Re: SNR & everybody who claims that the non-Geno talent atop this draft is "garbage."
 

I recently listed several players that I felt are superior to Geno Smith, all things being equal (including positional value):

SNR responded by calling most of them "garbage":

Well, let's take a look, shall we?

Now, the key here is to try to remember each of these players as prospects, not as the players we know they are now.

At QB, who was a worse prospect than Geno of the above players?

1. Luck
2-tie. RG3/Stafford
3. Ryan
4-tie. Bradford/Sanchez
5. Newton
6. Gabbert
7. Smith
8. Tannehill
9. Locker

At OT, who was a worse prospect than Joeckel, Fisher, or Lane Johnson?

The way I would have ordered them as prospects:

1. Long
2. Okung
3. Williams
4-tie. Joeckel/Kalil
5. Fisher
6. Jason Smith
7-tie. Andre Smith/Monroe/Lane Johnson
8. Tyron Smith

At passrusher, who was a worse prospect than Werner, Moore, or Jordan?

1. Miller
2. Chris Long
3. Aldon Smith
4-tie. Gholston/Werner
5. Moore
6. Harvey
7. Jordan

At DT, who was a worse prospect than Richardson or Hankins? (Star is apparently out of commission as a top 10 pick now.)

1. Suh
2. McCoy
3. Dorsey
4. Dareus
5. Raji
6. Richardson
7-tie. Ellis/Hankins
8. Tyson Jackson
9. Alualu

Now on to my broader point here:

This is how I would rank them as prospects as of now. Of course you could adjust your rankings all over the place.

But the myth that Geno Smith is on par with what we've seen in the past while the other three categories are horrendous nightmares compared to your "usual draft," is just that: a myth.

suck my butt

You're missing out on a key point here.

Number one. Overall. Pick.

You will be the first to enter The Rape Machine.

Let's say Kalil is a wash with Joeckel/Fisher.

The Vikings already had their QB. They weren't going to draft another one.

Wait. What?

No, I'm responding to the ludicrus bullshit you threw my way, calling all of these prospects "garbage" in earnest.

They are legitimately on par with what we've had in drafts past in the top 10.

But Kalil was a candidate of that caliber, and if the Vikes had passed, Kalil would have been taken soon afterwards. In no universe is he anything other than a Top 10 pick in 2012.

My point is that this year's talent doesn't stack up with the elites, but it's comfortable Top Ten material across the board everywhere but maybe passrusher.

Matt Stafford had a lot of question marks coming out of college. But the Lions ignored that and chose to see him as a guy who would INSTANTLY dig them out of that shit hole if he turned out to be great.

Had they gone the safe route with Eugene Monroe, who knows how terrible they would be? It's possible we would have had problems with them in the race to the #1 overall pick this past season.

I fail to see how a guy who basically started 1 year in college (Sanchez) was considered a better prospect than Geno Smith?

What are the scouts seeing in Geno that suggests he's not a top tier QB prospect?

you've proved our point

none of the talent this year would be in the top 5 of the last 5 years...unless you give them 'ties'

putting gabbert ahead of smith is pure nonsense

and none of this changes the central vapidity of your argument...reaching for mythological value (just rhetorical cover for playing it 'safe')...

but have fun passing on QBs for another decade, this value thing you've got going has served the chiefs well...

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

Awesome.

Please.

"A lot of question marks."

He would have been taken #1 overall by anybody. You're rewriting history.

He was one of the best prospects we've seen. There was literally no question he was the best player in that year's draft.