PDA

View Full Version : David Garrard signs 6 year, $60 million extension...


JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 12:46 PM
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10765720

I think this is great...Jags fans have been expecting this for some while...

$60 million- $20 million guaranteed is a very good deal...it's between Derek Anderson's and Ben Roethlisberger's deal....

congrats David...

katnip
04-07-2008, 12:50 PM
Good move. Now they need a true #1 reciever. And a little younger at RB. Fred Taylor won't play forever. And I don't think M-JD is a workhorse back, or #1 back. But another year, another playoff pick for me so far.

princefielder28
04-07-2008, 12:52 PM
Nothing against David Garrard but when a QB of his caliber, game manager who is asked to make a play every so often, nets 60 million in a deal there is something wrong. He has proven that he can be dependable at the most important position on the football team, but that is too much money in my opinion. Plus he's already 30 years old so his play is really not going to get too much better and he'll start to be on the decline before this deal is up. In the end the Jags needed to solidify stability at that position and they threw the money out there to do so and props to that but they paid a big price, IMO.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-07-2008, 12:53 PM
Good move, good guy, and good player. I am happy for Jags fans.

vidae
04-07-2008, 12:58 PM
They've never really had stability there. I think they might have gotten over-excited, but I really like him as a player and it was a very smart move by the Jags to make sure he's there for the long term. They can always draft a guy in a few years and groom him to be his replacement too.

EvilMonkey
04-07-2008, 01:01 PM
Nothing against David Garrard but when a QB of his caliber, game manager who is asked to make a play every so often, nets 60 million in a deal there is something wrong. He has proven that he can be dependable at the most important position on the football team, but that is too much money in my opinion. Plus he's already 30 years old so his play is really not going to get too much better and he'll start to be on the decline before this deal is up. In the end the Jags needed to solidify stability at that position and they threw the money out there to do so and props to that but they paid a big price, IMO.

only 20 mil. guaranteed though. That is not too high of a price to pay for a great QB. If he plays great and gets all his incentives and everything, great for him and great for the Jags. If something does happen like his play declining like you suggested, it wouldn't be a huge cap hit or anything. I love Garrard and love the deal. Let's not forget who he's been throwing to. If the Jags get a great WR his numbers would go up and he would look like more than a game manager. I think it's smart on both sides and should work out well for everyone involved.

JT Jag
04-07-2008, 01:03 PM
I feel that David will start for us for at least the next 4 years.

After that though, it depends on how he ages as a QB.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 01:09 PM
Nothing against David Garrard but when a QB of his caliber, game manager who is asked to make a play every so often, nets 60 million in a deal there is something wrong. He has proven that he can be dependable at the most important position on the football team, but that is too much money in my opinion. Plus he's already 30 years old so his play is really not going to get too much better and he'll start to be on the decline before this deal is up. In the end the Jags needed to solidify stability at that position and they threw the money out there to do so and props to that but they paid a big price, IMO.

IMO, David Garrard has paid his dues to earn this contract...he was drafted in the fourth round to be the heir apparent to Mark Brunell but Byron Leftwich was drafted instead and David had to sit on the bench for many years, but every time a new season started Garrard was all smiles because he knew he had a chance at starting, or at least competing for the starting job.

Leftwich kept going down with injuries and Garrard kept coming in and performing well enough to start QB controversies. In 2006 Garrard came in for an injured Leftwich and really didn't play well, the Jaguars went 2-6 their last 8 games and lost a playoff spot and finished 8-8.

At the start of 2007's offseason JDR inserted Byron Leftwich back as the Jaguars starting QB. After a dismal training camp and lackluster performance from Leftwich in pre-season, Byron Leftwich was released 9 days before the start of the regular season and David Garrard was thrust into being the starter for the team. Garrard came in and was not asked to do much, the coaches just asked him to protect the ball (something he was not good at doing in 2006). After about 5 games or so, Garrard really started to come on as a big time QB throwing for 2 touchdowns a game for a stretch of about 5 games...he also went 300+ passes without throwing a interception (a team record). Garrard missed four games due to an ankle injury he suffered against the Colts but came back strong at the end of the season, finishing strong with 18 touchdowns and only 3 interceptions. Taking the Jaguars to the playoffs and leading them to their first playoff victory in almost 10 years.

Yes, David Garrard is 30 years old but he's in great physical condition and doesn't have a lot of wear or tear on his body like other QB's would at his age. He has a strong offensive line and a strong running game that provide him security in which he doesn't have to be a gun slinger QB, but yet he can still lead the team to victory when he has to.

What some people don't understand is that this team has been in QB controversy since the days when Garrard was first drafted. This will be the first season in which the Jaguars have a true uncontested starter at the position, and how sweet it is.

Gay Ork Wang
04-07-2008, 01:15 PM
I like him, i like the Jags, good move. Hopefully he wont be lazy now

Addict
04-07-2008, 01:17 PM
Essentially they gave him Romo-money, which is about right for him. Good deal, now let's hope he's not a flash in the pan.

CC.SD
04-07-2008, 01:26 PM
Worth every penny, considering what guys like Tommy Kelly and Javon Walker just got.

Addict
04-07-2008, 01:29 PM
Worth every penny, considering what guys like Tommy Kelly and Javon Walker just got.

exactly. I still can't believe the paycheck those guys will be getting.

bigbluedefense
04-07-2008, 01:49 PM
worth every penny. one of my favorite players in the league.

now get him a WR and a TE.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 01:54 PM
worth every penny. one of my favorite players in the league.

now get him a WR and a TE.

give Jerry Porter a chance....

and he has Marcedes Lewis and George Wrighster

LonghornsLegend
04-07-2008, 01:55 PM
Nothing against David Garrard but when a QB of his caliber, game manager who is asked to make a play every so often, nets 60 million in a deal there is something wrong. He has proven that he can be dependable at the most important position on the football team, but that is too much money in my opinion. Plus he's already 30 years old so his play is really not going to get too much better and he'll start to be on the decline before this deal is up. In the end the Jags needed to solidify stability at that position and they threw the money out there to do so and props to that but they paid a big price, IMO.


Doesnt really matter if he's asked to throw the ball 40 times or 15 times he's an incredibly smart QB who doesnt make mistakes...The play vs Pittsburgh said it all, comes up huge in the clutch, and whenever he was asked to throw he had pin point accuracy on almost everything all season long...You dont have to have a gun slinger to pay him alot of money, you have a QB who can win you games as he's showed, and certainly will not lose you any games, he's smart and doesnt throw interceptions, accurate with his throws and can tuck it up and run when you leave it open...What else would you like for him to do to deserve 20 million guaranteed?

Thunder&Lightning
04-07-2008, 01:56 PM
Good move he deserves it. The only thing that comes to mind about disagreeing with this deal is... is he worth this much being 30? Not a big deal but im glad the jags gave him this deal. Just need to surround him now...

bigbluedefense
04-07-2008, 01:56 PM
give Jerry Porter a chance....

and he has Marcedes Lewis and George Wrighster

he could use another guy still.

i think the Jags are a DE, WR and maybe one more "playmaker" at any position away from taking the next step.

619
04-07-2008, 01:56 PM
worth every penny. one of my favorite players in the league.

now get him a WR and a TE.

They drafted Marcedes Lewis in the first round two years back but I do agree they need to upgrade the receiver position and Jerry Porter and Troy 'the bust' Williamson won't fix anything there.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 01:59 PM
he could use another guy still.

i think the Jags are a DE, WR and maybe one more "playmaker" at any position away from taking the next step.

I really feel the only piece missing is a stud pass rusher...

