conehead116 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Why is David Carr being ignored in the "Quarterback Watch" every week. I believe he is out performing at least half of the people in the top ten yet he is not even getting listed in the "Climbing Up the Ladder" list. What gives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rondo Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I scooped him up this week to play backup for Brady next week. Who knows, there may be a QB controversy in my camp after a few weeks. Dude's been consistent and has a monster QB rating thus far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 gotta give the texans credit for making the right call on that. think he will only continue to get better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 He's been outperforming my 4th round pick Tom Brady (14 team league) every week. I'm getting tempted to slip him into my starting lineup... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Carr has some very good wideouts and would make good bye-week filler. But I just can't start over Brady... yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I don't want to speak of the author of the piece, but as I recall he's been on the "climbing the ladder" several times now. Perhaps they don't think he's quite "there yet" to be in the top 10. If you don't know he's a viable starter by now, well then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishFreak Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 What about Michael Vick? Sure he sucks as a passer but fantasy wise he's top 5 in most leagues. Where's the love? His absence is outrageous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ksu70 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I don't want to speak of the author of the piece, but as I recall he's been on the "climbing the ladder" several times now. Perhaps they don't think he's quite "there yet" to be in the top 10. If you don't know he's a viable starter by now, well then... I was one of those that drafted Kurt Warner and I am now trying to trade for Carr. He has a pretty nice schedule the rest of the season with his opponents averaging about 19th in pass defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTen Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 How about Grossman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Waterboy Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 It's tough, the setup of the article is just the top 10. You could probably make a great case for a few guys not on there to be there. If you have Carr, enjoy him for the sneaky sleeper he's been. A great story though, especially given the amount of difficulty he's had to face since his rookie year. The best part seems to be that it isn't just him firing and racking up fantasy points. His completion percentage, low interception rate, and chemistry with Johnson have been very encouraging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DexterDew Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 in my 14 team league, drafted Plummer late and Carr later. After Plummer's first week debacle (almost minus 6 points), inserted Carr week two and he has been there ever since. Plummer was dropped for Grossman after week 2. i think Carr has really benefited from a health A Johnson, Moulds and Kubiaks system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) What about Michael Vick? Sure he sucks as a passer but fantasy wise he's top 5 in most leagues. Where's the love? His absence is outrageous! Vick is rated 13th in my fantasy league, a league that rewards for running yards quite nicely. Vick has 4 total TDs this year, has thrown below 150 yards in 3 of 4 games, barely over 150 in the other game, has completed 10, 10, 12, and 13 passes each game. Despite his two 100 yard rushing games, he isn't a QB I want near my fantasy roster. The fact he runs for good yards gives him a spot (preferably as a reserve) on a fantasy roster. If he didn't run the ball, he'd be waiver wire fodder with Damon Huard. Edited October 5, 2006 by kwolf68 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead116 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 I don't want to speak of the author of the piece, but as I recall he's been on the "climbing the ladder" several times now. Perhaps they don't think he's quite "there yet" to be in the top 10. If you don't know he's a viable starter by now, well then... Actually, Carr has not shown up on any "Quarterback Watch" report this season. Not once. And just look at his numbers and consistency. He belongs in the top ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishFreak Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Vick is rated 13th in my fantasy league, a league that rewards for running yards quite nicely. Vick has 4 total TDs this year, has thrown below 150 yards in 3 of 4 games, barely over 150 in the other game, has completed 10, 10, 12, and 13 passes each game. Despite his two 100 yard rushing games, he isn't a QB I want near my fantasy roster. The fact he runs for good yards gives him a spot (preferably as a reserve) on a fantasy roster. If he didn't run the ball, he'd be waiver wire fodder with Damon Huard. I should be more clear. Vick is top 5 at the QB position in my league and 10th overall for EVERY position. I suspect he's close to that in most leagues. So again, since this is a fantasy discussion and not about how weak of a passer he is, why isn't he in the top 10 QB Watch list? He's not even mentioned in the climbing the ladder section. Seems pretty silly to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mac Bears Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) How about Grossman. Exactly. That's what I posted