Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Okay, but Zach Wilson was the 1.2 pick on the NFL draft so...are we saying he wasn't right around 1.2 in SF drafts? Along with Trubisky.
None of the above. I just think it’s an unfair projection. QB are hard to come by in SF these days and it’s an obvious false narrative that the only possible reason for a team to need to rely on a rookie passer is gross mismanagement. Cmon.
No. I have 2 teams. One is a 16-teamer where through trades I now have Fields/TLaw.
Again, it’s a needless criticism and clearly a false premise.
Of course it’s not a good strategy. No one said otherwise and certainly not me.
Like I said, I’m starting to lean that way.
I actually tried to trade for Zach Wilson twice, once after his lacklustre first season, and again in his second season before he properly bombed out. I was QB needy and attempting to get him on the cheap first time for the ‘22 2.01, second time a ‘23 2nd .. no dice. Last offer that came back was Michael Pittman and ‘23 2nd which I obviously rejected. Each league is a little different but you know yourself QBs have crazy value and maintain it for a long time, even for a period when they are potentially bombing out
The statement was about viable starters. Not “locked in stud “.In a SF anyone below top 5-7 is a weekly question mark you will likely be deciding between with another QB, or even another skill position guy, if your scoring isn't terribly skewed.Yeah, I’d expect either / both to be immediate contributors, and not bottom 12 QBs.I think it’s fairly likely for either to be top 24 QBs as rookies.
You're not plugging Stroud or Young into your lineup every week unless something has gone wrong or, highly unlikely right.
This is my thought as well. Stroud and Young may turn out to be better NFL QBs, but if we're talking only fantasy, I'd rather shoot for the upside with Richardson. If he falters, you can pivot away from him, just like you can find replacements for Stroud/Young unless somehow one of them explodes (which I'm not banking on).
So was mine. I'm not knocking drafting rookie QBs, it's a necessity in SF leagues as it is in the NFL. If you have a chance to get one, you absolutely take it.The statement was about viable starters. Not “locked in stud “.In a SF anyone below top 5-7 is a weekly question mark you will likely be deciding between with another QB, or even another skill position guy, if your scoring isn't terribly skewed.Yeah, I’d expect either / both to be immediate contributors, and not bottom 12 QBs.
You're not plugging Stroud or Young into your lineup every week unless something has gone wrong or, highly unlikely right.
Yes. Upside is just too big. Now if you needed a QB2 and you're a contender, sure I can see taking Young. But Young (or Stroud) are not "can't miss" prospects, and they could fall flat on their face.
Depending on their situations I see both as potentially better than Mac for FF.
A fine idea. Sadly for me, I was the one who dealt away 1.03 & 1.04, so it would be a little odd to trade back, not to mention highly unlikely those managers would wish to do so.
Sure, but if face-falling % chance is a metric we’re concerned about, no one seems to have a better shot at falling on their face than Richardson, who only started 13 games & didn’t look good in a lot of them.
Just to play devil's advocate, safe picks at the time sometimes turn out to be anything but that. Mac Jones, for instance, was viewed as safe and he's looking like about a year away from being a career backup.Sure, but if face-falling & chance is a metric we’re concerned about, no one seems to have a better shot at falling on their face than Richardson, who only started 13 games & didn’t look good in a lot of them.
Stroud & Young are either Heisman winners or runner-ups, and have long college careers to evaluate. They seem like significantly safer picks, other than Stroud’s inability to play video games & Young’s somewhat unique ability to fit into tiny spaces.
Don’t disagree with this.
What was the logic behind getting out of 1.03 and 1.04 while hanging onto 1.02? You had to have someone in mind there. Why not Gibbs there?
yes, this. I just posted about exactly that in the ARich topic.
The logic was dealing less valuable picks while holding more valuable ones.
Then take Stroud if you believe that. I would rather go down with what I believed in at the time.
Depending on your scoring system, RB2 may still be the best use of your draft pick but that's for you to determine.
Of course that is true, and I completely understand it. Richardson is a big risk. But if things go right, you can have a Jalen Hurts type player for years that can anchor your QB in superflex.Sure, but if face-falling % chance is a metric we’re concerned about, no one seems to have a better shot at falling on their face than Richardson, who only started 13 games & didn’t look good in a lot of them.
Stroud & Young are either Heisman winners or runners-up, and have long college careers to evaluate. They seem like significantly safer picks, other than Stroud’s inability to play video games & Young’s somewhat unique ability to fit into tiny spaces.
Think I'd be rooting for Falcons, if I was looking to take Stroud in dynasty. But ARich to ATL would be so much sexier.
Mine is.
Mac Jones was a very good college QB. But he was playing with NFL talent all around him, throwing to Jeudy and D Smith who were open 24/7. We weren't sure how Jones would do throwing the ball into tight windows or how he would do under pressure. And he hasn't taken that step forward in the NFL.Just to play devil's advocate, safe picks at the time sometimes turn out to be anything but that. Mac Jones, for instance, was viewed as safe and he's looking like about a year away from being a career backup.Sure, but if face-falling & chance is a metric we’re concerned about, no one seems to have a better shot at falling on their face than Richardson, who only started 13 games & didn’t look good in a lot of them.
Stroud & Young are either Heisman winners or runner-ups, and have long college careers to evaluate. They seem like significantly safer picks, other than Stroud’s inability to play video games & Young’s somewhat unique ability to fit into tiny spaces.
Agreed. And to that extent, Young and Stroud are coming from top notch programs. They seem to have better tools than Jones, but no guarantee they can take it to the next level obviously.Mac Jones was a very good college QB. But he was playing with NFL talent all around him, throwing to Jeudy and D Smith who were open 24/7. We weren't sure how Jones would do throwing the ball into tight windows or how he would do under pressure. And he hasn't taken that step forward in the NFL.Just to play devil's advocate, safe picks at the time sometimes turn out to be anything but that. Mac Jones, for instance, was viewed as safe and he's looking like about a year away from being a career backup.Sure, but if face-falling & chance is a metric we’re concerned about, no one seems to have a better shot at falling on their face than Richardson, who only started 13 games & didn’t look good in a lot of them.
Stroud & Young are either Heisman winners or runner-ups, and have long college careers to evaluate. They seem like significantly safer picks, other than Stroud’s inability to play video games & Young’s somewhat unique ability to fit into tiny spaces.
