Saquan Barkley Pick is looking like a bad pick

[iknowcool]

And maybe I'm in the minority in thinking this, but the NFL changes so fast that I don't really think the argument that you shouldn't take RBs in the first-round because they can't last 10 years holds that much weight.  It isn't like you aren't going to have a chance to draft a 1st round OL or DE again.  It isn't like you aren't going to have other picks in the draft to fill holes and positions.  And the fact of the matter is the vast majority of staffs only have a 5-year window anyway.  There's only 7 HCs who have been with the same team for 5+ years.

Yes, for some teams, it might not make a lot of sense.  And I get that argument.  But to flatly say RBs shouldn't be taken in the 1st-round, I'll never understand that.  

[Forge]

3 minutes ago, Mr Bad Example said:

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

That was probably the draft where I knew the Mayock / Gruden thing wouldn't work. Ultimately, I don't know who is making the decisions there, but that relationship wasn't going to work (either because Mayock got fed up or Mayock became a scapegoat for Gruden's antics). Using the #4 overall on a guy that didn't project to the next level as a stud and some people thought would be available at their second pick 20 selections later, another first round pick on a running back and a third, first round pick on a box safety in a passing league just seemed like a horrific use of assets. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, iknowcool said:

And maybe I'm in the minority in thinking this, but the NFL changes so fast that I don't really think the argument that you shouldn't take RBs in the first-round because they can't last 10 years holds that much weight.  It isn't like you aren't going to have a chance to draft a 1st round OL or DE again.  It isn't like you aren't going to have other picks in the draft to fill holes and positions.  And the fact of the matter is the vast majority of staffs only have a 5-year window anyway.  There's only 7 HCs who have been with the same team for 5+ years.

Yes, for some teams, it might not make a lot of sense.  And I get that argument.  But to flatly say RBs shouldn't be taken in the 1st-round, I'll never understand that.  

There's merit to this. We are quickly seeing the death of cover 3 single high safety across the league as more teams edge back toward two high looks as more QBs tend to struggle against this coverage. The way to bust 2 high coverage is to be able to successfully run the football. Running back will slowly get back a little of their shine in that regard. Don't think that they will ever get back to their heyday just because it's a more analytically inclined league and we understand how much more efficient passing is, but their worth will certainly ebb and flow within a range. 

[MWil23]

The position value just doesn't make sense IMO. Occasionally sure, there are outliers, but guys like Kamara, Chubb, Henry, and Cook show major 2nd Round value...not to mention guys drafted later with great production in the past 5 or so years (Hunt, Jones, Chris Carson, Ekeler).

[scar988]

5 minutes ago, Forge said:

There's merit to this. We are quickly seeing the death of cover 3 single high safety across the league as more teams edge back toward two high looks as more QBs tend to struggle against this coverage. The way to bust 2 high coverage is to be able to successfully run the football. Running back will slowly get back a little of their shine in that regard. Don't think that they will ever get back to their heyday just because it's a more analytically inclined league and we understand how much more efficient passing is, but their worth will certainly ebb and flow within a range. 

The best way to bust 2-high coverage is crossing patterns and overloaded formations. Things NFL teams are also running at a high rate. Most teams run hybrid coverage schemes and don't stick with just 2 high or 4-high. Or c1 or c3. They will vary up their coverages now. The great thing about the NFL is that while offenses are ever changing, defenses basically stay the same and it's just what % are teams using certain looks. What ways are teams scheming their blitzes. How well are teams adapting to motion vs. just line up and go teams? That being said, running schemes aren't too different than they ever were. The vast majority of run schemes have 6-7 total play calls for the run game with just variations off them because there's only so much you can do. Trap/Counters (same play, but different blocking looks), outside zone, inside zone, man through specific hole, Toss sweeps/crack sweeps and various reverses/end arounds. Because of that, I think mentally, RB is the easiest position to play in the NFL for what their primary job is. That hard part for them is the other stuff. Pass protection. Catching the ball out of the backfield. You don't spend a first rounder on a guy who is primarily pass protecting unless he's over 300 lbs though.

Edited September 24, 2021 by scar988

[NYRaider]

8 minutes ago, Forge said:

That was probably the draft where I knew the Mayock / Gruden thing wouldn't work. Ultimately, I don't know who is making the decisions there, but that relationship wasn't going to work (either because Mayock got fed up or Mayock became a scapegoat for Gruden's antics). Using the #4 overall on a guy that didn't project to the next level as a stud and some people thought would be available at their second pick 20 selections later, another first round pick on a running back and a third, first round pick on a box safety in a passing league just seemed like a horrific use of assets. 

Essentially every defensive player we drafted was selected because they "fit Paul Guenther's scheme" and are all backups now, lol.

[iknowcool]

21 minutes ago, Forge said:

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. 

And I get that.  But not all teams need a left tackle or a pass rusher.  For some teams it absolutely makes sense to go out and get a guy who you think can be a stud for 5 years. 

Again, are people saying that if the Patriots would have just made the smart decision and taken Chubb at 31 instead of Michel, it would have been a bad pick?  Or Seahawks at 27?  I know you aren't saying this, just in response to just the whole flat-stance people have against backs in the 1st.  IMO RBs made sense for both those teams, they just chose really bad ones.  Chubb was clearly a better prospect than both of them and I don't think that is hindsight either.  I do think Chubb had some injury concerns though.

