The FBG's Love Affair with Garrard (1 Viewer)

[Rovers]

Garrard has yet to throw a TD on the road. I damned near started him this week with the continuous lofty projections here, and elsewhere. Enough already.

I'm sorry I even drafted this QB, but rankings were so lofty... Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB. Oh, and he had better be playing at home when you use him for a bye.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

If you take away a guy's clear number 1 WR don't ya think it just might affect him a tad bit adversely? Wasn't Garrard the top scoring QB just last week?

 

[caglassc]

Ignored it this year as well - glad I did. In a keep 3 league though so in a way it doesn't always apply.....but I am glad I did not wait on a QB.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Garrard has yet to throw a TD on the road. I damned near started him this week with the continuous lofty projections here, and elsewhere. Enough already.

I'm sorry I even drafted this QB, but rankings were so lofty... Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB. Oh, and he had better be playing at home when you use him for a bye.

I'm guessing the bolded may be a fib.

 

[Your Mom]

Garrard has been pretty good week 2,3,4. Week 1 was a tough matchup and no #1 Wr this week. Garrard is better than a bye week filler.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Where were they ranking him?He's a solid fantasy backup QB.

Whole new WR corp downgraded him for me going into the year. In time, they could gel together. By that time, Garrard may not be there anymore.

 

[Rovers]

Garrard has yet to throw a TD on the road. I damned near started him this week with the continuous lofty projections here, and elsewhere. Enough already.

I'm sorry I even drafted this QB, but rankings were so lofty... Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB. Oh, and he had better be playing at home when you use him for a bye.

I'm guessing the bolded may be a fib.

Nope.... started Ryan which went against alot of projections this week. What I am annoyed about is drafting him at all. Maybe someone missed this tidbit:Garrard is yet to throw a TD pass on the ROAD!

 

[meanjoegreen]

Garrard has yet to throw a TD on the road. I damned near started him this week with the continuous lofty projections here, and elsewhere. Enough already.

I'm sorry I even drafted this QB, but rankings were so lofty... Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB. Oh, and he had better be playing at home when you use him for a bye.

I'm guessing the bolded may be a fib.

Nope.... started Ryan which went against alot of projections this week. What I am annoyed about is drafting him at all. Maybe someone missed this tidbit:Garrard is yet to throw a TD pass on the ROAD!

Unless you start two QB's, Garrard did great last week which was when Ryan was on a bye. You must have liked that. Now that Ryan has had his bye you don't need Garrard. What's the big drama? Are you this much of a drama queen over everything?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Are you this much of a drama queen over everything?

It's either that or he's lying about not having started Garrard this week.

 

[Gordon09]

I can't believe how many people get so worked up over this guy.. What exactly were you expecting out of him?

Coming into this week he was QB8 in my 4 pt Pass TD league, and QB11 in my 6 pt Pass TD league. I'm sure he'll drop a few slots in both this week, but he's still been decent enough.

He's much more than a bye week filler. He's very good to use in a QBBC, which is what FBG suggested. So far he's performed very well in 3 of 5 weeks. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[NeverEnough]

Nevermind Garrard, where was MJD?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Coming into this week Garrard was ranked 9th at QB in both total points and avg/week in my league which has pretty standard scoring. That makes him a bargain for where he was drafted. And I think you have to give him a pass for this week when his main weapon was taken away an hour before the game.

This is yet another in a series of dumb threads started in the past hour on this forum.

 

[Rovers]

Garrard has yet to throw a TD on the road. I damned near started him this week with the continuous lofty projections here, and elsewhere. Enough already.

I'm sorry I even drafted this QB, but rankings were so lofty... Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB. Oh, and he had better be playing at home when you use him for a bye.

I'm guessing the bolded may be a fib.

Nope.... started Ryan which went against alot of projections this week. What I am annoyed about is drafting him at all. Maybe someone missed this tidbit:Garrard is yet to throw a TD pass on the ROAD!

