks last year vs 15 tds. His longest completion last year was 41 yards. Not a fantasy goldmine.

Along with 400 yards rushing (4.4 avg) and 2 TDs. Like I said I'll take it for a back up QB on my team. Rather then living with the Delhommes, Orton and Penningtons.I haven't read the perfect draft article, but I pretty much get the gist of it. And I guess it pretty much states what I've stated to a larger degree.If you draft Garrard late, you'll have a QB that won't you hurt, so it will enable you to better players at other positions, or am I off on this?I subscribe to that theory to a degree, since I don't think he'll come close to touching 2007. But Garrard of last year is not as awful as some are making it.

Chad Pennington had a better 2008 then Garrard and I would much rather have him this year.

 

[ttea]

He did, playing a very weak sched.

But I think you get the gist of what I was saying, even if you exclude him.

 

[None_More_Black]

He did, playing a very weak sched. But I think you get the gist of what I was saying, even if you exclude him.

I do, not trying to give you a hard time. I just think you can find guys like Garrard on the waiver wire every year and he has almost no upside. Nothing to base a draft around.

 

[JHuber77]

The Cards have allowed just 209 yards passing and only one passing TD in game 1.

your kidding right? They played SF in game 1. Not exactly a offensive juggernaut.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Chase, I actually have to decide between Warner and Garrard as well as Holt or Boldin this week. Would you actually advise starting the two Jags over the two Cards?

 

[conboy]

I had Garrard as a back-up to McNabb and felt great after the draft. This week, I cut Garrard and picked up Sanchez and will be rolling with the kid this week.

 

[analog_hiss]