yesterday. I think you can discount the article when they don't have Grossman anywhere in it. He's the #3 scoring QB in all four of my leagues this year and he doesn't even crack the "Top 10" or "Moving Up The Ladder"? Give me a break. I don't understand Carr either as he's in the top 10 in all my leagues. Supposedly these are written as if the draft happened today. Well I sure as hell would pick up Grossman or Carr before some of the others on the list knowing how this season has gone so far so that logic doesn't make sense either. I think they need to show the scoring system used to come up with these stats. Otherwise it's just someone's opinion on who has been more productive. It's fine if you want to write an article giving your opinion but don't label it "QB Watch" and don't put a heading above your sheet that says "Top 10 QBs to Own". It's simply not the case. Grossman and Carr are in the top QBs to own at this point in the season and that's what this article is supposed to be showing us. Just my opinion. Edited October 5, 2006 by Big Mac Bears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestrobe Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Exactly. That's what I posted yesterday. I think you can discount the article when they don't have Grossman anywhere in it. He's the #3 scoring QB in all four of my leagues this year and he doesn't even crack the "Top 10" or "Moving Up The Ladder"? Give me a break. I don't understand Carr either as he's in the top 10 in all my leagues. Supposedly these are written as if the draft happened today. Well I sure as hell would pick up Grossman or Carr before some of the others on the list knowing how this season has gone so far so that logic doesn't make sense either. I think they need to show the scoring system used to come up with these stats. Otherwise it's just someone's opinion on who has been more productive. It's fine if you want to write an article giving your opinion but don't label it "QB Watch" and don't put a heading above your sheet that says "Top 10 QBs to Own". It's simply not the case. Grossman and Carr are in the top QBs to own at this point in the season and that's what this article is supposed to be showing us. Just my opinion. I don't disagree that you could make arguments for placing Carr or Grossman in the top 10. But I believe the list is intended to be prospective, rather than retrospective. In other words, the QBs' numbers from the first 4 weeks of the season only count insofar as the list-maker believes they are a decent predictor of future value. Although a player's history is always relevant, there are other factors to consider. Apparently Mr. Boyter doesn't believe that Carr and Grossman will produce as well as the QBs listed from here on out. Incidetnally, if you want a simple ranking of the QBs based on their stats so far, there are other features available on the site for that ranking (and evdiently through your league website, as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rellen13 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I don't disagree that you could make arguments for placing Carr or Grossman in the top 10. But I believe the list is intended to be prospective, rather than retrospective. In other words, the QBs' numbers from the first 4 weeks of the season only count insofar as the list-maker believes they are a decent predictor of future value. Although a player's history is always relevant, there are other factors to consider. Apparently Mr. Boyter doesn't believe that Carr and Grossman will produce as well as the QBs listed from here on out. Incidetnally, if you want a simple ranking of the QBs based on their stats so far, there are other features available on the site for that ranking (and evdiently through your league website, as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I don't disagree that you could make arguments for placing Carr or Grossman in the top 10. But I believe the list is intended to be prospective, rather than retrospective. In other words, the QBs' numbers from the first 4 weeks of the season only count insofar as the list-maker believes they are a decent predictor of future value. Although a player's history is always relevant, there are other factors to consider. Apparently Mr. Boyter doesn't believe that Carr and Grossman will produce as well as the QBs listed from here on out. Incidetnally, if you want a simple ranking of the QBs based on their stats so far, there are other features available on the site for that ranking (and evdiently through your league website, as well). well put... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead116 Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 I don't disagree that you could make arguments for placing Carr or Grossman in the top 10. But I believe the list is intended to be prospective, rather than retrospective. In other words, the QBs' numbers from the first 4 weeks of the season only count insofar as the list-maker believes they are a decent predictor of future value. Although a player's history is always relevant, there are other factors to consider. Apparently Mr. Boyter doesn't believe that Carr and Grossman will produce as well as the QBs listed from here on out. Incidetnally, if you want a simple ranking of the QBs based on their stats so far, there are other features available on the site for that ranking (and evdiently through your league website, as well). This still does not explain the complete absense of Carr in the "Climbing up the ladder" portion of the article. He absolutely should have appeared there at least once if not more times. (Sorry, I did not check to see if Grossman has appeared or not, but he should also be in that section.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.