Unless you start two QB's, Garrard did great last week which was when Ryan was on a bye. You must have liked that. Now that Ryan has had his bye you don't need Garrard. What's the big drama? Are you this much of a drama queen over everything?

Drama queen? LOL... no but I do look good in a dress. My point is a simple one. Garrard is a complete bust on the road. Yet, his weekly projections never reflect that FACT. Are you like a film critic? I take it I got a ?

My post was based on FF. You decide to turn it into something of a personal commentary? Geeze, that really ruined my day. I raise my kilt from my hinds in your direction!

 

[Black]

If you take away a guy's clear number 1 WR don't ya think it just might affect him a tad bit adversely? Wasn't Garrard the top scoring QB just last week?

C'mon, that is a severe understatement. How did they do SO bad?

 

[ImTheScientist]

My general rule of thumb. Ignore projection sites during the entire offseason. They all fall in love with guys with out seeing them play a snap. Wait for preseason, watch things with your own eyes and at all costs avoid magazines and web projections.

 

[Tau837]

Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best.

Yeah... unless you had to use him to cover a bye this week. Brutal performance today as my (Cutler) bye week filler.

 

[Rovers]

Actually... Garrard has been very good at home, and putrid on the road, more so than any QB I can ever recall. It does not seem to be much related to the opposing team either. It looks like a pure home and away thing. Next home game, he'll probably have a good week. That is the trend based on the small so called sample size, for the number crunchers.

 

[drm1125]

Actually... Garrard has been very good at home, and putrid on the road, more so than any QB I can ever recall. It does not seem to be much related to the opposing team either. It looks like a pure home and away thing. Next home game, he'll probably have a good week. That is the trend based on the small so called sample size, for the number crunchers.

I would agree with this if it wasn't for Sims-Walker being out. I wonder how much that had to do with it?

 

[loose circuits]

Garrard is still a top 10 QB on the season. Did you post the same thing on the Tom Brady & Drew Brees supporters web-sites the last few weeks?

 

[duaneok66]

Garrard is still a top 10 QB on the season. Did you post the same thing on the Tom Brady & Drew Brees supporters web-sites the last few weeks?

those quaarterbacks' teams actually scored points . . .

 

[FantasyTrader]

Garrard is still a top 10 QB on the season. Did you post the same thing on the Tom Brady & Drew Brees supporters web-sites the last few weeks?

those quaarterbacks' teams actually scored points . . .

How did that help Brady/Brees owners?

 

[loose circuits]

Garrard is still a top 10 QB on the season. Did you post the same thing on the Tom Brady & Drew Brees supporters web-sites the last few weeks?

those quaarterbacks' teams actually scored points . . .

did they have their WR1's?I think the idea behind drafting Garrard was that you are gonna get a safe QB10-12 at a value. Not much upside (surprised by past few weeks), but you should be able to fill the rest of your team with solid players by cashing in on the value. This week would have been one of the weeks the strong team you built (while waiting on QB) would have had to carry you.I didn't even read the article, but I like the ideology and waited on QB's in one league (following the same lines). Got Hasselbeck, Big Ben, and Flacco all at great value late. Problem I'm having is deciding which players to start (AP, Lynch, FJax, McGahee, Rice) with Marshall, Wayne, Jennings, & Colston. Those 3 QB's slid, so I grabbed them at great value and was able to build a team around them. The strategy worked for me even if it wasn't quite the same

 

[Gordon09]

Actually... Garrard has been very good at home, and putrid on the road, more so than any QB I can ever recall. It does not seem to be much related to the opposing team either. It looks like a pure home and away thing. Next home game, he'll probably have a good week. That is the trend based on the small so called sample size, for the number crunchers.

