Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Start David Garrard this week (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chase Stuart
- Start date
Fantaholic
Footballguy
Ditto
Beggin4Par
Footballguy
PILING ON is the real problem here.Dodds Preseason Perfect Draft has Garrard as a MUST PICK, the PILE ON continues with Dodds projections for this week, which show Garrard ranked much higher (at #7) than (for example) my backup QB (at #21), Carson Palmer. Then Bloom's 2nd opinion projections show a difference of only 0.2 pts between those 2 QBs. Then Terfetilier shows Garrard as a value play, and also shows Palmer as overvalued. By the time we see Chase's posting Garrard as a must play, we've been hit over the head with FBG Man-Love.So YES, we expect the experts we pay for to be a lot more correct. 100% (no), but how many times has FBG recommended Garrard?There are 5 recommendations above. Garrard now has a TD. I'll be back to apologize to Chase if Garrard can get me one more and 200 yards. Still wish FBG had made Palmer their MUST START this week. Think they should know better.
Das Boot
Footballguy
So which logic that FBGs used to arrive at their conclusions about Garrard for the year and for this week did you disagree with?If you disagreed with it, did you still go with their recommendation? If so
If you agreed with their logic then looks like you were both wrong so far, right?
Das Boot
Footballguy
Garrard is currently outscoring Aaron Rogers and Tom Brady in my league.Hey, Garrard is leading Roethlisberger in my league right now.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Why would you apologize? He completely whiffed.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
3-52-1 to Walker in the 13 game minutes since I posted. Glad he listened to me. LOL.
SleeperPix
Footballguy
Like we were saying....... excellent work Chase 
Beggin4Par
Footballguy
My logic is #'s based. I look at FBG projections and use them. 1 expert projected higher projections for Garrard than Palmer. The other expert projected near equal #'s. Combine them both to arrive at a consensus opinion, along with 4 more FBG expert opinions this week and the # of FBG staffers agreeing on Garrard is greater than the one man sitting here at home of his PC.So which logic that FBGs used to arrive at their conclusions about Garrard for the year and for this week did you disagree with?If you disagreed with it, did you still go with their recommendation? If so
If you agreed with their logic then looks like you were both wrong so far, right?
I also assumed that FBG would get better over the years by adding more staff. Seems that the rest of the FFL community has caught up to FBG, and are beginning to pass them up.
I don't use my own (non-expert) logic to come up with projections and opinions. My opinion , My logic... WAS that FBG knows their ####.
We'll see.
MutantEnemies
Footballguy
Kudos to Dodds for almost nailing Garrad's projected points exactly in my league.
Beggin4Par
Footballguy
AND NOW I APOLOGIZE. Chase you hit this one on the head.That being said, I'll check the WW next week. THIS week is clearly an abberration.My logic is #'s based. I look at FBG projections and use them. 1 expert projected higher projections for Garrard than Palmer. The other expert projected near equal #'s. Combine them both to arrive at a consensus opinion, along with 4 more FBG expert opinions this week and the # of FBG staffers agreeing on Garrard is greater than the one man sitting here at home of his PC.So which logic that FBGs used to arrive at their conclusions about Garrard for the year and for this week did you disagree with?If you disagreed with it, did you still go with their recommendation? If so
If you agreed with their logic then looks like you were both wrong so far, right?
I also assumed that FBG would get better over the years by adding more staff. Seems that the rest of the FFL community has caught up to FBG, and are beginning to pass them up.
I don't use my own (non-expert) logic to come up with projections and opinions. My opinion , My logic... WAS that FBG knows their ####.
We'll see.
great call by Chase and Dodds here!
PizzaDeliveryGuy
extra sausage
I am a genius.
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
top dog
Footballguy
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Das Boot
Footballguy
It always helps to read the logic that goes with their picks, but I fully understand not having the time to do so.So if you just go by the numbers, surely you realize that there's no way they can be right 100% of the time.My logic is #'s based. I look at FBG projections and use them. 1 expert projected higher projections for Garrard than Palmer. The other expert projected near equal #'s. Combine them both to arrive at a consensus opinion, along with 4 more FBG expert opinions this week and the # of FBG staffers agreeing on Garrard is greater than the one man sitting here at home of his PC.So which logic that FBGs used to arrive at their conclusions about Garrard for the year and for this week did you disagree with?If you disagreed with it, did you still go with their recommendation? If so
If you agreed with their logic then looks like you were both wrong so far, right?
