Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
You have an internal logic fail here.
If Rodgers isn't arguable, but there was a huge faction of the draft folks that thought Smith was better than Rodgers coming out of college, then isn't Smith also not arguable?
The same logic can be applied to Rivers/Eli.
Brees fell to the 2nd and wasn't Brees for 3 years.
It's an odd question, really. BUt I think a fair statement is that many of those names could have been considered better than Geno coming out of college, but the only truly 'inarguable' example is Peyton Manning. Otherwise you have to put yourself in the position of claiming that Alex Smith was also better than Geno coming out. You wanna hitch yourself to that wagon?
Then I accomplished somewhat what I hoped to with that.
It's pretty much impossible to look at something like that with no hindsight glasses on, because we know the end game. We can take the scouting report they had as a prospect, hold it up to what they are now, and see what matches up.
IMO, you can't effectively analyze and/or compare prospects accross time, because you can't take that element out of it. Which is why the whole Luck/RGIII stuff is somewhat overblown, just as the "he's no DT etc."