Rookie QBs in dynasty (1 Viewer)

[Goat Herders]

I think my comment is being seen as a negative and it's not. I love griffin. I think he will be an excellent player. But I have thought the same of a number of qbs that didn't work out. I thought joe Harrington was a better prospect than carr, and even though he had a better career he wasn't a great player. I thought Jason Campbell was a better pick than Alex smith and that hasn't worked out. I thought roetglisnerger was the best qb of his class and that is arguable.

The point I was making is that comparing quarterbacks from one year to the next is foolish. The premium on finding a franchise guy is such that teams dive over themselves for a quarterback because it's so important. Matt Barkley is a good player, but he (1) isn't one of the 15 best players in college football and (2) will still be a top 3 pick.

Saying griffin is one of the best quarterback prospects in the last 20 years is nuts. Maybe he is. But I also know that David Carr and Sam Bradford and Alex smith and jamarcus Russell all went #1 and there was a time for optimism with them as well.

 

[Tau837]

Besides, obviously the NFL scouts thought Wilson's height would be an issue. Maybe a good preseason means they were wrong. Maybe a good preseason means it's just preseason, and the scouts were right. Maybe Wilson's height is still an issue, and defenses will be able to exploit it once they're actually game planning.

I'm pretty sure there was a time when scouts thought Warren Moon couldn't play QB because he is black. So he went undrafted. How did that work out? This is the same kind of irrational bias IMO.As I said, Wilson is a unique prospect. The scouting system is not prepared to judge him appropriately.

 

[EBF]

Here's what's not assumption. Merrill Hoge and Tony Dungy were calling for the Colts to draft Griffin over Luck. Russ Lande of TSN and the guys over in the Shutdown Corner blog on Yahoo rated Griffin the #1 player in the class. Greg Cosell stopped short of declaring which prospect was better, but he made it very clear that it wasn't a slam dunk decision. We know Indy preferred Luck, but that Washington traded what is probably the biggest haul in draft history to land Griffin. I think the two QBs were a lot closer as prospects than people think. I think it's Manning/Leaf 2.0, only we don't yet know how their pro careers are going to turn out.

On the other hand, PFW rated Luck as an 8.50 and clearly the best player in the draft, while Griffin was a mere 6.70. According to their scale, Luck was easily a top 10 talent whereas Griffin merely graded as a strong 1st rounder. http://www.profootballweekly.com/prospects/rankings/

I think Luck was so highly regarded that it was possible for someone to be ranked well below him and still be considered a strong franchise QB prospect worthy of pursuing aggressively. The fact that two teams (Washington and Cleveland) were willing to pay a king's ransom to select RGIII definitely adds weight to the idea that he was considered a special prospect, but I don't think there's a strong consensus that he was neck-and-neck with Luck.

I think some of that perception is based on the pro-RGIII college football media blitz. Also, lots of people like to play the contrarian, and it's a lot more fashionable to back the underdog than it is to just accept the fact that someone hyped as the next great thing is actually that good. This is especially true when the player in question is hyped as the future #1 pick since his redshirt freshman season. Luck entered last NCAA season as the presumptive #1 overall selection, meaning all eyes were on him and every facet of his game was put under the microscope. RGIII was the new kid on the block. The shiny new toy.

From a purely FF perspective, I think the perception of RGIII's talent and potential has been skewed by Cam Newton's success. I've pointed out before that Newton routinely fell outside the top 10 picks in my rookie drafts last year despite being the #1 overall pick with prodigious physical tools and awesome college production. Fast forward a year later and RGIII is being drafted far higher even though his profile is very similar and he was actually a lower pick in the draft. Some of that is clearly a reaction to Cam.

Ultimately, it's really hard to compare prospects across drafts. I think it's clear that there are "strong" #1 picks like Luck and "weak" #1 picks like Alex Smith. It's easy to recognize a distinction when the gap is so massive, but there have been plenty of guys in the past decade like Carson Palmer, David Carr, Matt Stafford, Mike Vick, and Eli Manning who were concrete #1 picks. They got a lot of hype in their time. I don't know that RGIII can be put on a separate plane from that cluster.

It's kind of a pointless digression though. I would still take Griffin over Wilson. I do think the NFL downgrades players who don't fit their ideal physical molds (it's the reason why Maurice Drew and Ray Rice fell as far as they did), but Griffin earned a top 5 draft slot whereas we can only speculate as to where Wilson might have gone if he had prototypical height. I'll usually give a high pick some benefit of the doubt, but the further down the draft order you get, the more reluctant I am to accept a player as elite until he actually proves it. And Wilson hasn't done that yet.