I've always understood why people are against giving RBs 2nd contracts.  But the whole first-round stance, I just can't agree with.  For some teams, yes, it probably isn't the best decision.  But at the same time, for some teams, it is.  Especially teams who don't really need much.  And especially in a league where again, most staffs only have about a 5-year window (right or wrong).  It often makes a lot more sense for them to take a RB and hope for 5 great years than take a corner.  Not to make it seem like longevity doesn't matter but things just change way too much for a HC or GM to be caring about 6 years from now.

Edited September 24, 2021 by iknowcool

[NateDawg]

What OP really meant here was (RB) is looking like a bad pick here.

[scar988]

1 minute ago, iknowcool said:

And I get that.  But not all teams need a left tackle or a pass rusher.  For some teams it absolutely makes sense to go out and get a guy who you think can be a stud for 5 years. 

Again, are people saying that if the Patriots would have just made the smart decision and taken Chubb at 31 instead of Michel, it would have been a bad pick?  Or Seahawks at 27?  I know you aren't saying this, just in response to just the whole flat-stance people have against backs in the 1st.

I've always understood why people are against giving RBs 2nd contracts.  But the whole first-round stance, I just can't agree with.  For some teams, yes, it probably isn't the best decision.  But at the same time, for some teams, it is.  Especially teams who don't really need much.  And especially in a league where again, most staffs only have about a 5-year window (right or wrong).  It often makes a lot more sense for them to take a RB and hope for 5 great years than take a corner.  Not to make it seem like longevity doesn't matter but things just change way too much for a HC or GM to be caring about 6 years from now.

I think it depends on the situation. In the draft, the first round for most teams is normally the first 18-27 picks. Wherever that first big drop off in initial talent. After those picks, it's not about getting Pro Bowl guys, but consistent 4-5 year starters who can possibly get a second contract. So after that shelf, going with a RB is perfectly acceptable. But spending a premium top 15 pick on one makes no sense unless he's just a monster. 

[Forge]

5 minutes ago, scar988 said:

The best way to bust 2-high coverage is crossing patterns and overloaded formations.

Sorry, my team has Fred Warner...we don't have to worry about that

[iknowcool]

Just now, scar988 said:

I think it depends on the situation. In the draft, the first round for most teams is normally the first 18-27 picks. Wherever that first big drop off in initial talent. After those picks, it's not about getting Pro Bowl guys, but consistent 4-5 year starters who can possibly get a second contract. So after that shelf, going with a RB is perfectly acceptable. But spending a premium top 15 pick on one makes no sense unless he's just a monster. 

So you would agree that it is okay to spend a premium top 15 pick on a RB you think is an elite prospect?  

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, iknowcool said:

So you would agree that it is okay to spend a premium top 15 pick on a RB you think is an elite prospect?  

I think it depends on what your roster looks like and who else is available, both at the time of the pick and in the RB class in general.

[Shanedorf]

18 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

It isn't like RB is the only position that sees busts in the first-round.  

Its not just the bust factor, that happens to all positions as you noted.
Its that you can find a very talented RB later - whereas its really hard to find a talented QB, CB, EDGE, LT later.
There are certainly later round examples of each, but they are more rare.

A couple of top RBs right now are Dalvin Cook ( 2nd) , Alvin Kamara ( 3rd) and Aaron Jones (5th). If you want more of the bruiser type, Derrick Henry ( 2nd)
That's a lot of talent for a much more minimal investment

The RB position is also devalued because of longevity as you noted- which actually helps NFL teams find a talented one later.
And in today's NFL - you have top coaches ( Kyle ) preferring a stable of RBs with different skill sets vs one bell cow as in yesteryear.

That pick was a treasure and the Giants didn't get the most out of their treasure - not because of bad luck -  but because of bad strategy.
I think that's where most fans are sitting as far as Barkley. They paid $ 50 for a $ 20 dollar bill - and that's independent of Saquan.

Starting in 2019, here are the 1st round RBs looking backwards.
The ones in bold are living up to their draft slot and the ones in italics are already on another team before their rookie deal was over

Josh Jacobs
Saquan Barkley
Rashaad Penny
Sony Michel
Leonard Fournette
CMC
Zeke
Todd Gurley
Melvin Gordon
Trent Richardson
Doug Martin

 

[scar988]

4 minutes ago, Forge said:

Sorry, my team has Fred Warner...we don't have to worry about that

Fred is great at carrying the middle of the field. I wish Foye Oluokun could do the same.

3 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

So you would agree that it is okay to spend a premium top 15 pick on a RB you think is an elite prospect?  

Even then, it's iffy. If I'm taking a guy in the top 15, I got issues outside of RB that need to be addressed first. More than likely, I need OL, or defense. And I would prioritize my team like this:

QB

LT/Prime Edge Pass Rusher/Prime CB/Top tier WR

Other 4 OL spots/Other 9 defensive spots

No. 2 WR/TE

RB

K/P

LS

 

For both starters and depth.

[iknowcool]

2 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Its not just the bust factor, that happens to all positions as you noted.
Its that you can find a very talented RB later - whereas its really hard to find a talented QB, CB, EDGE, LT later.
There are certainly later round examples of each, but they are more rare.

You can find a very talented WR later too, if not even more-so especially with how the passing game has evolved.  But yet there isn't as loud of an audience against drafting WRs in the first-round.