WR will sort itself out....when you have a WR who catches 10 td's in a season and then you give him a very good WR in FA (porter)....I think the WR will be alright...

bigbluedefense
04-07-2008, 02:02 PM
I really feel the only piece missing is a stud pass rusher...

WR will sort itself out....when you have a WR who catches 10 td's in a season and then you give him a very good WR in FA (porter)....I think the WR will be alright...

I forgot about Mike Walker. I think he's going to be HUUGE this year. Mark it down. I see great things out of him, im calling it now.

If Porter can wake up, and Walker takes the next step, thats pretty good.

Like mentioned by some posters in this thread, Lewis will have to take the next step too.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 02:14 PM
I forgot about Mike Walker. I think he's going to be HUUGE this year. Mark it down. I see great things out of him, im calling it now.

If Porter can wake up, and Walker takes the next step, thats pretty good.

Like mentioned by some posters in this thread, Lewis will have to take the next step too.

Marcedes Lewis made major strides last season, especially in the playoffs...he had a huge game against New England...I'd look for him to have around 500 yards and 6 td's this season

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 04:02 PM
Great Article on Garrard's extension....

http://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=6852

princefielder28
04-07-2008, 04:10 PM
Doesnt really matter if he's asked to throw the ball 40 times or 15 times he's an incredibly smart QB who doesnt make mistakes...The play vs Pittsburgh said it all, comes up huge in the clutch, and whenever he was asked to throw he had pin point accuracy on almost everything all season long...You dont have to have a gun slinger to pay him alot of money, you have a QB who can win you games as he's showed, and certainly will not lose you any games, he's smart and doesnt throw interceptions, accurate with his throws and can tuck it up and run when you leave it open...What else would you like for him to do to deserve 20 million guaranteed?

I'm not denying that he's a smart QB or a good decision maker. That equates to a game manager; game managers shoudln't be making that much money. He's made some plays in his career but he's not a playmaker. You pay playmakers that type of money not game managing QBs. This move was in big part of this organization's lack of stability and quality at the position.

yourfavestoner
04-07-2008, 04:24 PM
I'm not denying that he's a smart QB or a good decision maker. That equates to a game manager; game managers shoudln't be making that much money. He's made some plays in his career but he's not a playmaker. You pay playmakers that type of money not game managing QBs. This move was in big part of this organization's lack of stability and quality at the position.

I think with another year in this offensive system and with a revamped receiving corp, Garrard is going to lose the "game manager" tag.

Over the second half of the season, the Jaguars were first in the league in points scored - ahead of even the New England Patriots. The running game at the beginning of the season was doing decently - not great by any means. Garrard's emergence over the second half opened things back up for the running game, not the other way around.

And like BBD said: look out for Mike Walker next year. Dude is gonna explode.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-07-2008, 04:27 PM
There's a few concerns here. Garrard has only really had one fully year of quality play, he's not a game changer, and he'll be 36 by the time this contract expires. That said, it's nice to see the guy get some job security. I just hope it doesn't bite Jacksonville in the ass down the road.

Bills2083
04-07-2008, 04:32 PM
Nice signing.
If the Jags get him a good WR, their offense will be extremely dangerous.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 04:35 PM
There's a few concerns here. Garrard has only really had one fully year of quality play, he's not a game changer, and he'll be 36 by the time this contract expires. That said, it's nice to see the guy get some job security. I just hope it doesn't bite Jacksonville in the ass down the road.

I think the idea was for him to finish his career here...had they not given him this contract and had he put up another year like he did in 07 there was no way he would have stayed here, not when he could get more money somewhere else...seeing how he would have been a free agent....

this move stabilizes the position and gives the Jaguars their franchise QB...something they've lacked since Brunell left...I'd say he's well on his way to being an elite QB...

princefielder28
04-07-2008, 04:41 PM
I think the idea was for him to finish his career here...had they not given him this contract and had he put up another year like he did in 07 there was no way he would have stayed here, not when he could get more money somewhere else...seeing how he would have been a free agent....

this move stabilizes the position and gives the Jaguars their franchise QB...something they've lacked since Brunell left...I'd say he's well on his way to being an elite QB...

I don't want to seem like a dip **** but elite? You could argue that he's the least talented QB in the division and he's going to be elite? Elite equals Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Carson Palmer; not someone of David Garrard's qaulity. He has a chance to be a very good, not excellent, QB over the next three years but nothing more and I am willing to bet we probably won't see much less of what we saw this past season either.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 04:47 PM
I don't want to seem like a dip **** but elite? You could argue that he's the least talented QB in the division and he's going to be elite? Elite equals Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Carson Palmer; not someone of David Garrard's qaulity. He has a chance to be a very good, not excellent, QB over the next three years but nothing more and I am willing to bet we probably won't see much less of what we saw this past season either.


yes, elite....you don't throw for 300+ passes and not throw an interception as just a game manager...I'm not going to go off on a tangent about how Garrard is better than "so and so"....I'll just say, Matt Schaub, Vince Young?

you're calling Garrard the least talented QB in the division...that's foolish. With decent receivers he could be an elite QB...He's got the oline and running game to take him there...so you can't really argue that he's the least talented QB in the division.

princefielder28
04-07-2008, 04:52 PM
yes, elite....you don't throw for 300+ passes and not throw an interception as just a game manager...I'm not going to go off on a tangent about how Garrard is better than "so and so"....I'll just say, Matt Schaub, Vince Young?

you're calling Garrard the least talented QB in the division...that's foolish. With decent receivers he could be an elite QB...He's got the oline and running game to take him there...so you can't really argue that he's the least talented QB in the division.

Every time Matt Schaub and Vince Young drop back there's a chance that they can make a big play for their team whether it's through the air or by foot. Garrard is very sound but he's not a QB that scares the defense like the other two do. Not throwing an interception doesn't mean that he's elite, it simply shows that he's an intelligent QB that makes very good decisions.

Like you also said he has the line and backs to get there; which means he isn't "there" yet and he may never get "there," but Vince Young and Matt Schaub are closer to "there" and that is why they currently stand as more talented.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 04:55 PM
Every time Matt Schaub and Vince Young drop back there's a chance that they can make a big play for their team whether it's through the air or by foot. Garrard is very sound but he's not a QB that scares the defense like the other two do. Not throwing an interception doesn't mean that he's elite, it simply shows that he's an intelligent QB that makes very good decisions.

Like you also said he has the line and backs to get there; which means he isn't "there" yet and he may never get "there," but Vince Young and Matt Schaub are closer to "there" and that is why they currently stand as more talented.

haha....saying Vince Young and Matt Schaub are closer to getting there is laughable....I'll leave it at that

How could they be? Vince Young doesn't have the oline nor the running game to give him time to throw, thus the reason being why he's not a good QB right now and may never be...same with Matt Schaub...no oline, no running game...

Staubach12
04-07-2008, 04:59 PM
This is an awfully big contract for a 30-year-old game manager with only one good year.

princefielder28
04-07-2008, 05:00 PM
haha....saying Vince Young and Matt Schaub are closer to getting there is laughable....I'll leave it at that

How could they be? Vince Young doesn't have the oline nor the running game to give him time to throw, thus the reason being why he's not a good QB right now and may never be...same with Matt Schaub...no oline, no running game...

The players around an individual such as the offensive linemen and backs and receivers don't equate whether ONE individual is considered elite. Elite is an individual tag not a team tag, atleast in this instance; the Patriots as a team could've been "elite" this year. If you put Vince Young on the Falcons or you put Matt Schaub on the Falcons once again they will make them better because as individiuals they are able to make plays and improvements based off of their abilities solely. Garrard could improve the Falcons if QB but not a level of what Young and Schaub could.