 

[DoubleG]

I saw every game he played last year and all his preseason games. I love Wilson, but there is no way I'd rank him above RGIII long term based on preseason. Preseason defenses are a complete joke.

At this point in time anyone ranking Wilson higher in a dynasty is crazy, although that doesn't mean it's impossible Wilson will end up better.

In terms of the bolded, I think people who think Wilson should/could be considered to be very near the Luck/RG3 tier are doing so based on his season last year - not just preseason. Wilson's passer rating in 2011 was higher than Luck's. Some experts have suggested if Wilson were 2-3" taller, he would have been in the discussion about who should be the #1 drafted QB in this class - and the discussion SSOG was referring to would have been a 3 QB discussion, not a 2 QB discussion.For many, the only knock on Wilson is his height. The talent to play the position is not the question at all.

In terms of your last statement, there are some in this thread that have suggested that Wilson ending up better is virtually impossible. I don't happen to think so. Based on 2011, preseason and what many other experts have said about Wilson and RG3, I think the two will actually have very similar NFL careers, stastically, presuming both stay healthy and both teams make a commitment to surround them with similar talent.

 

[cstu]

LuckRG3WilsonFOlesTannehillOsweillerWeedenCousins

I'd probably move Weeden over Osweiler, but I agree with everything else.

I'm higher on Osweiler than most since I think he will be in a great situation when he gets a chance. He's young (still 21) and learning from two great QB's. The problem is that he could be the longest to wait for if Peyton stays healthy.

 

[BigTex]

Drafted Wilson in the 3rd round of our Rookie draft. Probably could have waited another round and he would have been there but didn't want to take that chance by the moans and groans he was on several radars. I already had Luck and I took Foles in the 6th.

 

[lbouchard]

For me personally, I think Wilson is closer to RG3 than RG3 is to Luck. In recent memory, there have been 3 prospects that were perfect prospects(no flaws in their game): Megatron, Suh, and Luck. I like RG3 but he's not in Luck's class IMO.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

LuckRG3WilsonFOlesTannehillOsweillerWeedenCousins

I'd probably move Weeden over Osweiler, but I agree with everything else.

I'm higher on Osweiler than most since I think he will be in a great situation when he gets a chance. He's young (still 21) and learning from two great QB's. The problem is that he could be the longest to wait for if Peyton stays healthy.

Yeah I'm not a very patient guy in fantasy, even in dynasty drafts; I play to win now every season, and holding a player who's more than likely 2+ years away from starting doesn't complement that strategy. Ignoring that though I actually like Osweiler more than Tannehill, but given Tannehill's starting right away his value right now is so much higher that I'd rather have him on my team even though I think he's very likely to be a bust.

 

[SSOG]

You conveniently ignored that Young was hurt for 9 games over the 2 seasons following Shanahan's departure from the 49ers, after which point he was 36. Your facts relating to Young are correct, but you are conveniently ignoring relevant context.You are also ignoring my point about Kubiak. Who is to say how much of the success in Denver was due to Shanahan vs. Kubiak?

I think you're overstating the injury case. Young played double digit games in both seasons, and his efficiency metrics were lower even before his injury. Besides, since when is 36 the magic number at which QBs are considered "old"?As for Kubiak, I think he's a pretty good QB tutor, too, but he can't get any credit for Elway's early development (or his own development as a QB, for that matter), he wasn't around when Shanny was coaching Young, and he had no hand in Cutler's development.

 

[SSOG]

Besides, obviously the NFL scouts thought Wilson's height would be an issue. Maybe a good preseason means they were wrong. Maybe a good preseason means it's just preseason, and the scouts were right. Maybe Wilson's height is still an issue, and defenses will be able to exploit it once they're actually game planning.

I'm pretty sure there was a time when scouts thought Warren Moon couldn't play QB because he is black. So he went undrafted. How did that work out? This is the same kind of irrational bias IMO.As I said, Wilson is a unique prospect. The scouting system is not prepared to judge him appropriately.

Suggesting skin color precludes one from playing QB is, indeed irrational bias. No possible skin color could have an impact on production. A QB could dye himself purple and it wouldn't affect his results. Suggesting height precludes one from playing QB is not irrational bias. There are plenty of possible heights that would have a demonstrable impact on a player's performance. We will never see a 4-foot tall QB. There's no way he could get the ball over the line of scrimmage. We will never see an 8-foot tall QB. Snapping the ball would be problematic, and he'd be a massive injury risk. Clearly limitations exist based on height. We can have a meaningful discussion of whether Wilson lies within those limitations, but we cannot deny that they exist. Scouts obviously feared that his height would be a limitation. That might have been a rational fear, and it might have been an irrational fear, but one preseason is not enough to conclusively say one way or another.