That's because the sample size is too small. At this point, it's a coincidence, definitely not a trend.2008

Home - 172/283 (60.8%), 1903 yds, 8 TD, 5 INT, 82.8 QB Rate

Away - 163/252 (64.7%), 1717 yds, 7 TD, 8 INT, 80.4 QBR

2007

Home - 133/216 (61.8%), 1683 yds, 11 TD, 1 INT, 100.9 QBR

Away - 75/109 (68.8%), 826 yds, 7 TD, 2 INT, 104.8 QBR

2006

Home - 71/125 (56.8%), 914 yds, 4 TD, 5 INT, 73.9 QBR

Away - 74/116 (63.8%), 821 yds, 6 TD, 4 INT, 87.6 QBR

For fantasy purposes, he's a spot starter. Start him when he has the best match up of all your QBs. Sure Seattle looked juicy, but in hindsight, traveling 3000+ miles across country and then having to play without your #1 WR could make things tough. I'll be starting him with confidence in 3 weeks when he travels to Tennessee though, I know that.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Garrard is still a top 10 QB on the season. Did you post the same thing on the Tom Brady & Drew Brees supporters web-sites the last few weeks?

those quaarterbacks' teams actually scored points . . .

did they have their WR1's?I think the idea behind drafting Garrard was that you are gonna get a safe QB10-12 at a value. Not much upside (surprised by past few weeks), but you should be able to fill the rest of your team with solid players by cashing in on the value. This week would have been one of the weeks the strong team you built (while waiting on QB) would have had to carry you.I didn't even read the article, but I like the ideology and waited on QB's in one league (following the same lines). Got Hasselbeck, Big Ben, and Flacco all at great value late. Problem I'm having is deciding which players to start (AP, Lynch, FJax, McGahee, Rice) with Marshall, Wayne, Jennings, & Colston. Those 3 QB's slid, so I grabbed them at great value and was able to build a team around them. The strategy worked for me even if it wasn't quite the same

Very lucid, quality post. You can't just say Garrard is stinking the place up on the road, therefore FBG's recommendation of him was off. You need to factor in the value you gained at RB/WR by waiting for Garrard + one or two other mid/late teen QB's at other positions.

 

[Rovers]

Actually... Garrard has been very good at home, and putrid on the road, more so than any QB I can ever recall. It does not seem to be much related to the opposing team either. It looks like a pure home and away thing. Next home game, he'll probably have a good week. That is the trend based on the small so called sample size, for the number crunchers.

That's because the sample size is too small. At this point, it's a coincidence, definitely not a trend.2008

Home - 172/283 (60.8%), 1903 yds, 8 TD, 5 INT, 82.8 QB Rate

Away - 163/252 (64.7%), 1717 yds, 7 TD, 8 INT, 80.4 QBR

2007

Home - 133/216 (61.8%), 1683 yds, 11 TD, 1 INT, 100.9 QBR

Away - 75/109 (68.8%), 826 yds, 7 TD, 2 INT, 104.8 QBR

2006

Home - 71/125 (56.8%), 914 yds, 4 TD, 5 INT, 73.9 QBR

Away - 74/116 (63.8%), 821 yds, 6 TD, 4 INT, 87.6 QBR

For fantasy purposes, he's a spot starter. Start him when he has the best match up of all your QBs. Sure Seattle looked juicy, but in hindsight, traveling 3000+ miles across country and then having to play without your #1 WR could make things tough. I'll be starting him with confidence in 3 weeks when he travels to Tennessee though, I know that.

Frankly, it is just this that I find the biggest fault with FBG rankings. They (and other sites) simply rely too much on numbers, sample sizes, trend calculations, etc. They often over look travel factors, how well (or badly) a particular player does on the road, and other factors. Garrard's rookie reciever who broke out this year had little to do with preseason ranknings, and if Garrard's value is based soley upon a rookie WR, that is also faulted weekly ranking strategy, isn't it? Seattle is very rough on visiting QB's, even when the D has been vulnerable, yet, given that fact, combined with Garrard's road record.... comprare that to Matt Ryan's intangables... coming off a loss to NE, sitting on that through a bye week, but up against the ballyhooed SF D.... the number crunchers all said Garrard was the better start.