I also assumed that FBG would get better over the years by adding more staff. Seems that the rest of the FFL community has caught up to FBG, and are beginning to pass them up.
I don't use my own (non-expert) logic to come up with projections and opinions. My opinion , My logic... WAS that FBG knows their ####.
We'll see.
I'm not defending the Garrard pick, or FBGs for that matter.
Just pointing out how unrealistic it is to get mad at any one pick being wrong.
And now that pick isn't even wrong as it turns out.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
oh stop...The fact is Garrard stinks especially when the game is actually in reach, he got hot in garbage time being down 31-3. That's why I said it's the best thing for those that pimped him that the Jags were down so much. Garrard is amongst the worst 10 starting Qbs in the NFL right now, he'll likely be out of the league within a couple years or relegated to a back up at best. If you took over the Jags, you would not say "Oh we're set at QB"
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Seriously. I don't mind them getting stuff wrong on occasion, but firing up the daisy chain when they back into one is just silly.
Garrard > Brady
humor detection way down I see
JoeTall
Footballguy
ORLY?
Das Boot
Footballguy
I think you missed the joking sarcasm in Rudnicki's post after the sound and fury in this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Of course its humor it has to be, no one could take you seriously in this thread. Just trying to keep it grounded Mr Funnyman
Short Corner
Footballguy
Don't mind me. I am playing against Schaub/AJ combo this week.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Mike Walker >>> Randy Moss
bottom line is that people who started Garrard this week are not going to have much to complain about.Of course its humor it has to be, no one could take you seriously in this thread. Just trying to keep it grounded Mr Funnyman
JoeTall
Footballguy
Indeed he was.
awful drop from Hughes on a 4th down play in the end zone after the defender fell down. Garrard should have had 300+ with 3 TDs.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
...still wish I started Schaub. But I digress.bottom line is that people who started Garrard this week are not going to have much to complain about.Of course its humor it has to be, no one could take you seriously in this thread. Just trying to keep it grounded Mr Funnyman
karmarooster
Footballguy
Schaub 300 yards, 4 TDs, 8 minutes still left.I'm still complaining.bottom line is that people who started Garrard this week are not going to have much to complain about.Of course its humor it has to be, no one could take you seriously in this thread. Just trying to keep it grounded Mr Funnyman
on a positve note...at least you didn't have Tom Brady in your lineup this week.Schaub 300 yards, 4 TDs, 8 minutes still left.I'm still complaining.bottom line is that people who started Garrard this week are not going to have much to complain about.Of course its humor it has to be, no one could take you seriously in this thread. Just trying to keep it grounded Mr Funnyman
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Garrard with 336 yards if you count rushing yards double (282/27) and 2 TDs. Was hoping for more but certainly not a bad performance. Would have been much better to start Schaub, so to anyone who took my advice and benched Schaub. Never would have guessed he would do that to TEN especially after what he (and Ben) did last week.
to anyone who took my advice and benched Schaub. Never would have guessed he would do that to TEN especially after what he (and Ben) did last week.Short Corner
Footballguy
Garrard with 336 yards if you count rushing yards double (282/27) and 2 TDs. Was hoping for more but certainly not a bad performance. Would have been much better to start Schaub, so
I was one of those who benched Schaub for Garrard this week.What really surprised me was how much better the Texans looked this week. At this point, the Jets defense appears to be vastly superior to the Titans'. Lesson learned.Garrard with 336 yards if you count rushing yards double (282/27) and 2 TDs. Was hoping for more but certainly not a bad performance. Would have been much better to start Schaub, so
drcrappants
Footballguy
people seriously sat schaub? jesus.
everydayj
Footballguy
I don't think anybody else thought that Schaub could do that, either. That's why people bought into the Garrard hype so readily. The match-up didn't support a great game like that for Schaub.Garrard with 336 yards if you count rushing yards double (282/27) and 2 TDs. Was hoping for more but certainly not a bad performance. Would have been much better to start Schaub, so
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Haha. Spend all afternoon making excuses why Garrard stunk and then post this. Good one.
excuses? I never said he was a good start this week. No idea where you're coming from in this thread but you don't seem to be reading my posts. My comments during the game today were simply relaying what I saw. I didn't start Garrard anywhere and could not have cared much less how he did this week. Cards D looked pretty good to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
