Yeah, I dont' get the hate against Garrard.
So far:
1) He's "old". Well, so is Peyton Manning (36) and *everyone* wanted him here. Both also coming from serious injury. I'm not comparing their quality of play, but then neither is this argument... Also, have you not seen the success older QBs are having nowadays? With the new "emphasis" on keeping them safe, the advent of spread offenses, and the overall crippling of defensive players by the rulebook, age isn't as much an issue anymore.
2) He's "selfish". Not only is there *zero* evidence of this from his teammates and coaches - you know, the people who actually *know* him - but the theory that he "shut down" after getting his deal is complete BS. Yes, Garrard and the Jaguard passing offense did decline substantially - both in standard stats (350/2442, 18/3 TD/INT, 64.4% completion versus 581/3459, 15/11, 63%) and advanced stats (7th in DYAR, 3rd in DVOA versus 15th and 17th). But ponder this bit, from 2008:
"The most injured offensive line belongs to the Jacksonville Jaguars, who saw long-term injuries to Brad Meester, Maurice Williams, and Vince Manuwai en route to 36.2 [adjusted games lost]".
That's right - the Jaguars were the most affected team from injuries to their OL that year. Hell, MJD had 62 receptions that year - just 3 shy from leading his team.
They guy might not be Tom Brady, but he can be 2008 Chad Pennington - a veteran that can take control of the team while the rookie grows. The situations are similar: we're up against a weak schedule (at least as it stands right now), and the team wasn't as bad as its record last year.
Frankly, I don't care *who* starts, but I fail to see why Garrard would be such a lousy choice.