 

[Tau837]

Besides, obviously the NFL scouts thought Wilson's height would be an issue. Maybe a good preseason means they were wrong. Maybe a good preseason means it's just preseason, and the scouts were right. Maybe Wilson's height is still an issue, and defenses will be able to exploit it once they're actually game planning.

I'm pretty sure there was a time when scouts thought Warren Moon couldn't play QB because he is black. So he went undrafted. How did that work out? This is the same kind of irrational bias IMO.As I said, Wilson is a unique prospect. The scouting system is not prepared to judge him appropriately.

Suggesting skin color precludes one from playing QB is, indeed irrational bias. No possible skin color could have an impact on production. A QB could dye himself purple and it wouldn't affect his results. Suggesting height precludes one from playing QB is not irrational bias. There are plenty of possible heights that would have a demonstrable impact on a player's performance. We will never see a 4-foot tall QB. There's no way he could get the ball over the line of scrimmage. We will never see an 8-foot tall QB. Snapping the ball would be problematic, and he'd be a massive injury risk. Clearly limitations exist based on height. We can have a meaningful discussion of whether Wilson lies within those limitations, but we cannot deny that they exist. Scouts obviously feared that his height would be a limitation. That might have been a rational fear, and it might have been an irrational fear, but one preseason is not enough to conclusively say one way or another.

You're right, it was a bad comparison. I just could not think of another bias that has been disproven to which I could compare the height bias.Like I've already said, Wilson is a unique prospect.1. He was a dominant passer in a pro style offense for 4 seasons in college. That alone separates him from almost every QB who entered the NFL at 6' or less.2. He already excelled behind an NFL sized offensive line, just last year.3. He dominated not one, but two BCS conferences, which also means two offensive systems, two sets of coaches and teammates, two sets of conference opponents, etc. Those are things no other sub 6' prospect had going for them. In fact, I'm not sure any NFL QB at any height can claim that.4. While he is short for a QB, he has a release point higher than many QBs who are 6'2" or 6'3". That helps negate his height. He also has huge hands, which can sometimes be an issue for a shorter QB.5. I suppose pretty much all QBs drafted into the NFL are great athletes, but it can't hurt that Wilson was good enough in baseball to be drafted in the 4th round by the Rockies.6. His non-physical attributes are off the charts: intelligence, leadership, character, work ethic, etc.IMO the bottom line is that the scouts don't have a category for a player like him, because there has never been one. That does not guarantee he will succeed, but it's a good explanation for why scouts weren't higher on him, and a good reason not to put much stock in the fact that he wasn't drafted earlier.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

For what it's worth, I think you're highly overrating Wilson's performance at NC State, JWB, or you just use the word dominant very freely. Despite his godly TD/INT ratio as a freshman, his completion % was poor and his YPA was mediocre at best. As a junior, his TD/INT ratio was mediocre and his YPA was below average. The only season at NC State where it could be argued that he was dominant was in 2009 as a sophomore imo; and really even then his numbers weren't all that extraordinary relative to other QBs in his conference.

 

[SSOG]

Besides, obviously the NFL scouts thought Wilson's height would be an issue. Maybe a good preseason means they were wrong. Maybe a good preseason means it's just preseason, and the scouts were right. Maybe Wilson's height is still an issue, and defenses will be able to exploit it once they're actually game planning.

I'm pretty sure there was a time when scouts thought Warren Moon couldn't play QB because he is black. So he went undrafted. How did that work out? This is the same kind of irrational bias IMO.As I said, Wilson is a unique prospect. The scouting system is not prepared to judge him appropriately.

Suggesting skin color precludes one from playing QB is, indeed irrational bias. No possible skin color could have an impact on production. A QB could dye himself purple and it wouldn't affect his results. Suggesting height precludes one from playing QB is not irrational bias. There are plenty of possible heights that would have a demonstrable impact on a player's performance. We will never see a 4-foot tall QB. There's no way he could get the ball over the line of scrimmage. We will never see an 8-foot tall QB. Snapping the ball would be problematic, and he'd be a massive injury risk. Clearly limitations exist based on height. We can have a meaningful discussion of whether Wilson lies within those limitations, but we cannot deny that they exist. Scouts obviously feared that his height would be a limitation. That might have been a rational fear, and it might have been an irrational fear, but one preseason is not enough to conclusively say one way or another.