I almost bought into that whole numbers based thought process. I started Ryan over Garrard. Based on all the intangibles that trends and number crunching don't take into account.

Football, and by extension, FF, is not a science. It isn't about number crunching, trends and sample sizes. The game is an emotional one. Bad teams can beat good ones. Any given Sunday. Rankings almost always fail to take the intangibles into account.

I once submitted an article to FBG in one of their conntests, and it was about gut feel, intangables, and how numbers analysis is faulted. Naturally, it was rejected, because only statistical analysis is what they wanted to see. Gut feel is a combination of one's cumulative experience, gathering of information and projecting based on that. It is the human element. It is what I have found to be more reliable than hard numbers and projections. It is not what FF sites have to sell.

Case in point.... my gut feel says Clowney scores for the Jets Monday night. Let's see how that works out. No one has Clowney projected for squat.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Actually... Garrard has been very good at home, and putrid on the road, more so than any QB I can ever recall. It does not seem to be much related to the opposing team either. It looks like a pure home and away thing. Next home game, he'll probably have a good week. That is the trend based on the small so called sample size, for the number crunchers.

That's because the sample size is too small. At this point, it's a coincidence, definitely not a trend.2008

Home - 172/283 (60.8%), 1903 yds, 8 TD, 5 INT, 82.8 QB Rate

Away - 163/252 (64.7%), 1717 yds, 7 TD, 8 INT, 80.4 QBR

2007

Home - 133/216 (61.8%), 1683 yds, 11 TD, 1 INT, 100.9 QBR

Away - 75/109 (68.8%), 826 yds, 7 TD, 2 INT, 104.8 QBR

2006

Home - 71/125 (56.8%), 914 yds, 4 TD, 5 INT, 73.9 QBR

Away - 74/116 (63.8%), 821 yds, 6 TD, 4 INT, 87.6 QBR

For fantasy purposes, he's a spot starter. Start him when he has the best match up of all your QBs. Sure Seattle looked juicy, but in hindsight, traveling 3000+ miles across country and then having to play without your #1 WR could make things tough. I'll be starting him with confidence in 3 weeks when he travels to Tennessee though, I know that.

Frankly, it is just this that I find the biggest fault with FBG rankings. They (and other sites) simply rely too much on numbers, sample sizes, trend calculations, etc. They often over look travel factors, how well (or badly) a particular player does on the road, and other factors. Garrard's rookie reciever who broke out this year had little to do with preseason ranknings, and if Garrard's value is based soley upon a rookie WR, that is also faulted weekly ranking strategy, isn't it? Seattle is very rough on visiting QB's, even when the D has been vulnerable, yet, given that fact, combined with Garrard's road record.... comprare that to Matt Ryan's intangables... coming off a loss to NE, sitting on that through a bye week, but up against the ballyhooed SF D.... the number crunchers all said Garrard was the better start.

I almost bought into that whole numbers based thought process. I started Ryan over Garrard. Based on all the intangibles that trends and number crunching don't take into account.

Football, and by extension, FF, is not a science. It isn't about number crunching, trends and sample sizes. The game is an emotional one. Bad teams can beat good ones. Any given Sunday. Rankings almost always fail to take the intangibles into account.

I once submitted an article to FBG in one of their conntests, and it was about gut feel, intangables, and how numbers analysis is faulted. Naturally, it was rejected, because only statistical analysis is what they wanted to see. Gut feel is a combination of one's cumulative experience, gathering of information and projecting based on that. It is the human element. It is what I have found to be more reliable than hard numbers and projections. It is not what FF sites have to sell.

Case in point.... my gut feel says Clowney scores for the Jets Monday night. Let's see how that works out. No one has Clowney projected for squat.

Anonymous is right. You SO started him.