BigJohn98
04-07-2008, 05:02 PM
I don't think Vince Young scares any defense. This isn't college anymore.

Addict
04-07-2008, 05:04 PM
I don't think Vince Young scares any defense. This isn't college anymore.

I disagree, although hes not AS scary, I think Young did prove he can win games for the titans.

princefielder28
04-07-2008, 05:04 PM
I don't think Vince Young scares any defense. This isn't college anymore.

With Vince Young's ability to make plays with his feet he is a QB that you must gameplan for. That Titans offense was absolute garbage talent wise and collectively as a team they were nowhere near as talented as all the other playoff teams of the AFC. Ever since vince has taken over he has won games for them that other QBs wouldn't have because of his ability to make plays.

Staubach12
04-07-2008, 05:09 PM
I disagree, although hes not AS scary, I think Young did prove he can win games for the titans.

He did his rookie year, but he's been figured out. Last season, he was terrible.

Bengalsrocket
04-07-2008, 05:34 PM
This league is all about winning. Some teams do it by paying big money to "play makers" and some do it by paying big money to guys who are "consistent".

Three interceptions, a 300 pass attempt streak with no interceptions, thats pretty consistent. Garrard may not be the most capable guy of bringing a team back from a deficit late in the 4th quarter, however, the Jags are built to run the ball and play good D. Which if you don't know, that equates to a slower game that won't get out of hand and doesn't rely on a QB to have to take many risks.

Ness
04-07-2008, 05:37 PM
With Vince Young's ability to make plays with his feet he is a QB that you must gameplan for. That Titans offense was absolute garbage talent wise and collectively as a team they were nowhere near as talented as all the other playoff teams of the AFC. Ever since vince has taken over he has won games for them that other QBs wouldn't have because of his ability to make plays.If you mean Vince's ability to run around like Michael Vick, sure. But his legs won't last forever. And he'll be more suspect to injuries. He needs to learn how to pass the ball more accurately, or rather make better decisions as a passer. I think that's what Tennessee drafted him for.

The Unseen
04-07-2008, 05:46 PM
Good deal. Now let's get 2008 on the road.

ChezPower4
04-07-2008, 05:48 PM
I think IMO that Jax paid way to much for Garrard. I think that he is a very good game manager, now he is a 10 million dollar a year game manager.

MetSox17
04-07-2008, 06:04 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but this reminds me a lot of
Carolina a few years back when they gave Jake Delhomme a pretty nice contract after being decent on a team loaded with talent.

With all the raving about the interceptions and stuff, didn't Michael Vick
have a pretty decent streak his second year in the league without throwing a pick? Its okay that he doesn't turn the ball over, that's great, but his chances of making a great play aren't good either. If you don't turn it over, but don't make huge plays either, i think that's a game manager.

I didn't see many Jacksonville games, but I hardly ever saw one highlight of him making a great pass. I mean really, that much money to someone that's not gonna make big plays for you. At the QB position?

I don't know, i agree with PF28, i believe who said that this was more of them wanting to finally stabilize the position than the merit of the money.
But whatever, then people wonder why top draft picks come into the league and ask for huge money.

Forenci
04-07-2008, 06:09 PM
I think it's a solid signing. I honestly was one of the people who thought letting Leftwich go and making Garrard the starting QB was a mistake. He really proved me wrong, and I love the guy as a player and a leader.

He's a smart, intelligent, QB who won't make a ton of mistakes. I think he deserved the money and paid his dues to get it.

The Unseen
04-07-2008, 06:38 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but this reminds me a lot of
Carolina a few years back when they gave Jake Delhomme a pretty nice contract after being decent on a team loaded with talent.

With all the raving about the interceptions and stuff, didn't Michael Vick
have a pretty decent streak his second year in the league without throwing a pick? Its okay that he doesn't turn the ball over, that's great, but his chances of making a great play aren't good either. If you don't turn it over, but don't make huge plays either, i think that's a game manager.

I didn't see many Jacksonville games, but I hardly ever saw one highlight of him making a great pass. I mean really, that much money to someone that's not gonna make big plays for you. At the QB position?

I don't know, i agree with PF28, i believe who said that this was more of them wanting to finally stabilize the position than the merit of the money.
But whatever, then people wonder why top draft picks come into the league and ask for huge money.

Garrard was not a highlight machine, but he was consistent. He had the highest passer rating on third down in the NFL last year - that's ahead of Tom Brady. While he did have close calls for interceptions, and he did get reckless later in the year, he provides the Jaguars with a great option for QB for the future.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
04-07-2008, 06:56 PM
Garrard was not a highlight machine, but he was consistent. He had the highest passer rating on third down in the NFL last year - that's ahead of Tom Brady. While he did have close calls for interceptions, and he did get reckless later in the year, he provides the Jaguars with a great option for QB for the future.


Only because Tom Brady didn't need third downs.

MetSox17
04-07-2008, 07:05 PM
Garrard was not a highlight machine, but he was consistent. He had the highest passer rating on third down in the NFL last year - that's ahead of Tom Brady. While he did have close calls for interceptions, and he did get reckless later in the year, he provides the Jaguars with a great option for QB for the future.

That's the thing, how long is the future?

I would have liked them spending a lot more of that money, say on a
Julius Peppers next year. Garrard is OKAY, nothing to be very excited about.
I think his stats benefit a lot from the great running game.

They could've beat the Patriots in the playoffs this year, but the pass-rush was absolutely atrocious. They need some big money for some pass rush

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 08:51 PM
That's the thing, how long is the future?

I would have liked them spending a lot more of that money, say on a
Julius Peppers next year. Garrard is OKAY, nothing to be very excited about.
I think his stats benefit a lot from the great running game.

They could've beat the Patriots in the playoffs this year, but the pass-rush was absolutely atrocious. They need some big money for some pass rush

who's to say they won't spend the money on Peppers next year...this team is in great cap shape, this deal in no way handicaps them at all....

and I don't know if you saw the Pittsburgh game where garrard basically won the game with 20 seconds to go...but I don't know alot of QB's that could do that....let alone in the playoffs...

OzTitan
04-07-2008, 08:56 PM
I hate this "game manager" talk. Just because he doesn't put up 4000y, he's a "game manager"? Garrard had a great year, and a 100+ QB rating to show for it. It isn't like the Jags could dump him and just expect to find his production anywhere. He was as effective as almost any QB last season, I think he deserves to be tagged as more than a mere "game manager".

I'd be more concerned about his age and health, as he has gone down on occasions, even last season. As far as effectiveness as a QB though, I think he definitely deserves the money. One more season like 07 and he's well on his way to being a top AFC QB, and in today's cap age that gets you paid.

OzTitan
04-07-2008, 08:57 PM
who's to say they won't spend the money on Peppers next year...this team is in great cap shape, this deal in no way handicaps them at all....

and I don't know if you saw the Pittsburgh game where garrard basically won the game with 20 seconds to go...but I don't know alot of QB's that could do that....let alone in the playoffs...

Whilst I could have sworn I saw at least 3 good instances of holding on that play, regardless Garrard was Steve McNair V2 in that run. It was so McNair-esque it was freaky.

Ness
04-07-2008, 09:10 PM
Whilst I could have sworn I saw at least 3 good instances of holding on that play, regardless Garrard was Steve McNair V2 in that run. It was so McNair-esque it was freaky.

Funny you say that. Garrard reminds me a lot of Steve McNair in his prime. Garrard may not put up "elite" statistics like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, but he makes the type of plays that separate him from that "game manager" mold.

