DrJ 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller_Time_21 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Battle-Tested 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! Clarett.................damn it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller_Time_21 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! Clarett.................damn it Sorry Battle, when I said SOD, I was referring to: "STEAL OF THE DRAFT" Not: "STIFF OF THE DRAFT" Sorry for the confusion! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrJ 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! When you look at it historically, it is a pretty typical value on QB's. Rivers went 2.07 last season, and he's pretty comparable to Alex Smith. Blue chip WR's typically fall into the 5-7 range. Those guys were both significantly greater values, historically speaking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoos First 0 Posted June 15, 2005 its just alot easier to acquire QB's, then it is RB's, WR's. I wouldnt use a 1st or 2nd on a QB, but that is just personal opinion. Its all about how you want to run your team, if you think he's a steal so be it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller_Time_21 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! When you look at it historically, it is a pretty typical value on QB's. Rivers went 2.07 last season, and he's pretty comparable to Alex Smith. Blue chip WR's typically fall into the 5-7 range. Those guys were both significantly greater values, historically speaking. Come on Dr. J, your better then that. Smith is walking into a starting job and was the #1 pick, Rivers was still holding out and not the #1 pick (shouldn't have been #4). Look at the draft history you created: 03 - 1.6 Leftwhich 1.10 Palmer (#1 Pick) 2.2 Boller 04 - 1.12 Manning (#1 Pick) 2.4 Roeth 2.6 Losman 2.7 Rivers 05 - 2.8 Smith (#1 Pick) So no, when you look at it historically, this is not typical value for the 1st QB taken or the #1 Pick in the draft. In both of the previous drafts there were at least 3 QB's off the board by the time 2.8 rolls around. This is outstanding value for the first QB no matter how you slice it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller_Time_21 0 Posted June 15, 2005 its just alot easier to acquire QB's, then it is RB's, WR's. I wouldnt use a 1st or 2nd on a QB, but that is just personal opinion. Its all about how you want to run your team, if you think he's a steal so be it. RB's yes, WR's, not quite so sure about that. WR's are a dime a dozen after the first 20 or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrJ 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! When you look at it historically, it is a pretty typical value on QB's. Rivers went 2.07 last season, and he's pretty comparable to Alex Smith. Blue chip WR's typically fall into the 5-7 range. Those guys were both significantly greater values, historically speaking. Come on Dr. J, your better then that. Smith is walking into a starting job and was the #1 pick, Rivers was still holding out and not the #1 pick (shouldn't have been #4). Look at the draft history you created: 03 - 1.6 Leftwhich 1.10 Palmer (#1 Pick) 2.2 Boller 04 - 1.12 Manning (#1 Pick) 2.4 Roeth 2.6 Losman 2.7 Rivers 05 - 2.8 Smith (#1 Pick) So no, when you look at it historically, this is not typical value for the 1st QB taken or the #1 Pick in the draft. In both of the previous drafts there were at least 3 QB's off the board by the time 2.8 rolls around. This is outstanding value for the first QB no matter how you slice it. I think if you put Phillip Rivers into this year's draft, he's the 1.01 pick. He's got everything Alex Smith does, and more arm strength. If you want to say the situation is better, okay, but last year at this time there was no indication that Rivers would hold out and wouldn't be the starting QB. Not all 1.01's are created equal, Alex Smith is no Eli Manning or Carson Palmer. A big part of the reason he fell as far as he did is because he's the weakest 1.01 QB in a looooong time. I agree with you that he's a great value here, but nowhere near the SOD. Npt with top WR's falling to the late 1st. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller_Time_21 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! When you look at it historically, it is a pretty typical value on QB's. Rivers went 2.07 last season, and he's pretty comparable to Alex Smith. Blue chip WR's typically fall into the 5-7 range. Those guys were both significantly greater values, historically speaking. Come on Dr. J, your better then that. Smith is walking into a starting job and was the #1 pick, Rivers was still holding out and not the #1 pick (shouldn't have been #4). Look at the draft history you created: 03 - 1.6 Leftwhich 1.10 Palmer (#1 Pick) 2.2 Boller 04 - 1.12 Manning (#1 Pick) 2.4 Roeth 2.6 Losman 2.7 Rivers 05 - 2.8 Smith (#1 Pick) So no, when you look at it historically, this is not typical value for the 1st QB taken or the #1 Pick in the draft. In both of the previous drafts there were at least 3 QB's off the board by the time 2.8 rolls around. This is outstanding value for the first QB no matter how you slice it. I think if you put Phillip Rivers into this year's draft, he's the 1.01 pick. He's got everything Alex Smith does, and more arm strength. If you want to say the situation is better, okay, but last year at this time there was no indication that Rivers would hold out and wouldn't be the starting QB. I agree with you that he's a great value here, but nowhere near the SOD. Rivers would not have been the #1, the only team that had Rivers that high was SD, and that's the only reason he leaped Roeth last year as the #2 QB. If Rivers is such a great prospect why did you pass on him for Roeth last year? Now if you want to tell me Roeth would have been the #1, I'd agree, but not Rivers, no way! Hell JP Loseman got drafted before Rivers last year (and yes at the time of our draft last year there was indication he was holding out). Rivers was the 4th QB taken last year and that was at 2.7, to say the #1 QB this year is not a complete steal at 2.8 is insane. If your preference is not to take QB's in the first or second, that's fine, but that still doesn't change the fact that this is a steam based on the historical area that the top QB's get drafted in in this league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller_Time_21 0 Posted June 15, 2005 And if you want to call it SOD rd 2 addition, fine, still a SOD!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrJ 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Now if you want to tell me Roeth would have been the #1, I'd agree, but not Rivers, no way! So it is agreed that Roeth was a better prospect - and he still went 2.04, not all that far ahead of the 2.08 here. I still say Rivers is just as good as well, but even Roeth shows that historically this isn't that much of a steal. Good value, yes, but I'd say recent trends indicate there will be more top QB's to fall to the 2nd next year as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller_Time_21 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Now if you want to tell me Roeth would have been the #1, I'd agree, but not Rivers, no way! So it is agreed that Roeth was a better prospect - and he still went 2.04, not all that far ahead of the 2.08 here. I still say Rivers is just as good as well, but even Roeth shows that historically this isn't that much of a steal. Good value, yes, but I'd say recent trends indicate there will be more top QB's to fall to the 2nd next year as well. Personally I think there about equal prospect wise and SMith is walking into a job and Roeth was going to be a back-up until injury. Yes Williams was a great value and that's what you want to hear, he's the steal of the draft. I think Smith could end up being every bit of the steal he was and more if he lives up to the hype. Palmer wasn't hyped much coming out, in fact it was alot like this year where everyone said there was no clear cut #1 choice. And he went 1.10. If the whizanator can call himself the SOD, I can call Alex Smith the SOD!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetdoc 20 Posted June 15, 2005 Mike Williams was definitely the SOD. Smith falling that far was nice, but in our league, the value of QB's are definitely discounted. I'm just pissed that I missed out on Williams by one freaking pick... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigtuna 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Definitely a great value here, but the SOD's are Williamson and Williams without question. Williamson and Williams should have went 1.6 & 1.7, they went 9 & 10. Smith should have went 2.1-2.3 range at the worst, and fell to 2.8! SOD! maybe he will turn out as good as Philip Rivers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigtuna 0 Posted June 15, 2005 Mike Williams was definitely the SOD. Smith falling that far was nice, but in our league, the value of QB's are definitely discounted. I'm just pissed that I missed out on Williams by one freaking pick... Mike Williams will be a backup WR And he is on a team with two other WR's who are much much faster and more athletic. and the QB sucks Williamson will be a stud with Culppepper throwing to him. Troy is much faster, has the best hands in college football, is almost as big, and has a great QB throwing him the rock oh and he plays on TURF Good night Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