 

[Rovers]

Actually... Garrard has been very good at home, and putrid on the road, more so than any QB I can ever recall. It does not seem to be much related to the opposing team either. It looks like a pure home and away thing. Next home game, he'll probably have a good week. That is the trend based on the small so called sample size, for the number crunchers.

That's because the sample size is too small. At this point, it's a coincidence, definitely not a trend.2008

Home - 172/283 (60.8%), 1903 yds, 8 TD, 5 INT, 82.8 QB Rate

Away - 163/252 (64.7%), 1717 yds, 7 TD, 8 INT, 80.4 QBR

2007

Home - 133/216 (61.8%), 1683 yds, 11 TD, 1 INT, 100.9 QBR

Away - 75/109 (68.8%), 826 yds, 7 TD, 2 INT, 104.8 QBR

2006

Home - 71/125 (56.8%), 914 yds, 4 TD, 5 INT, 73.9 QBR

Away - 74/116 (63.8%), 821 yds, 6 TD, 4 INT, 87.6 QBR

For fantasy purposes, he's a spot starter. Start him when he has the best match up of all your QBs. Sure Seattle looked juicy, but in hindsight, traveling 3000+ miles across country and then having to play without your #1 WR could make things tough. I'll be starting him with confidence in 3 weeks when he travels to Tennessee though, I know that.

Frankly, it is just this that I find the biggest fault with FBG rankings. They (and other sites) simply rely too much on numbers, sample sizes, trend calculations, etc. They often over look travel factors, how well (or badly) a particular player does on the road, and other factors. Garrard's rookie reciever who broke out this year had little to do with preseason ranknings, and if Garrard's value is based soley upon a rookie WR, that is also faulted weekly ranking strategy, isn't it? Seattle is very rough on visiting QB's, even when the D has been vulnerable, yet, given that fact, combined with Garrard's road record.... comprare that to Matt Ryan's intangables... coming off a loss to NE, sitting on that through a bye week, but up against the ballyhooed SF D.... the number crunchers all said Garrard was the better start.

I almost bought into that whole numbers based thought process. I started Ryan over Garrard. Based on all the intangibles that trends and number crunching don't take into account.

Football, and by extension, FF, is not a science. It isn't about number crunching, trends and sample sizes. The game is an emotional one. Bad teams can beat good ones. Any given Sunday. Rankings almost always fail to take the intangibles into account.

I once submitted an article to FBG in one of their conntests, and it was about gut feel, intangables, and how numbers analysis is faulted. Naturally, it was rejected, because only statistical analysis is what they wanted to see. Gut feel is a combination of one's cumulative experience, gathering of information and projecting based on that. It is the human element. It is what I have found to be more reliable than hard numbers and projections. It is not what FF sites have to sell.

Case in point.... my gut feel says Clowney scores for the Jets Monday night. Let's see how that works out. No one has Clowney projected for squat.

Anonymous is right. You SO started him.

http://www9.myfantasyleague.com/2009/live_...HISES=0003_0001Eat my shorts.

 

[Rovers]

Frankly, it is just this that I find the biggest fault with FBG rankings. They (and other sites) simply rely too much on numbers, sample sizes, trend calculations, etc. They often over look travel factors, how well (or badly) a particular player does on the road, and other factors. Garrard's rookie reciever who broke out this year had little to do with preseason ranknings, and if Garrard's value is based soley upon a rookie WR, that is also faulted weekly ranking strategy, isn't it?

Seattle is very rough on visiting QB's, even when the D has been vulnerable, yet, given that fact, combined with Garrard's road record.... comprare that to Matt Ryan's intangables... coming off a loss to NE, sitting on that through a bye week, but up against the ballyhooed SF D.... the number crunchers all said Garrard was the better start.

I almost bought into that whole numbers based thought process. I started Ryan over Garrard. Based on all the intangibles that trends and number crunching don't take into account.

