That's quite misleading to say. Waddle was injured and didn't play that game and Chase had 221 yards and 2 TD's in the previous year's National Championship.
Good point. Chase: 9 Recs 220 Yds 2 TDs, Smith: 12 Recs 215 Yds 3 TDs. They both had outstanding games. I was more focused on Burrow who stole the show of that game IMO. Honestly I could live with either one (or Waddle), however, as a matter of personal preference, I would still go with Smith.
Waddle did play in that game 3 Rec 34 Yds. 0 TD, but you're right he was coming off an injury. Nevertheless, the key point is that Smith stepped up his game.
I haven't seen much of Waddle or Chase, but what I've seen of Smith convinced me he's an unstoppable weapon. The only question I have about him is size/durability, but there have been plenty of small receivers who excelled and had long careers. I really don't see how you shut Smith down without allowing some other weapon to beat you. I wouldn't take him at #2 probably, but I wouldn't say it's an outlandish idea either.
Waddle is going to be a great NFL wideout. But he played 6 games and had 590 yards and 4 TDs. Smith had 1856 yards and 23 TDs in 13 games. Waddle was not on a pace to have that kind of season. Smith has proven he is notably better.
When they were both on the field at the same time Waddle was outperforming Smith. Had Smith gone down with an injury it's probably fair to say Waddle's production would've gotten even higher. Also Waddle did not play 6 games. In the 5th game of the season he broke his ankle on the opening kickoff and his role in the National Championship was greatly reduced due to injury. It was questionable whether he would even play in that game. He was averaging about 140 yards receiving per game over the first 4 games of the season, and that was with Smith also in the lineup. For the record I think Smith may well be better, I was just giving you the case for why some believe Waddle is. Either way I don't think we should take a WR at #2 overall.