You're right, it was a bad comparison. I just could not think of another bias that has been disproven to which I could compare the height bias.Like I've already said, Wilson is a unique prospect.1. He was a dominant passer in a pro style offense for 4 seasons in college. That alone separates him from almost every QB who entered the NFL at 6' or less.2. He already excelled behind an NFL sized offensive line, just last year.3. He dominated not one, but two BCS conferences, which also means two offensive systems, two sets of coaches and teammates, two sets of conference opponents, etc. Those are things no other sub 6' prospect had going for them. In fact, I'm not sure any NFL QB at any height can claim that.4. While he is short for a QB, he has a release point higher than many QBs who are 6'2" or 6'3". That helps negate his height. He also has huge hands, which can sometimes be an issue for a shorter QB.5. I suppose pretty much all QBs drafted into the NFL are great athletes, but it can't hurt that Wilson was good enough in baseball to be drafted in the 4th round by the Rockies.6. His non-physical attributes are off the charts: intelligence, leadership, character, work ethic, etc.IMO the bottom line is that the scouts don't have a category for a player like him, because there has never been one. That does not guarantee he will succeed, but it's a good explanation for why scouts weren't higher on him, and a good reason not to put much stock in the fact that he wasn't drafted earlier.

Fair enough, and I've warmed to the idea of having Wilson over Tannehill, but again... Griffin is another class entirely. It's not crazy to suggest that Wilson might be a better QB than Griffin, or might have a better fantasy career. It's definitely crazy to suggest that he should be valued comparably at this point in time, though. Again, Griffin has a QB rating just 9 points lower in the preseason. It's not like Wilson is playing like Aaron Rogers and Griffin is playing like Blaine Gabbart.

 

[Tau837]

For what it's worth, I think you're highly overrating Wilson's performance at NC State, JWB, or you just use the word dominant very freely. Despite his godly TD/INT ratio as a freshman, his completion % was poor and his YPA was mediocre at best. As a junior, his TD/INT ratio was mediocre and his YPA was below average. The only season at NC State where it could be argued that he was dominant was in 2009 as a sophomore imo; and really even then his numbers weren't all that extraordinary relative to other QBs in his conference.

Perhaps I am, but I say that as someone who watched every game he played at State that was available via television/internet and attended several games in person.Despite not playing his senior season - which one would normally expect to be his best season - at State, he is in the top 10 all time in the following categories for the ACC: pass attempts, pass completions, passing yards, passing TDs, passer efficiency, passing yards per attempt, adjusted passing yards per attempt. He combined for 93 passing and rushing TDs in 36 games at State. He also set an NCAA record for pass attempts without an interception.Maybe we're debating semantics, but I call that stuff dominant, particularly given he was playing with a poor supporting cast.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

For what it's worth, I think you're highly overrating Wilson's performance at NC State, JWB, or you just use the word dominant very freely. Despite his godly TD/INT ratio as a freshman, his completion % was poor and his YPA was mediocre at best. As a junior, his TD/INT ratio was mediocre and his YPA was below average. The only season at NC State where it could be argued that he was dominant was in 2009 as a sophomore imo; and really even then his numbers weren't all that extraordinary relative to other QBs in his conference.

Perhaps I am, but I say that as someone who watched every game he played at State that was available via television/internet and attended several games in person.Despite not playing his senior season - which one would normally expect to be his best season - at State, he is in the top 10 all time in the following categories for the ACC: pass attempts, pass completions, passing yards, passing TDs, passer efficiency, passing yards per attempt, adjusted passing yards per attempt. He combined for 93 passing and rushing TDs in 36 games at State. He also set an NCAA record for pass attempts without an interception.

Maybe we're debating semantics, but I call that stuff dominant, particularly given he was playing with a poor supporting cast.

A lot of those statistics you listed are simply accumulable stats that one simply gets simply from playing, not necessarily for playing well. Though I am surprised that'd he be in the top 10 of the bolded efficiency numbers, particularly YPA since his combined YPA from his freshman and junior seasons is 6.9 which really is quite poor, and that's over 802 of his 1180 career pass attempts in the ACC. Is there a database that shows this information?