Football, and by extension, FF, is not a science. It isn't about number crunching, trends and sample sizes. The game is an emotional one. Bad teams can beat good ones. Any given Sunday. Rankings almost always fail to take the intangibles into account.

I once submitted an article to FBG in one of their conntests, and it was about gut feel, intangables, and how numbers analysis is faulted. Naturally, it was rejected, because only statistical analysis is what they wanted to see. Gut feel is a combination of one's cumulative experience, gathering of information and projecting based on that. It is the human element. It is what I have found to be more reliable than hard numbers and projections. It is not what FF sites have to sell.

Case in point.... my gut feel says Clowney scores for the Jets Monday night. Let's see how that works out. No one has Clowney projected for squat.

Anonymous is right. You SO started him.

Oh, and by the way......

 

[FantasyTrader]

I stand corrected. It's just that you're getting SO worked up about a top 15 QB's lack of performance, it's a head scratcher.

Hindsight is 20/20 and you're basing all of this off of 3 road games. By all means, sit him for the rest of the year when he's on the road. Let's see how it works out for you.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Garrard looks like a really good start next week at home vs the Rams

 

[FantasyTrader]

Alright, since you're so superiorly intelligent, would you like a make a wager against your statement that Garrard is a bye week filler, at best? Easy $

 

[Rovers]

I stand corrected. It's just that you're getting SO worked up about a top 15 QB's lack of performance, it's a head scratcher.Hindsight is 20/20 and you're basing all of this off of 3 road games. By all means, sit him for the rest of the year when he's on the road. Let's see how it works out for you.

LOL... I'm all worked up? Bashing what I think is a very over valued player is some sort of emotional outburst? Not quite. just some FF opinion that goes beyond the typical number crunching, trend ananlysis tht fails to takre into account some of the things I have already mentioned in this thread. I thinkl Garrard might well have another good week next Sunday against the Rams at home. Garrard is good at home against bad teams. Otherwise, he sucks. Not an emotional outburst.... , just an astute FF gut feel projection. Try just reading what I post, instead of attempting to find some hidden agenda. I don't operate that way.

 

[Rovers]

Alright, since you're so superiorly intelligent, would you like a make a wager against your statement that Garrard is a bye week filler, at best? Easy $

Geeze spanky, where did I say I was superior at anything? I simply statted that intangibles are generally ignored by most FF site rankings, and said so. I said Garrard sucks on the road and is over rated. Now, just what is it your manhood wants to place a bet on?

 

[billjohnson]

Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best.

Yeah... unless you had to use him to cover a bye this week. Brutal performance today as my (Cutler) bye week filler.

Aaron Rodgers is my starter.....drafted Garrard to step up for this week. Lost by 12 pts.....giving a double

 

[Mr Anonymous]

LOL... I'm all worked up? Bashing what I think is a very over valued player is some sort of emotional outburst?

A very over valued player?That's the sentiment that makes you look ridiculous. From what I've seen, all anyone here has ever touted Garrard to be is a solid value for where he's drafted. And that's exactly what he's been so far. And I'm not even here to back up my own preseason hype of the guy. This is the first Garrard thread I've ever posted in.

 

[dparker713]

I once submitted an article to FBG in one of their conntests, and it was about gut feel, intangables, and how numbers analysis is faulted. Naturally, it was rejected, because I'm a horrible writer as these posts show

Fixed.Statisical analysis is a tool. Just because you fail to understand how to utilize it, does not diminish the usefulness of attempts to quantify performance and predict future results through obkective means. Football is certainly a tougher nut to crack than baseball, but it isnt some mystical experience.

 

[Da Guru]

Take away Garrards two bad weeks and he has been solid.

 

[PahtyTom]

lets revisit this after he plays st louis next week

 

[Rovers]

LOL... I'm all worked up? Bashing what I think is a very over valued player is some sort of emotional outburst?