LonghornsLegend
04-07-2008, 09:11 PM
I don't want to seem like a dip **** but elite? You could argue that he's the least talented QB in the division and he's going to be elite? Elite equals Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Carson Palmer; not someone of David Garrard's qaulity. He has a chance to be a very good, not excellent, QB over the next three years but nothing more and I am willing to bet we probably won't see much less of what we saw this past season either.

Sooo basically what your saying is that unless you have one of those top 4 QB's you shouldnt pay your starting QB any money? In what world do you think thats going to happen? A good QB is a good QB, point blank, I get sick of people acting like your only a good QB if you throw the ball 400 times and make a bunch of pretty highlights...Once again you never answered my question from my original post, take the Steelers game in the playoffs, and the Pats game, what more would you like for him to do?

Please tell me what differently he could do to be worth the money, he made all his throws on the money and hit WR's in the hands, made plays with his legs, didnt turn the ball over, and its not like he had someone at WR who he could throw to and they would get a td for him...But since he's not elite, what would you have liked to see from him that makes him worth the money?

MetSox17
04-07-2008, 09:52 PM
Sooo basically what your saying is that unless you have one of those top 4 QB's you shouldnt pay your starting QB any money? In what world do you think thats going to happen? A good QB is a good QB, point blank, I get sick of people acting like your only a good QB if you throw the ball 400 times and make a bunch of pretty highlights...Once again you never answered my question from my original post, take the Steelers game in the playoffs, and the Pats game, what more would you like for him to do?

Please tell me what differently he could do to be worth the money, he made all his throws on the money and hit WR's in the hands, made plays with his legs, didnt turn the ball over, and its not like he had someone at WR who he could throw to and they would get a td for him...But since he's not elite, what would you have liked to see from him that makes him worth the money?

I'll agree that he played admirably in the Patriots game, and it was the lack of pass rush that resulted in their eventual demise, but against the Steelers??
He had an absolutely horrible game outside that last run. Does the end justify the means? In this point, I don't believe they do because they wouldn't have been in that situation had he not had..

9 comps, 21 attempts for a 41% comp. pct. 1 td and 2 int's. 41.9 rtg.

If you feel like he should be paid like a top Quarterback, why don't you make plays like a top Quarterback. And don't complain when rooks like JaMarcus come in and want 33 million guaranteed with their ridiculous upside.

He's a solid quarterback, he's the best option they had so they held on to it.
Not worth that type of money though in my opinion.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 09:56 PM
I hate this "game manager" talk. Just because he doesn't put up 4000y, he's a "game manager"? Garrard had a great year, and a 100+ QB rating to show for it. It isn't like the Jags could dump him and just expect to find his production anywhere. He was as effective as almost any QB last season, I think he deserves to be tagged as more than a mere "game manager".

I'd be more concerned about his age and health, as he has gone down on occasions, even last season. As far as effectiveness as a QB though, I think he definitely deserves the money. One more season like 07 and he's well on his way to being a top AFC QB, and in today's cap age that gets you paid.

that was the first time in his football career....ever since pop warner football that he's gone out of a game or missed games because of an injury...I'd say he's a pretty healthy man and I don't expect that to change...

OzTitan
04-07-2008, 10:30 PM
Oops, I thought he was out a lot of 06 too but it seems I was thinking of Leftwich - Garrard came in because Leftwich was hurt, not the other way around.

So health not a big deal, but it's still a little concerning giving a 30yo QB a 6 year deal. He hasn't had a lot of wear though so it might not matter. He could be the type that goes to 36, and it's not like he takes a lot of punishment scrambling like Steve used to.

LonghornsLegend
04-07-2008, 10:36 PM
I'll agree that he played admirably in the Patriots game, and it was the lack of pass rush that resulted in their eventual demise, but against the Steelers??
He had an absolutely horrible game outside that last run. Does the end justify the means? In this point, I don't believe they do because they wouldn't have been in that situation had he not had..

9 comps, 21 attempts for a 41% comp. pct. 1 td and 2 int's. 41.9 rtg.

If you feel like he should be paid like a top Quarterback, why don't you make plays like a top Quarterback. And don't complain when rooks like JaMarcus come in and want 33 million guaranteed with their ridiculous upside.

He's a solid quarterback, he's the best option they had so they held on to it.
Not worth that type of money though in my opinion.



Good QB's are worth the money...he led them to 11 wins, and they beat Pitt twice in Pittsburgh who has a great QB themselves...There are only a handful of elite QB's in the nfl, your not going to get 30 at one time, when you have a good qb who does what you ask he's worth the money, ESPECIALLY when you see guys getting paid more who have done less and are less important.

MetSox17
04-07-2008, 10:44 PM
Good QB's are worth the money...he led them to 11 wins, and they beat Pitt twice in Pittsburgh who has a great QB themselves...There are only a handful of elite QB's in the nfl, your not going to get 30 at one time, when you have a good qb who does what you ask he's worth the money, ESPECIALLY when you see guys getting paid more who have done less and are less important.

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination taking away the fact that he had a +100. passer rating or that he protected the ball during the regular season, but with that being said, i count 16 other quarterbacks that could have gotten 11 wins with THAT team.

Like i said, he's solid, but i think people are letting his last scramble against Pittsburgh in the playoffs overshadow the horrible game he had.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 10:50 PM
the fact was that he won the game when it counted...that's the advantages of having a great team behind you....you can make mistakes and still have a chance to win

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 10:51 PM
Video of his press conference....for those who care

http://www.jaguars.com/multimedia/video.aspx?id=2756

swollja
04-07-2008, 10:55 PM
Good move. Now they need a true #1 reciever. And a little younger at RB. Fred Taylor won't play forever. And I don't think M-JD is a workhorse back, or #1 back. But another year, another playoff pick for me so far.
mjd is def a workhorse back

jth1331
04-07-2008, 11:03 PM
I think there is some serious homering going on in this thread.
First, Mike Walker is going to explode after doing nothing? Riiiight.
As for Garrard, I think he is a good QB, not great/elite, but good. I don't think he's a "top" QB in terms of stats, but he gets the wins.
Also, personally, I think this past season was somewhat of a "fluke" season because I don't see him going 300 passes without an interception again, and only throwing 3 for the entire year.

MetSox17
04-07-2008, 11:05 PM
mjd is def a workhorse back

Give him the rock 25+ times a game for 16 games in 17 weeks and see if he's
a work-horse back.

Geo
04-07-2008, 11:10 PM
I don't have a problem with the signing, it's close to what Bulger and Romo got last summer. Garrard may not be one of the best quarterbacks of the league, but I think he is one of the better quarterbacks in the league, and with him starting the Jaguars offense is very good.

Honestly, I don't think offense is the problem for them anymore, it's the defense.

holt_bruce81
04-07-2008, 11:19 PM
Good signing by the Jags.

If Romo can get the kind of deal he got after so few games, then so should David Garrard.

JagHombre22
04-07-2008, 11:22 PM
I don't think the defense will be that big of a problem after the draft...

JT Jag
04-07-2008, 11:35 PM
mjd is def a workhorse backGive him the rock 25+ times a game for 16 games in 17 weeks and see if he's
a work-horse back.Maurice could probably be a workhorse if we needed him to be one. I think he's very similar to Brian Westbrook. He could be a top starter in a West Coast offense.

And I think that he'll eventually be our starter at RB. But I don't think he'll ever be called on to carry the ball more then 20 times a game. Expect the Jaguars to draft Freddy T.'s replacement in the rotation soon enough. We like that platoon style of running.

A few years from now it'll be Maurice 50%/#2 40%/Others 10%.

Bengalsrocket
04-07-2008, 11:37 PM
I'm not by any stretch of the imagination taking away the fact that he had a +100. passer rating or that he protected the ball during the regular season, but with that being said, i count 16 other quarterbacks that could have gotten 11 wins with THAT team.

