Saquan Barkley Pick is looking like a bad pick

[Shanedorf]

4 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Top 5?  Never.

Agree.
But Top 6 is OK, right ? 

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, Ray Reed said:

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.

With the way the game is played now there are only a few position groups I think are worth a first imo.

QB, obviously, if you don’t have one,  then OL, pass rusher, and CB/DB.  
 

No team ever has too many good ones, and if you don’t have the talent it’s really hard to scheme around that deficiency.

[ET80]

7 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

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

I think the party came to a stop after that 2005 draft class (Ronnie Brown at 2, Cedric Benson at 4, Cadillac Williams at 5).

(Meanwhile, 2005 3rd round pick Frank Gore has more rushing yardage than those three combined).

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

Agree.
But Top 6 is OK, right ? 

Obviously! 😂 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

I think the party came to a stop after that 2005 draft class (Ronnie Brown at 2, Cedric Benson at 4, Cadillac Williams at 5).

(Meanwhile, 2005 3rd round pick Frank Gore has more rushing yardage than those three combined).

It also doesn’t help that there’s no real correlation between having a stud running back and winning rings, especially over the last 2 decades or so.

You need a competent running game, but not necessarily a stud featured back.

[Shanedorf]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

With the way the game is played now there are only a few position groups I think are worth a first imo.

If you take a buzz through NFL Draft History, its interesting to see how the top picks changed as the game changed. Fierce MLBs and durable RBs used to be premium positions - but as the game morphed into basketball on grass - the premium positions changed and you can see that reflected on draft day. 
Somebody needs to tell Gettleman, this isn't your Father's NFL

https://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/years/

[ET80]

Just now, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

It also doesn’t help that there’s no real correlation between having a stud running back and winning rings, especially over the last 2 decades or so.

You need a competent running game, but not necessarily a stud featured back.

In the early 00s, you could make a correlation - not a strong one, but you could make one. Jamal Lewis, Ladanian Tomlinson were absolute monsters, but they were also surrounded by stacked teams at the height of their powers.

It's almost as if you need a good team to turn a good RB to a great RB...

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

If you take a buzz through NFL Draft History, its interesting to see how the top picks changed as the game changed. Fierce MLBs and durable RBs used to be premium positions - but as the game morphed into basketball on grass - the premium positions changed and you can see that reflected on draft day. 
Somebody needs to tell Gettleman, this isn't your Father's NFL

https://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/years/

Yep.  Once they cracked down on the amount of contact DB’s could have with receivers and protecting QB’s, the game changed for good.

[ET80]

As far as Saquan - I'm sure he'll eventually turn into that freak of nature we were all expecting once he hits FA and starts up his 2nd career in Buffalo.

He'll be a "bust" I guess in NYG, but that's more a nod to the ineptness in NY than it is with Saquan not being a good player.

[MWil23]

26 minutes ago, Forge said:

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 

Barkley? 

Chubb was their highest rated RB on their board and round 2 target after Barkley. 

[iknowcool]

These threads are always so frustrating.

Yes, the Giants, a bad team at the time, probably shouldn't have taken a RB with the #3 overall pick.  

That does not mean that RBs shouldn't be taken in the first round. 

I felt like Barkley was such a ridiculous talent, it was worth it to an extent.  And it is a damn shame he got hurt.  But are some of you telling me that, even if Barkley fell to the 20s, you aren't taking him just because?  That to me is crazy.  It isn't like RB is the only position that sees busts in the first-round.  

Edited September 24, 2021 by iknowcool

[Kirill]

49 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.

Yeah I thought it was a savvy decision for KC two years ago when we already had elite weaponry all over offense except at RB and were picking last in the draft so you get the cheapest contract and that extra contract year you get with first rounders. 
 

But I wanted Jonathan Taylor not a tiny gadget back like Clyde. Definitely think we could’ve spent that pick better now.

[Forge]

7 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

These threads are always so frustrating.

Yes, the Giants, a bad team at the time, probably shouldn't have taken a RB with the #3 overall pick.  

That does not mean that RBs shouldn't be taken in the first round. 

 

 

For me, I think I'd just downgrade them a tier or two and I don't like taking running backs in the first round at all, but at some point talent is talent. 

I wouldn't have taken Zeke where the cowboys did, but I would started considering him after that tier of Ramsey, Buckner, Tunsil, Stanley were all gone. 

[Mr Bad Example]

44 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

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. 

Even among these, people were asking why Gruden overdrafted Jacobs, he was considered to be a 2nd round talent. 

[Turnobili]

RB going #2 overall was almost always going to be a bad pick. His injuries since then have only made it worse.