A very over valued player?That's the sentiment that makes you look ridiculous. All anyone here has ever touted Garrard to be is a solid value for where he's drafted. And that's exactly what he's been so far. And I'm not even here to back up my own preseason hype of the guy. This is the first Garrard thread I've ever posted in.

Garrard was hyped as a "wait on the QB" late round #1 QB. Based on that, I say he was very over valued. He is not a QB you want to have as a #1 QB starting every week, even if you waited on him. I think he is a low #2 QB. Very low. I look ridiculous? If you say so.

 

[Rovers]

lets revisit this after he plays st louis next week

LOL... I already said, at home, against lousy teams.... he will put up numbers. On the road against very average D's.... he sucks.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Alright, since you're so superiorly intelligent, would you like a make a wager against your statement that Garrard is a bye week filler, at best? Easy $

Geeze spanky, where did I say I was superior at anything? I simply statted that intangibles are generally ignored by most FF site rankings, and said so. I said Garrard sucks on the road and is over rated. Now, just what is it your manhood wants to place a bet on?

"Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB."I would like to make a wager that this isn't true. Spanky.

 

[gurp13]

I once submitted an article to FBG in one of their conntests, and it was about gut feel, intangables, and how numbers analysis is faulted. Naturally, it was rejected, because I'm a horrible writer as these posts show

Fixed.Statisical analysis is a tool. Just because you fail to understand how to utilize it, does not diminish the usefulness of attempts to quantify performance and predict future results through obkective means. Football is certainly a tougher nut to crack than baseball, but it isnt some mystical experience.

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Garrard was hyped as a "wait on the QB" late round #1 QB. Based on that, I say he was very over valued. He is not a QB you want to have as a #1 QB starting every week, even if you waited on him. I think he is a low #2 QB. Very low. I look ridiculous? If you say so.

And for the second time, Garrard was a top 10 QB coming into this week. Ahead of Eli, Brady, Favre, Palmer, Warner, Romo, McNabb and Hasselbeck among others. Yet Garrard was able to be drafted many rounds later. He has been a very good value thus far and you're proclaiming the exact opposite off of 1 game without his #1 WR. Not to mention the players owners picked in early rounds in place of drafting a first or second QB when #1 RBs and WRs were going off the board.You're reaching and you should know it by now.

 

[dparker713]

lets revisit this after he plays st louis next week

LOL... I already said, at home, against lousy teams.... he will put up numbers. On the road against very average D's.... he sucks.

So, you find it more plausible, that despite the general lack of homefield advantage in the NFL, Garrard has suddenly become incapable of playing well on the road this year when in years past he's shown little difference between his home and road starts. Nevermind that only 2 of his 3 games on the road this year were poor, but wait, thats a statistic.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Garrard was hyped as a "wait on the QB" late round #1 QB. Based on that, I say he was very over valued. He is not a QB you want to have as a #1 QB starting every week, even if you waited on him. I think he is a low #2 QB. Very low. I look ridiculous? If you say so.

And for the second time, Garrard was a top 10 QB coming into this week. Ahead of Eli, Brady, Favre, Palmer, Warner, Romo, McNabb and Hasselbeck among others. Yet Garrard was able to be drafted many rounds later. He has been a very good value thus far and you're proclaiming the exact opposite off of 1 game without his #1 WR. Not to mention the players owners picked in early rounds in place of drafting a first or second QB in the early rounds.You're reaching and you should know it by now.

Shhhhhh...I need him to keep digging.

 

[maestro]

I think David Garrad is a sponser of this site

Why does he get ranked so high week after week.

 

[Rovers]

I once submitted an article to FBG in one of their conntests, and it was about gut feel, intangables, and how numbers analysis is faulted. Naturally, it was rejected, because I'm a horrible writer as these posts show

Fixed.Statisical analysis is a tool. Just because you fail to understand how to utilize it, does not diminish the usefulness of attempts to quantify performance and predict future results through obkective means. Football is certainly a tougher nut to crack than baseball, but it isnt some mystical experience.