Like i said, he's solid, but i think people are letting his last scramble against Pittsburgh in the playoffs overshadow the horrible game he had.

Can you name those other 16 QB's? I can name only 8 QB's that I think are actually better than Gerrard. In no particular order:

1) Peyton Manning
2) Tom Brady
3) Carson Palmer
4) Tony Romo
5) Donovan McNabb
6) Drew Brees
7) Eli Manning
8) Bulger

Hell I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and throw some questionables below that we'll count ahead of him (note, I personally don't think any of these QB's are better, but I'm not unwilling to concede that they might be equal to him):

9) Jeff Garcia
10) Jake Delhomme
11) Kurt Warner
12) Derek Anderson
Don't think there is anyone I am forgetting, but if so - add maybe 1 on there and he's still the 13th best QB in the league... =P

steelernation77
04-07-2008, 11:45 PM
Can you name those other 16 QB's? I can name only 8 QB's that I think are actually better than Gerrard. In no particular order:

1) Peyton Manning
2) Tom Brady
3) Carson Palmer
4) Tony Romo
5) Donovan McNabb
6) Drew Brees
7) Eli Manning
8) Bulger

Hell I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and throw some questionables below that we'll count ahead of him (note, I personally don't think any of these QB's are better, but I'm not unwilling to concede that they might be equal to him):

9) Jeff Garcia
10) Jake Delhomme
11) Kurt Warner
12) Derek Anderson
Don't think there is anyone I am forgetting, but if so - add maybe 1 on there and he's still the 13th best QB in the league... =P

I'd say a good many of those are questionable, and Roethlisberger should be there some where.

It's important to get your QB situation stable. Garrard did a solid job last year, although for those of you citing that playoff run, he did have a little help from the tackles by his o-linemen (which the NFL has recognized). Still, Jacksonville hasn't had a solid QB since Brunell. Garrard gives them that, and it's essential to being a contender. The 6 years do worry me a bit, but I'm sure they can restructure or cut him if need be.

Bengalsrocket
04-07-2008, 11:56 PM
as a bengals fan I'm ashamed I missed the guy who spanks us every year. Yes Roethlisberger should be up there, but it doesn't change much - Gerrard is still on the QB list

MetSox17
04-07-2008, 11:58 PM
Can you name those other 16 QB's? I can name only 8 QB's that I think are actually better than Gerrard. In no particular order:

1) Peyton Manning
2) Tom Brady
3) Carson Palmer
4) Tony Romo
5) Donovan McNabb
6) Drew Brees
7) Eli Manning
8) Bulger

Hell I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and throw some questionables below that we'll count ahead of him (note, I personally don't think any of these QB's are better, but I'm not unwilling to concede that they might be equal to him):

9) Jeff Garcia
10) Jake Delhomme
11) Kurt Warner
12) Derek Anderson
Don't think there is anyone I am forgetting, but if so - add maybe 1 on there and he's still the 13th best QB in the league... =P

First off, i said there's 16 quarterbacks that could have won 11 games with that team. Read everything i wrote before spewing off.

And i wouldn't just talk out of my ass if i didn't go out and count the quarterbacks i honestly believe would win 11 games on that team, and half of which are better than garrard.
In no particular order.

Brady
Palmer
Roethlisberger
Anderson
Schaub
P. Manning
E. Manning
Cutler
Rivers
Romo
McNabb
Favre
Brees
Garcia
Bulger
Hasselbeck

All of those win just as much games as Garrard did if not more. Easy

JT Jag
04-07-2008, 11:58 PM
What people need to realize is that the "6-year deal" tag means absolutely nothing. He might get all of that... or he might not. It depends on how well he ages and how good he is at dodging injuries.

All that matters is the 20M guaranteed... and really, considering Derek Anderson got 17M for 3 years, that's not bad at all.

JT Jag
04-08-2008, 12:00 AM
First off, i said there's 16 quarterbacks that could have won 11 games with that team. Read everything i wrote before spewing off.

And i wouldn't just talk out of my ass if i didn't go out and count the quarterbacks i honestly believe would win 11 games on that team, and half of which are better than garrard.
In no particular order.

Brady
Palmer
Roethlisberger
Anderson
Schaub
P. Manning
E. Manning
Cutler
Rivers
Romo
McNabb
Favre
Brees
Garcia
Bulger
Hasselbeck

All of those win just as much games as Garrard did if not more. EasyWhat's your basis for this?

Remember that the Jaguars WR corps was bottom 10 in the league last year and the defense slipped out of the top 10.

MetSox17
04-08-2008, 12:02 AM
What's your basis for this?

Remember that the Jaguars WR corps was bottom 10 in the league last year and the defense slipped out of the top 10.

Simple projections based on the ability they've shown already, some on weaker teams, and figuring that into what Garrard was asked to do.

Edit - I am taking into consideration that the WR's were close to putrid, but nothing wows me away about Garrard. Definitely not for 20 million. I was basically saying that with that O-Line, that ridiculous running game, one decent WR and a very solid Defense, 16 qb's and maybe a few more win 11 games.

gdamac
04-08-2008, 12:05 AM
Good QB, Good Guy, Good Team, Good move. I'm just glad the Raiders aren't playing them again next year.

Bengalsrocket
04-08-2008, 12:08 AM
First off, i said there's 16 quarterbacks that could have won 11 games with that team. Read everything i wrote before spewing off.

And i wouldn't just talk out of my ass if i didn't go out and count the quarterbacks i honestly believe would win 11 games on that team, and half of which are better than garrard.
In no particular order.

Brady
Palmer
Roethlisberger
Anderson
Schaub
P. Manning
E. Manning
Cutler
Rivers
Romo
McNabb
Favre
Brees
Garcia
Bulger
Hasselbeck

All of those win just as much games as Garrard did if not more. Easy

I don't know about Schaub, Cutler or Garcia, and Rivers? Rivers has a better offense than jacksonville and only had 11 wins...

I think you're underestimating the division Gerrard plays in. Schaub is the only QB on your list who has to play titans & colts d-line twice a year (and if you notice, he does poorly against them as well =P)

I'm not saying Gerrard is clearly superior to anyone that list, but to say all of those guys are clear clut better is a little bit of an overstatement imo.

But we all got our opinions =)

MetSox17
04-08-2008, 12:09 AM
What people need to realize is that the "6-year deal" tag means absolutely nothing. He might get all of that... or he might not. It depends on how well he ages and how good he is at dodging injuries.

All that matters is the 20M guaranteed... and really, considering Derek Anderson got 17M for 3 years, that's not bad at all.

Yeah, but you can't compare Derek Anderson's situation to this one.
He's a 25 year old guy who just went to the Pro-Bowl, turned a team around that was picking in the top 5 a year ago into a near playoff team.

I think it's safe to assume that David Garrard has pretty much topped out as far as potential goes, Anderson has a long ways to go. He has all the physical tools, and can turn into a top 5 QB in the AFC.

MetSox17
04-08-2008, 12:11 AM
I don't know about Schaub, Cutler or Garcia, and Rivers? Rivers has a better offense than jacksonville and only had 11 wins...

I think you're underestimating the division Gerrard plays in. Schaub is the only QB on your list who has to play titans & colts d-line twice a year (and if you notice, he does poorly against them as well =P)

I'm not saying Gerrard is clearly superior to anyone that list, but to say all of those guys are clear clut better is a little bit of an overstatement imo.

But we all got our opinions =)

lol again, i didn't say that were exactly better right now, cause eventually all of those players are gonna be better than Garrard, maybe for the exception of Garcia, whose best years might be behind him already.