 

[Tau837]

For what it's worth, I think you're highly overrating Wilson's performance at NC State, JWB, or you just use the word dominant very freely. Despite his godly TD/INT ratio as a freshman, his completion % was poor and his YPA was mediocre at best. As a junior, his TD/INT ratio was mediocre and his YPA was below average. The only season at NC State where it could be argued that he was dominant was in 2009 as a sophomore imo; and really even then his numbers weren't all that extraordinary relative to other QBs in his conference.

Perhaps I am, but I say that as someone who watched every game he played at State that was available via television/internet and attended several games in person.Despite not playing his senior season - which one would normally expect to be his best season - at State, he is in the top 10 all time in the following categories for the ACC: pass attempts, pass completions, passing yards, passing TDs, passer efficiency, passing yards per attempt, adjusted passing yards per attempt. He combined for 93 passing and rushing TDs in 36 games at State. He also set an NCAA record for pass attempts without an interception.

Maybe we're debating semantics, but I call that stuff dominant, particularly given he was playing with a poor supporting cast.

A lot of those statistics you listed are simply accumulable stats that one simply gets simply from playing, not necessarily for playing well. Though I am surprised that'd he be in the top 10 of the bolded efficiency numbers, particularly YPA since his combined YPA from his freshman and junior seasons is 6.9 which really is quite poor, and that's over 802 of his 1180 career pass attempts in the ACC. Is there a database that shows this information?

Here is where I got the info: Russell Wilson.Also forgot to point out previously that Wilson was QB of the Year last year at Wisconsin and 1st Team All ACC at QB in his freshman year. Not sure if any QB has ever been QB of the Year in two BCS conferences.

 

[Sebowski]

Besides, you haven't addressed my charge that Wilson's supporting cast, even discounting coaching, is no better than Griffin's. They achieved worse offensive results last year than Washington. Sidney Rice is a good receiver, but he can't stay healthy, and Fred Davis is one of the better TEs in the league. In terms of secondary weapons, I'd take Garçon and Moss over Tate and Miller. Again, it seems that the argument boils down to the loss of those 2 first rounders, but there's only a 50% chance those picks would have been used on an offensive player, and further, there's only a 50% chance said offensive player would wind up being any good. It's possible to build offensive talent without any first round picks. Just ask New England. Or New Orleans. Or Green Bay. If Griffin doesn't develop because his team lacks a first rounder for the next two seasons, then Griffin was never going to develop in the first place.

IMO:Seattle OL > Washington OL

Seattle RBs >> Washington RBs

Seattle TEs < Washington TEs

Seattle WRs >= Washington WRs

The WR comparison (Rice, Edwards, Tate, Baldwin, Obamanu vs. Garcon, Moss, Hankerson, Morgan, Banks) favors Seattle IMO, if Rice stays healthy.

I agree with everything except #2Seattle might have an edge on the Skins at RB talent (I think Marshawn is as overrated as it gets), but if you just call it the running game I think they are at least equal. The Skins will finish with with similar or better rushing stats as Seattle. They just may come from a combination of RBs and not just an 80/20 split between 2.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

For what it's worth, I think you're highly overrating Wilson's performance at NC State, JWB, or you just use the word dominant very freely. Despite his godly TD/INT ratio as a freshman, his completion % was poor and his YPA was mediocre at best. As a junior, his TD/INT ratio was mediocre and his YPA was below average. The only season at NC State where it could be argued that he was dominant was in 2009 as a sophomore imo; and really even then his numbers weren't all that extraordinary relative to other QBs in his conference.

Perhaps I am, but I say that as someone who watched every game he played at State that was available via television/internet and attended several games in person.Despite not playing his senior season - which one would normally expect to be his best season - at State, he is in the top 10 all time in the following categories for the ACC: pass attempts, pass completions, passing yards, passing TDs, passer efficiency, passing yards per attempt, adjusted passing yards per attempt. He combined for 93 passing and rushing TDs in 36 games at State. He also set an NCAA record for pass attempts without an interception.

Maybe we're debating semantics, but I call that stuff dominant, particularly given he was playing with a poor supporting cast.

A lot of those statistics you listed are simply accumulable stats that one simply gets simply from playing, not necessarily for playing well. Though I am surprised that'd he be in the top 10 of the bolded efficiency numbers, particularly YPA since his combined YPA from his freshman and junior seasons is 6.9 which really is quite poor, and that's over 802 of his 1180 career pass attempts in the ACC. Is there a database that shows this information?

Here is where I got the info: Russell Wilson.Also forgot to point out previously that Wilson was QB of the Year last year at Wisconsin and 1st Team All ACC at QB in his freshman year. Not sure if any QB has ever been QB of the Year in two BCS conferences.