I fail to use statistical analysis? How exactly did you surmise this fact? I DO use statistiacl analysis, every week, every day. SOS, from IDP's to kickers. I absorb every fact, statistic and opinion my tiny little head can hold. (I figured I'd beat you to the punch with an insult). Gut feel is a result of information gathering. It does not hold sway over stats, but it should also not be ignored. It has value. Gut feel is an immeasurable culmination of facts that causes one to have an impression, an indefinable sway towards an opinion, or expectation.

Whether it is in a rookie draft, or a line up decision, I weigh stats and facts first and foremost. When the equation is equal, as it was this week with starting Garrard or Matt Ryan.... then gut feel was a valuable tool. The intangibles... Garrard lousy on the road against a bad pass D, Ryan, even against a highly ranked D like SF, was coming off a bye and a loss to the Pats. Jax is not a real good team. I think Atlanta is. More opinion... I call it gut feel.

Read what I post, and refrain from making judgements based on no fact. That is what you did here. I'm a horrible writer? Did you read my submission? You must be like Karnak! But thanks for the insult!

 

[Rovers]

Alright, since you're so superiorly intelligent, would you like a make a wager against your statement that Garrard is a bye week filler, at best? Easy $

Geeze spanky, where did I say I was superior at anything? I simply statted that intangibles are generally ignored by most FF site rankings, and said so. I said Garrard sucks on the road and is over rated. Now, just what is it your manhood wants to place a bet on?

"Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB."I would like to make a wager that this isn't true. Spanky.

Define your terms, if you want a bet. Garrard ends up outside the top 20? What is it you want here? just to attack, or actually back up yer mouth?

 

[Freakin'Farmer]

Garrard has yet to throw a TD on the road. I damned near started him this week with the continuous lofty projections here, and elsewhere. Enough already.

I'm sorry I even drafted this QB, but rankings were so lofty... Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB. Oh, and he had better be playing at home when you use him for a bye.

I'm guessing the bolded may be a fib.

Nope.... started Ryan which went against alot of projections this week. What I am annoyed about is drafting him at all. Maybe someone missed this tidbit:Garrard is yet to throw a TD pass on the ROAD!

Unless you start two QB's, Garrard did great last week which was when Ryan was on a bye. You must have liked that. Now that Ryan has had his bye you don't need Garrard. What's the big drama? Are you this much of a drama queen over everything?

Drama queen? LOL... no but I do look good in a dress. My point is a simple one. Garrard is a complete bust on the road. Yet, his weekly projections never reflect that FACT. Are you like a film critic? I take it I got a ?

My post was based on FF. You decide to turn it into something of a personal commentary? Geeze, that really ruined my day. I raise my kilt from my hinds in your direction!

I don't own Garrard but I think you provided some good information about how he does on the road. As a Sims-Walker owner this may be useful.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Alright, since you're so superiorly intelligent, would you like a make a wager against your statement that Garrard is a bye week filler, at best? Easy $

Geeze spanky, where did I say I was superior at anything? I simply statted that intangibles are generally ignored by most FF site rankings, and said so. I said Garrard sucks on the road and is over rated. Now, just what is it your manhood wants to place a bet on?

"Garrard just... sucks. Put Garrard where he belongs, as a bye week filler at best. Fourth teir QB."I would like to make a wager that this isn't true. Spanky.

Define your terms, if you want a bet. Garrard ends up outside the top 20? What is it you want here? just to attack, or actually back up yer mouth?

I'm not attacking you. You believe very strongly that Garrard is a poor #2 QB. I disagree. Seems to me like breeding grounds for a wager. Your top 20 mark is a fine cutoff. You pick the scoring system. I'm confident he's far enough above the top 20 bubble that scoring system is irrelivent. I would, of course, want a clause that this be tracked on "games played basis" that Garrard finishes among the top 20 QB's in FP/GP. 500.I'll check back in tomorrow. Just IM me.