Once again, for the record, i'm saying that if you plug those guys into Jacksonville, i like their chances of getting 11 wins just as much as Garrard, if not better.

swollja
04-08-2008, 12:32 AM
Give him the rock 25+ times a game for 16 games in 17 weeks and see if he's
a work-horse back.

you can say that for anybody

if anything he's more built to be a workhorse at 5'6" 215 instead of 6' 215 (which no one would say he isnt a workhorse is he was 6')

Bengalsrocket
04-08-2008, 12:44 AM
Right, and as I said, I disagree. Gerrard plays in a tougher division than Schaub, Garcia, Rivers or Cutler (and a lot of other guys even). If you plug any of the 4 I listed into Jacksonville there is no way they would handle it as well as Gerrard.

Also, people keep mentioning things like:

I think it's safe to assume that David Garrard has pretty much topped out as far as potential goes
(I'm not trying to single you metsox17, this is just an example)

How is Garrard capped on potential? He's had a career as a back-up. He doesn't have the experience of most starting QB's at the age of 30.

By that logic was Tom Brady was capped at the end of the 06 season? (he was 29 then, 1 year younger than Garrard is now).

In the NFL, all teams get a franchise QB - then no matter how old or skilled he is, they surround him with great talent to magnify his abilities. They gave Wes Welker and Randy Moss to Tom Brady. They gave Reggie Wayne, Joseph Addai and Anthony Gonzalez to Peyton Manning (Harrison was there before Peyton arrived) etc. etc.

Now that Garrard is their man in Jacksonville they will surround him with talent (they brought porter in as a good example - hopefully they draft someone too). Notice the lack of good WR's in Jacksonville? its because there was no reason to have good receivers if you can't get the ball to them.

With all that being said, as the talent grows around Garrard, he too will grow and mature as a player. He's not done learning, and due to his late debut as a starter I don't think he will ever stop learning until he retires.

ChezPower4
04-08-2008, 02:10 AM
Also, people keep mentioning things like:


(I'm not trying to single you metsox17, this is just an example)

How is Garrard capped on potential? He's had a career as a back-up. He doesn't have the experience of most starting QB's at the age of 30.



Garrard is 30, it will only be a few more seasons before his running skills start to decline, which is one of the things that make a good player. Not many QBs can play when their 34-35 years old so IMO he only has 5 or 6 seasons at most and I think that next year will be his best season and after that i think that Jax is gonna have a 10 million dollar a year game manager(no game manager is worth 10 mill a year).

Why are you comparing the Pats putting good players around Brady to the Jags putting good players around Garrard. For one David Garrard will never be the QB that Brady is, ever! You could give Garrard the top recievers in the game today and he would not be able to put up the numbers that Brady, Manning, Palmer or Romo put up. Garrard is not even in the same league as the elite QBs.

Bengalsrocket
04-08-2008, 02:24 AM
Garrard is 30, it will only be a few more seasons before his running skills start to decline, which is one of the things that make a good player. Not many QBs can play when their 34-35 years old so IMO he only has 5 or 6 seasons at most and I think that next year will be his best season and after that i think that Jax is gonna have a 10 million dollar a year game manager(no game manager is worth 10 mill a year).

Why are you comparing the Pats putting good players around Brady to the Jags putting good players around Garrard. For one David Garrard will never be the QB that Brady is, ever! You could give Garrard the top recievers in the game today and he would not be able to put up the numbers that Brady, Manning, Palmer or Romo put up. Garrard is not even in the same league as the elite QBs.

I never said Garrard will be in the same league as Tom Brady. But lets face it, when you add talent around Tom Brady, it makes him better. So, as an example lets say Tom Brady is a 4 star QB without Welker / Moss. You add Welker / Moss and all the sudden he becomes a 5 star QB. Lets say on the 1-5 star scale Garrard is a 3 star QB now - give him a little bit more talent maybe he can step up to a 4 star QB. Is it so far-fetched to believe Garrard is going to grow as a player? How can you honestly think he's already peaked?

Look, people may be confusing my words. I have never said Garrard will be anything more than a glorified game manager. I'm on the same page as you guys with that. Jacksonville is a run first team.

But what you guys aren't getting is thats all Jacksonville has asked of him. All they're saying is "don't turn over the ball, we'll have talent around you that can win the game if you're consistent and handle the ball carefully". And thats exactly what he did, lol.

I don't think Garrard could bring you back from a 30 points deficit in the 4th quarter, but I also think because of his play style there is a very unlikely chance that he will ever be in that situation. And if you're the GM of Jacksonville and you have Fred Taylor, Mojo-drew, a pretty good defense and Garrard is going to make everything stay smooth - why not throw 20 million dollars his way and make a run at the superbowl before your team gets to old.

Real quick edit to add on here: Didn't Garrard rush less than 50 times this year? I don't think he relies on his legs as much as people think =X

LonghornsLegend
04-08-2008, 03:06 AM
Simple projections based on the ability they've shown already, some on weaker teams, and figuring that into what Garrard was asked to do.

Edit - I am taking into consideration that the WR's were close to putrid, but nothing wows me away about Garrard. Definitely not for 20 million. I was basically saying that with that O-Line, that ridiculous running game, one decent WR and a very solid Defense, 16 qb's and maybe a few more win 11 games.


What "wows you away" with some of the qbs you listed, like Schaub and Hasselback? What "wows" you about Derek Anderson other then he can throw lob td's to Braylon, unless thats what you think is more important with a QB, because Anderson is terribly inaccurate, loses huge games when on the line(cincinatti game), and doesnt make smart decisions, opposite of what Garrard is...Also Schaub has BARELY played at all, this last season was his 1st and he was broken up the entire year so it shows that your are under rating Garrard just by mentioning his name in the same conversation...Schaub has done nothing at all except throw a few td's to Johnson, whenever he wins some games with his arm or legs then he can be in the same conversation.


Also alot of the other QB's you listed that he fares evenly with are on par with the same type of contracts, again so why is Garrard getting 'too much money', when he is on par with the rest of the qb's you listed...Add in the fact with the way the market is going, players are getting bigger contracts every year, considering he's a QB and got less then Romo he got exactly what he deserves.


And I dont buy arguments where people say "if you plug in these qb's they could win 11 games too" for a few reasons...

1. You can never prove that point so you can argue it all day, its basically opinions of yours vs someone else, its never going to happen, so its pointless to even talk about it because its not a reality

2. You could do that for alot of qb's...How many qb's could you plug into the Pats offense this year that would of won 13 games? Same goes for the Colts, you could do that all day...


And I disagree completely with just assuming you can give another qb to the Jags and they win 11 games in the AFC...You named Eli manning who couldnt win 11 games with his own team in the NFC, on a team with better WR's and TE's, so you think its ok to assume he would lead the Jags to 11 wins with lesser WR's with as many interceptions as he threw? Dont think so.

JagHombre22
04-08-2008, 04:09 AM
Garrard is 30, it will only be a few more seasons before his running skills start to decline, which is one of the things that make a good player. Not many QBs can play when their 34-35 years old so IMO he only has 5 or 6 seasons at most and I think that next year will be his best season and after that i think that Jax is gonna have a 10 million dollar a year game manager(no game manager is worth 10 mill a year).

Why are you comparing the Pats putting good players around Brady to the Jags putting good players around Garrard. For one David Garrard will never be the QB that Brady is, ever! You could give Garrard the top recievers in the game today and he would not be able to put up the numbers that Brady, Manning, Palmer or Romo put up. Garrard is not even in the same league as the elite QBs.

