Saquan Barkley Pick is looking like a bad pick

[Vladimir L]

I wanted him for Washington but injuries have taken a toll him and he always seems to do well against my team. RB with short shelf life and how easy they are to find can’t justify taking one with a top 15 pick.

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

It was always a bad pick

 

 

[BroncoSojia]

They passed up a trade down from the Broncos (who would've taken Sam Darnold) to take him. Hell, they probably could've still got Barkley at 5.  Terrible decision and process.

[evilpimp972]

You just don't draft a RB in the first round without the pieces around him, I don't know why teams continue to make mistakes like this

[43M]

Its always easy to judge in hindsight.   And its unfair to say any pick is a bad pick "due to injuries", unless the player was oft injured in college.   That wasnt the case with Barkley.  

Think of any top 5 pick that has been successful.....they would also be considered a "bad pick" if they were constantly hampered by injuries. .

Dont get me wrong....in the modern NFL, I dont think RB top 5 or top 10 is ever a good idea, regardless of how great they are.    Hell, Im rarely a fan of a RB in the first 50 picks.....but Barkley was a special talent.    Still not a fan of ANY RB that high, but he was one of the most talented prospects in that draft.

Also, RBs are so reliant on a decent OLine to have success.       Even potentially great RBs can struggle behind terrible lines, and a great run blocking offensive line can make an average RB look much better than they are.    So if you dont have a good OLine, its a pretty bad idea to take a RB early....especially top 10.

Bottom line....position wise it was always a very questionable pick, but talentwise, the guy was a special player.    

[viking]

5 minutes ago, evilpimp972 said:

You just don't draft a RB in the first round

FIFY

[MWil23]

There are a lot of reasons as to why you don't draft a RB in the first round, unless you are picking in the mid to late first and feel as though it's going to make your already good offense with an already established franchise QB take that next step and cement your team's status as a legitimate contender.

[Forge]

20 minutes ago, BroncoSojia said:

They passed up a trade down from the Broncos (who would've taken Sam Darnold) to take him. Hell, they probably could've still got Barkley at 5.  Terrible decision and process.

Making that trade would have certainly allowed them to take Nelson and Nick Chubb...that would have been nice. 

[Broncofan]

2 minutes ago, 43M said:

 

Bottom line....position wise it was always a very questionable pick, but talentwise, the guy was a special player.    

Honestly it was a bad pick from the moment the pick went in, for that reason alone.

It's nothing against the player.   CMC at 10 I'd argue is just as bad, but because CMC is a baller everyone gives CAR a pass.  They shouldn't.   

As for the player - he'll be MUCH better next year - because ACL recovery doesn't return full explosion until 18 months post-surgery.  Players are playing at 11-12 months routinely, and sometimes even 10, but they're not quite the same until 18 months.   When you add in the bad OL, and the fact NYG is being cautious in using a pitch count, this slow start isn't at all surprising. 

Barkley's going to be a fantasy post-hype guy I'll be all over next year - especially if the new GM (I don't see Gettleman surviving) beefs up the OL.    But this year's slow start shouldn't surprise anyone, given the timing and context.   Still, he'll also be expensive very shortly - which is another reason why RB Rd1 is such a bad idea in general.  

[MWil23]

Just now, Forge said:

Making that trade would have certainly allowed them to take Nelson and Nick Chubb...that would have been nice. 

Sorry you can't have Chubb, but I can offer the Giants Guice as a consolation prize.

[scar988]

11 minutes ago, evilpimp972 said:

You just don't draft a RB in the first round without the pieces around him, I don't know why teams continue to make mistakes like this

Taking a RB in the first round is just stupid in the first place. If I was a GM, I'd take a running back every year in the 3rd or 4th round, hope that one pops off and then let them go after their rookie deal.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Yeah it was always a bad pick.  First round running back?  Debatable.  Top 5?  Never.

[Forge]

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Sorry you can't have Chubb, but I can offer the Giants Guice as a consolation prize.

Honestly, my guess is that if the Giants had passed on Barkley in the first, the browns likely take him at 33 rather than 35 

[ronjon1990]

First round talent RBs "should" be second round picks at best. They just don't seem to hold up anymore. 

Barkley, CMC, Jacobs, Zeke.... it's rare that they do anymore. 

A RB just usually isn't in position to singlehandedly be a savior, given the dependency on the O-line and needing a competent QB and passing game. Given those, a top flight RB can 100% change a team's fortunes, but they just aren't worth first rounders, especially top 10 picks anymore.

[Ray Reed]

10 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

There are a lot of reasons as to why you don't draft a RB in the first round, unless you are picking in the mid to late first and feel as though it's going to make your already good offense with an already established franchise QB take that next step and cement your team's status as a legitimate contender.

And even then, you end up with a situation like the Chiefs drafting CEH.

Even without hindsight, I always thought that was a bad pick. I was actually pumped when it happened that they went RB instead of potentially upgrading a premium position on their defense or adding to a questionable OL.