[Lefty Noob]

David Garrard went 12-of-22 for 177 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INTs today in Jacksonville's 37-7 win over Tennessee today. Don't you guys think that, by the way he's been playing and how the Jags have been winning with him at the helm, that Garrard has earned the starting job? Or do you hand the reigns back to Leftwich when he's 100% and good to go?

[soriano33]

Its a tough decision but I believe Leftwich is the Franchise guy so you gotta give the job back to him unless he is unable to perform...Garrards performance makes a QB controversy for the rest of the Jags season

[Lefty Noob]

See, I just can't take out a player who's doing this well. The team is winning with him at quarterback, and that's the most important thing. If and when he starts to cool off, then you come back with Leftwich, but as long as Garrard is throwing 3 TDs and the team is winning, why make the change?

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by soriano33

Its a tough decision but I believe Leftwich is the Franchise guy so you gotta give the job back to him unless he is unable to perform...Garrards performance makes a QB controversy for the rest of the Jags season

Gotta Agree... you can't bench your Franchise player for one good performance against a sub par team...not sound business practice.

[Lefty Noob]

Ah, but it's not one good performance, DK. In his last four games, Garrard is 50-of-86, 58.1%, 684 yards, 4 TDs, 0 INTs and a passer rating of 99.2. More importantly, Jacksonville has won both games he started after going .500 with Leftwich at the helm, and those wins against Philly and against what had been a surging Tennessee club. Additionally, I think calling Leftwich this team's franchise player is being too kind; I don't think DelRio's sold on him being the long term answer.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Ah, but it's not one good performance, DK. In his last four games, Garrard is 50-of-86, 58.1%, 684 yards, 4 TDs, 0 INTs and a passer rating of 99.2. More importantly, Jacksonville has won both games he started after going .500 with Leftwich at the helm, and those wins against Philly and against what had been a surging Tennessee club. Additionally, I think calling Leftwich this team's franchise player is being too kind; I don't think DelRio's sold on him being the long term answer.

Funny, you would still want Schaub in there when Vick has played way better, but you'd take Garrard after 86 passes over Leftwich...kinda funky curve you grade on there Lefty...

[Lefty Noob]

Heh heh... always comes back to Vick with you, doesn't it? Okay, then.

In their last 4 games, Garrard has a 99.2 passer rating. Vick has a 86.1 passer rating. Both are completing about 58% of their passes, so that's a push. Garrard has a 4-to-0 TD to INT ratio; Vick's is 8-to-5. Vick has fumbled six times and lost 2; Garrard has fumbles half as many times and lost 0. Now, Vick is a much better scrambler, averaging 60 ypg to Garrard's 22.5 ypg, and he has thrown for more yards, 210 ypg to 171 ypg.

Finally, on the 2006 season, Garrard has a passer rating of 102.9 (Vick and Leftwich both have a 79.0 rating on the season). Now, is that a product of Garrard only having two starts and throwing a limited number of passes? Quite possibly. It's not like I'm saying Garrard is the next great QB or anything. But the team is winning and he's playing well, and the kid has earned the right to continue on as the starter until those two things change, if they do.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Heh heh... always comes back to Vick with you, doesn't it? Okay, then.

In their last 4 games, Garrard has a 99.2 passer rating. Vick has a 86.1 passer rating. Both are completing about 58% of their passes, so that's a push. Garrard has a 4-to-0 TD to INT ratio; Vick's is 8-to-5. Vick has fumbled six times and lost 2; Garrard has fumbles half as many times and lost 0. Now, Vick is a much better scrambler, averaging 60 ypg to Garrard's 22.5 ypg, and he has thrown for more yards, 210 ypg to 171 ypg.

Finally, on the 2006 season, Garrard has a passer rating of 102.9 (Vick and Leftwich both have a 79.0 rating on the season). Now, is that a product of Garrard only having two starts and throwing a limited number of passes? Quite possibly. It's not like I'm saying Garrard is the next great QB or anything. But the team is winning and he's playing well, and the kid has earned the right to continue on as the starter until those two things change, if they do.

See now if you just go over a few threads and apply that to the Vick threads...I would be more incline to accept the Garrard argument...

[azrael492]

I would give Gerrard the starting job for now. I have never been sold on Leftwich. He gets hurt alot and doesn't move too well. Not a good combo if you ask me.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

See now if you just go over a few threads and apply that to the Vick threads...I would be more incline to accept the Garrard argument...

Hey, when Vick was playing well, I gave him credit for playing well. Go check the threads. But guess what? He was back to the same old, lousy passer yesterday and the team lost. Vick needs to become more consistant to be considered an elite NFL quarterback. Garrard isn't there either, not by any stretch of the imagination. But he's earned the right to keep his job. Vick has too. For now. Even though I still believe Schaub would run the offense better, but I can't prove it.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by azrael492

I would give Gerrard the starting job for now. I have never been sold on Leftwich. He gets hurt alot and doesn't move too well. Not a good combo if you ask me.

Exactly, thank you, azrael. Leftwich is injury prone, and Garrard has better mobility. Plus thus far he's proven to be a more accurate passer, too, and the team's unbeaten with him at the helm in 2006. Why would he NOT have earned the starting job?

[The Franchise13]

i would go with Garrard. He has enough potential to keep this team moving. Perhaps.......maybe a decent winning season with him in?

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Hey, when Vick was playing well, I gave him credit for playing well. Go check the threads. But guess what? He was back to the same old, lousy passer yesterday and the team lost. Vick needs to become more consistant to be considered an elite NFL quarterback. Garrard isn't there either, not by any stretch of the imagination. But he's earned the right to keep his job. Vick has too. For now. Even though I still believe Schaub would run the offense better, but I can't prove it.

Think I will name you Captain Hook after Reds Skipper Sparky Anderson... ...I guess since Ben and Brady had far worse days then Vick ever did, you'd yank them out as well?...no?...huh...what's Ben this year 7 tds -14 picks?...come on now Captain...call for him to be yanked...

[Lefty Noob]

Dude, where have you been? I was calling for Batch two weeks ago!

Brady gets a pass because it was just one bad game, a couple of those were tipped passes, and, well, he's Tom Brady. He's got 3 Super Bowl titles, so he gets a little more slack than the other guys do. Far as I'm concerned, Manning and Brady are the only two "unbenchable" quarterbacks in the NFL. Maybe Matt Hasselbeck too; I'm not 100% sure.

[ThePundit]

To be fair, I haven't seen Garrard play but I always like Leftwich. Why is everyone so do down on him?