Last season was his first season of full starting duty....so I don't really see how you can say that he only has a few more years left...he has literally no wear and tear on his body. You're right, not many QB's can play when they're 34 years old but most QB's don't sit on the bench for the first 5 seasons of their career either.

Why do you have to put up stats to justify receiving a contract? Tom Brady broke all kindof records this past season and they still didn't win a championship. They paid Garrard to be the quarterback to get them to the game and win it for them, not break records. Some people are way too infatuated with statistics and don't look at the whole body of work. Garrard went through an amazing transformation from 2006 to 2007, he took the Jaguars from 8-8 in 2006 to 11-5 in 2007 and a road playoff victory, and nearly an upset victory in New England. They realize Garrard settles the QB position and he's the best they're going to get while their window for a championship is still open. You pay a guy who has performed well and has persevered through adversity at the position and in life. Wayne Weaver is a family first guy and knows when he has something good. Garrard would have been a free agent after this season and he's simply too good to let get away.

Mr. Stiller
04-08-2008, 04:13 AM
Last season was his first season of full starting duty....so I don't really see how you can say that he only has a few more years left...he has literally no wear and tear on his body. You're right, not many QB's can play when they're 34 years old but most QB's don't sit on the bench for the first 5 seasons of their career either.

Why do you have to put up stats to justify receiving a contract? Tom Brady broke all kindof records this past season and they still didn't win a championship. They paid Garrard to be the quarterback to get them to the game and win it for them, not break records. Some people are way too infatuated with statistics and don't look at the whole body of work. Garrard went through an amazing transformation from 2006 to 2007, he took the Jaguars from 8-8 in 2006 to 11-5 in 2007 and a road playoff victory, and nearly an upset victory in New England. They realize Garrard settles the QB position and he's the best they're going to get while their window for a championship is still open. You pay a guy who has performed well and has persevered through adversity at the position and in life. Wayne Weaver is a family first guy and knows when he has something good. Garrard would have been a free agent after this season and he's simply too good to let get away.


I agree that he's too good to let go away, but 60M/20MGuaranteed.. I don't think he's that good. That puts him up with the top 5 paid QB's in the league per year. I don't think anyone would argue Gerrard is top 5 consideration thus far.

JagHombre22
04-08-2008, 04:42 AM
I agree that he's too good to let go away, but 60M/20MGuaranteed.. I don't think he's that good. That puts him up with the top 5 paid QB's in the league per year. I don't think anyone would argue Gerrard is top 5 consideration thus far.

GARRARD!

sorry, rant over :)

you pay a guy to stay on your team and be the face of your franchise for the next 6-7 years...why not pay him...Romo set the bar for one year starter QB's, Garrard's deal was slightly less than his but he's accomplished slightly more. Derek Anderson got a similar deal and I'd say Garrard had a better year (maybe not more productive statistical wise but more productive from a team standpoint). So if Tony Romo is going to get millions of dollars for being in the same situation as Garrard why shouldn't Garrard get paid as well?

Bengalsrocket
04-08-2008, 05:17 AM
The more I read the more I get frustrated with this whole conversion. Why do people even think he's a game manager. He does really well in the clutch (2 minute drill / 3rd down conversions). What more can you ask out of a QB in a league where only half of the teams have really established their franchise QB? If you want a QB who is going to throw on every down then get rid of Fred Taylor and Maurice because thats the focus of this team.

Heres some food for thought while I go to sleep, do you guys understand how good 3 INTs is? Do you realize Peyton Manning threw 5 INTs against the chargers in 07? Peyton Manning, one of the most prolific QB's to ever step onto the field, threw more INTs in one game than Garrard threw all season.

Caddy
04-08-2008, 05:36 AM
The more I read the more I get frustrated with this whole conversion. Why do people even think he's a game manager. He does really well in the clutch (2 minute drill / 3rd down conversions). What more can you ask out of a QB in a league where only half of the teams have really established their franchise QB? If you want a QB who is going to throw on every down then get rid of Fred Taylor and Maurice because thats the focus of this team.

Heres some food for thought while I go to sleep, do you guys understand how good 3 INTs is? Do you realize Peyton Manning threw 5 INTs against the chargers in 07? Peyton Manning, one of the most prolific QB's to ever step onto the field, threw more INTs in one game than Garrard threw all season.

Just in regards to your last paragraph, I'm pretty sure that a lack of interceptions is one of the key features of a 'game manager'. Another prominent example of a game manager is Jeff Garcia; he throws single digit interceptions and has touchdowns in the mid-teens.

Ness
04-08-2008, 08:46 AM
I'm not by any stretch of the imagination taking away the fact that he had a +100. passer rating or that he protected the ball during the regular season, but with that being said, i count 16 other quarterbacks that could have gotten 11 wins with THAT team.

Like i said, he's solid, but i think people are letting his last scramble against Pittsburgh in the playoffs overshadow the horrible game he had.

But he got them the win in that game. It's better than having a 300 yard, multi-touchdown performance, but then throwing the game away with a game sealing interception or fumble.

Ness
04-08-2008, 08:49 AM
Just in regards to your last paragraph, I'm pretty sure that a lack of interceptions is one of the key features of a 'game manager'. Another prominent example of a game manager is Jeff Garcia; he throws single digit interceptions and has touchdowns in the mid-teens.

Jeff Garcia has also had seasons where he has thrown 30+ touchdowns. Garrard may not throw that many interceptions, but that doesn't mean he's a game manager. He didn't have to pass as often due to a strong running game. Let's not forget that the targets he was throwing the ball to aren't exactly superstars.

JT Jag
04-08-2008, 09:34 AM
Either way, I predict David goes off for 3,500 yards and 28 TDs next year.

And that's not even a homer pick... it's just what the team is capable of.

Gay Ork Wang
04-08-2008, 09:43 AM
I really dont know why people are arguing with that...

If the colts paid him to handle that offense, id say: Bad Move

But he isnt supposed to be Mr Incredible throwing all kinds of passes...

he is the Tom Brady for their offense

LonghornsLegend
04-08-2008, 09:49 AM
I agree that he's too good to let go away, but 60M/20MGuaranteed.. I don't think he's that good. That puts him up with the top 5 paid QB's in the league per year. I don't think anyone would argue Gerrard is top 5 consideration thus far.

Thats the way the market is going right now, and players contracts are increasing, I dont know why people dont take that into consideration...He didnt get a Romo size contract, he didnt even get half of what Big Ben got, and as far as every other qb in the league thats better, when they sign new deals they will have deals bigger then Garrard and his will look like small in comparison...Kelly isnt the league's best DT, nor is nearly anyone else in free agency this off season worth all the money they got, when you look at paying a qb and a good one at that, I dont see the problem...Its not like they overpaid, having a contract bigger then Romo is overpaying, alot of qb's in the league right now are a few years away from a huge contract extension, alot bigger then 60m/20m guaranteed...


And it bothers me when people call him a 'game manager', isnt that what Tom Brady does? But I guess its ok then, he throws short passes to kevin faulk, Wes Welker, and tight ends all game long vs Jax, and every once in a while he will tell Randy to go deep and he will chuck it down field and let Randy make it work...So Garrard gets the title "game manager" because he doesnt have Randy Moss to do that for him? Or maybe he should try that with Northcutt:rolleyes: He has to work with the WR's he has, and the gameplan Jax has always had which is pound the ball...Everyone is not built like the Colts or Bengals where its a full aerial attack, they have two very good RB's teams have a problem stopping, it seem pretty pointless to Garrard throwing in excess to average WR's at best when they have a 2 back rotation the way the do...I dont think anyone is going into gun slinger mode with Ernest Wilford, Matt Jones, and Denniss Northcutt in your receiving corps, and it would be silly to ask of him to do so.