That site says they're using data only from 2000 onwards, so it's not really all-time ACC data. Still interesting to look at though.

 

[Tau837]

For what it's worth, I think you're highly overrating Wilson's performance at NC State, JWB, or you just use the word dominant very freely. Despite his godly TD/INT ratio as a freshman, his completion % was poor and his YPA was mediocre at best. As a junior, his TD/INT ratio was mediocre and his YPA was below average. The only season at NC State where it could be argued that he was dominant was in 2009 as a sophomore imo; and really even then his numbers weren't all that extraordinary relative to other QBs in his conference.

Perhaps I am, but I say that as someone who watched every game he played at State that was available via television/internet and attended several games in person.Despite not playing his senior season - which one would normally expect to be his best season - at State, he is in the top 10 all time in the following categories for the ACC: pass attempts, pass completions, passing yards, passing TDs, passer efficiency, passing yards per attempt, adjusted passing yards per attempt. He combined for 93 passing and rushing TDs in 36 games at State. He also set an NCAA record for pass attempts without an interception.

Maybe we're debating semantics, but I call that stuff dominant, particularly given he was playing with a poor supporting cast.

A lot of those statistics you listed are simply accumulable stats that one simply gets simply from playing, not necessarily for playing well. Though I am surprised that'd he be in the top 10 of the bolded efficiency numbers, particularly YPA since his combined YPA from his freshman and junior seasons is 6.9 which really is quite poor, and that's over 802 of his 1180 career pass attempts in the ACC. Is there a database that shows this information?

Here is where I got the info: Russell Wilson.Also forgot to point out previously that Wilson was QB of the Year last year at Wisconsin and 1st Team All ACC at QB in his freshman year. Not sure if any QB has ever been QB of the Year in two BCS conferences.

That site says they're using data only from 2000 onwards, so it's not really all-time ACC data. Still interesting to look at though.

OK, I missed that. I still think he was a dominant QB. I found the ACC record book from last season, and it says Wilson is #15 all time in pass efficiency; didn't have time to look at anything else.

 

[duaneok66]

much of this thread is comical after a half.

 

[fatness]

One actual NFL game under each of their belts now.

 

[moderated]

Other than RG3, it looks like the rookie QB class of 2012 is the most overrated collection of losers assembled since Comic-Con 2005.

Seeing only RGIII and Luck were that highly regarded i don't see what you're talking about.

 

[EBF]

It looks like an above average class. It has two potential stars at the top and a bunch of guys who could be solid starters. Wilson and Foles emerging from the third round adds a lot of potential to this group.

 

[DoubleG]

Other than RG3, it looks like the rookie QB class of 2012 is the most overrated collection of losers assembled since Comic-Con 2005.

Seeing only RGIII and Luck were that highly regarded 1 game has been played i don't see what you're talking about.

FYP.Unless of course we're ready to innagurate Kevin Ogeltree the #1 WR in all of FF, or proclaim Jeremy Kerely a top 10 WR worthy of starting every week, or blast people for drafting Eli Manning instead of Matt Schuab, Fitz or that Alex Smith should clearly finish ahead of Tom Brady, bumping this thread to say "see?" after 1 week - especially in regards to the QB position is just silly or fishing on BusterT's part. Either way, this needs to stop.

After about 7-8 weeks, when they've had a chance to acclamate themselves to the speed of the game, and have seen real NFL defenses at work for a few games, THEN we can start to draw (albiet EXTREMELY limited) conclusions.

 

[Sebowski]

Other than RG3, it looks like the rookie QB class of 2012 is the most overrated collection of losers assembled since Comic-Con 2005.

Seeing only RGIII and Luck were that highly regarded 1 game has been played i don't see what you're talking about.

FYP.Unless of course we're ready to innagurate Kevin Ogeltree the #1 WR in all of FF, or proclaim Jeremy Kerely a top 10 WR worthy of starting every week, or blast people for drafting Eli Manning instead of Matt Schuab, Fitz or that Alex Smith should clearly finish ahead of Tom Brady, bumping this thread to say "see?" after 1 week - especially in regards to the QB position is just silly or fishing on BusterT's part. Either way, this needs to stop.

After about 7-8 weeks, when they've had a chance to acclamate themselves to the speed of the game, and have seen real NFL defenses at work for a few games, THEN we can start to draw (albiet EXTREMELY limited) conclusions.

I'm ready to do this