So what does Tom Brady do different that makes him not a "game manager", and why can he shake that label.

Shiver
04-08-2008, 12:35 PM
This is a good signing. As for the debate about David Garrard's value, I would take him over all but a handful of Quarterbacks in this league for what it's worth.

jth1331
04-08-2008, 02:11 PM
Either way, I predict David goes off for 3,500 yards and 28 TDs next year.

And that's not even a homer pick... it's just what the team is capable of.

I'd be completely amazed if he threw for 28 TD's. If people think Garrard is going to have the same type of year, think again. He isn't going to throw only 3 picks again next year, thats for sure.
Look at all the elite QB's of today. They fluctuate from year to year. Some seem to be kind of on a steady basis, but every QB who has a "career" year, has never been that good again. Peyton Manning hasn't come close to matching his amazing year, I doubt Tom Brady comes close to matching his performance last year, Daunte Culpepper's career year, Warner's, etc.

Personally, I feel Garrard is the QB who will get 3,000-3,500 yards and about 20-24 TD's, with 8-12 INT's. Really, kinda similar to what Brady was doing before his career year, just not as many TD's, but less INT's as well.

And for his running ability, sure, he might not have the rushes, but it doesn't mean he doesn't move around the pocket, running around to free up time to hit an open receiver.

marks01234
04-09-2008, 11:24 AM
Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and to a lesser extent Rivers, Eli, Big Ben, Vince Young and Brees win games for their team. Yes they have some bad games (some more frequent than others) and usually there team loses. But they also win games for their team.

Garrard more often than not does not lose the game for his team. If Mo Drew and Taylor were out, he isn't a type of player who can put you on his back and win the game for you. This makes him more of a game-manager. He is as good as the talent around him.

Nothing is wrong at all with game manager. In a lot of respects they are more desireable than a high-risk, high reward player like Eli Manning and Vince Young.

Bengalsrocket
04-09-2008, 12:31 PM
Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and to a lesser extent Rivers, Eli, Big Ben, Vince Young and Brees win games for their team. Yes they have some bad games (some more frequent than others) and usually there team loses. But they also win games for their team.

Garrard more often than not does not lose the game for his team. If Mo Drew and Taylor were out, he isn't a type of player who can put you on his back and win the game for you. This makes him more of a game-manager. He is as good as the talent around him.

Nothing is wrong at all with game manager. In a lot of respects they are more desireable than a high-risk, high reward player like Eli Manning and Vince Young.

Your definition is 100% correct, I'd also like to add to your post: the way you build team your is what determines weather or not you need a game manager or not. Jacksonville has a 1-2 running game w/ fred taylor and mojo-drew -- and you can bet when fred taylor becomes to old and retires, they'll try to draft another semi-high profile back (I'm not saying they're gonna throw away a 1st round pick on 1, but they will definetly try to get good 2nd round / 3rd round steals). With this build of theirs, you don't want any player in the QB position taking risks and throwing the ball to the opposing team, because its not your strong suit.

When Garrard retires, or alternatively has a bad season and gets cut - I think the jaguars might pursue a game changing QB through the draft to be their QB of the future.

JT Jag
04-11-2008, 01:39 PM
I'd just like to state for the record that Rich Gannon broke out at age 34 and was one of the best QBs in the NFL over the next 4 years.

Trent Green broke out at 31.

Steve Beuerlein had a couple outstanding seasons at 34 and 35.

Jeff Garcia, of course, didn't do diddly until 30.

Going further back, Terry Bradshaw had the best years of his career after age 30.

Really, considering his injury history (practically nonexistent) and the amount of wear on his body (again, practically nonexistent), there's no reason he can't produce at a high level for at least 4 years. And by then, all the guaranteed money will be off the cap and we'll either restructure or cut him without any penalty.

Ness
04-11-2008, 07:05 PM
Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and to a lesser extent Rivers, Eli, Big Ben, Vince Young and Brees win games for their team. Yes they have some bad games (some more frequent than others) and usually there team loses. But they also win games for their team.

Garrard more often than not does not lose the game for his team. If Mo Drew and Taylor were out, he isn't a type of player who can put you on his back and win the game for you. This makes him more of a game-manager. He is as good as the talent around him.

Nothing is wrong at all with game manager. In a lot of respects they are more desireable than a high-risk, high reward player like Eli Manning and Vince Young.

How many times has Garrard been put in the situation where he has had to "win games" for his team? He hasn't had that much playing experience and this was his first big season. Probably due to that new offensive coordinator that was brought in from Arizona State.

It's very rare a single player, especially a quarterback, can win a game for you. A quarterback still needs an offensive line that protects, and targets that can catch. If you mean in the sense that when all of the cylinders are clicking, and the only way to score is by passing the ball, guys like Manning and Brady make the best of the cast around them, then that's a better way of putting it. But a QB can't win games "by themselves" if their supporting cast is garbage.

JagHombre22
04-11-2008, 10:33 PM
How many times has Garrard been put in the situation where he has had to "win games" for his team? He hasn't had that much playing experience and this was his first big season. Probably due to that new offensive coordinator that was brought in from Arizona State.

It's very rare a single player, especially a quarterback, can win a game for you. A quarterback still needs an offensive line that protects, and targets that can catch. If you mean in the sense that when all of the cylinders are clicking, and the only way to score is by passing the ball, guys like Manning and Brady make the best of the cast around them, then that's a better way of putting it. But a QB can't win games "by themselves" if their supporting cast is garbage.

The Patriots game from last season's playoffs is a perfect example. The running game was not there and Garrard was forced to beat the Patriots with his arm and he was going toe to toe with Tom Brady and up until the last series he had them in the game...I consider it one of Garrard's best passing games of his career...he was accurate, strong, and put this team on his shoulders. I don't think there is a doubt that he could bring this team back with the right group of receivers...hopefully Jerry Porter has changed that.

Ness
04-11-2008, 11:11 PM
The Patriots game from last season's playoffs is a perfect example. The running game was not there and Garrard was forced to beat the Patriots with his arm and he was going toe to toe with Tom Brady and up until the last series he had them in the game...I consider it one of Garrard's best passing games of his career...he was accurate, strong, and put this team on his shoulders. I don't think there is a doubt that he could bring this team back with the right group of receivers...hopefully Jerry Porter has changed that.

Yes, that's one good example. The Steelers game is another. All in all, not that many times.

JagHombre22
04-11-2008, 11:13 PM
Yes, that's one good example. The Steelers game is another. All in all, not that many times.

but that's to be expected from a one year starter...

Ness
04-11-2008, 11:58 PM
but that's to be expected from a one year starter...

Yeah I know. Which is why I'm perplexed by a lot of people that talk about Garrard like he's a seasoned veteran that has started most games season after season, saying "Oh well he can only do so much, can't win games for you, etc."

MetSox17
04-12-2008, 11:34 AM
Yes, that's one good example. The Steelers game is another. All in all, not that many times.

I don't know if there was some subtle sarcasm in that post, but were you watching a different steelers playoff game that i was??
He was putrid, and the only reason he gets accolades is because of the little
scramble he did at the end. All game he didn't do squat and turned the ball over twice in the air.

Ness
04-12-2008, 12:33 PM
I don't know if there was some subtle sarcasm in that post, but were you watching a different steelers playoff game that i was??
He was putrid, and the only reason he gets accolades is because of the little
scramble he did at the end. All game he didn't do squat and turned the ball over twice in the air.

But he came through when it mattered. What if Garrard threw 3 touchdowns, but gave it away in the end with a pick? I'll always take a quarterback that finishes better than they started.