The Official Combine, AKA "Underwear Olympics" Thread

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

20 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

And I agree with this, but at the same point, comparing a punter to a RB is a bit of a stretch. Let's be honest here, if he's an elite RB, he's getting 25-30 total touches a game, responsible for a nice chunk of scoring, plus helping out in blocking situations another 10-15 snaps a game. Conservatively, even not factoring in the blocking responsibilities, they're responsible for close to 40% of the offensive scheme. I'd rather draft a RB in the top 10 as opposed to a slot receiver, which is what Corey Coleman will probably end up being (although he was picked in the teens) or what Jarvis "LOL, they are paying that guy $16 million!!!!!" Landry is.

Ideallly were not comparing drafting Barkley to a quasi bust slot receiver, but to a talented player at a different position. I’d rather draft a good punter at two than Ryan Leaf, but that doesn’t mean I want a punter.

20 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I think that we're looking at a few different things here.

1. The shelf life for RB's is generally shorter than other positions. This is a valid concern.

2. They aren't making top end money BECAUSE of those rookie 4-5 year contracts. If a team believes that RB's don't last as long, you're better off letting them play off their rookie contract for 5 years, then back to back franchise tagging them. See: Pittsburgh with LeVeon Bell.

Correlation often times doesn't mean causation. It's the old chicken vs. the egg argument.

Le’Veon Bell is a great example, where was he drafted?  Where are all of these perennial Super Bowl contenders getting their RB’s? Why are we going to be the ones to pretend it’s still ‘97?

Plenty of franchises have shown the ability to find dynamic playmakers at the position in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, including one led by our current GM last April. Kareem Hunt or Alvin Kamara do 90% (or more) or what guys like Gurley and Elliot do at a fraction of the cost.

Im looking at about as prime of an asset as a franchise can have and we’re talking about spending it on a position that is commonly an afterthought.

20 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I'd rather draft a super-stud 21 year old RB with the #4 pick who has an UNBELIEVABLE 6 year career, following by a "pretty good" 2 year career, and then falls off at 29/30 than basically any single player we've ever drafted in the Top 5 since the start of the New Browns era aside from Joe Thomas.

Sure, but there’s no guarantee that Barkley is going to be anything, good or bad.  This was the same argument folks were making with TRich, and in his situation they were completely right, the longevity of a stud running back didn’t matter.

[Aztec Hammer]

43 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

A draft board should have that positional value factored in.

I don’t care how good a punter is, they’re never getting drafted in the top 10.

I mean, just follow the money fellas.  Who are the running backs on monster contracts? They’re viewed as an expendable commodity, use them up and discard them, usually well before 30. THAT is what we’re going to spend the 4th pick on?

On the flip side, we use the 4th pick on a DB that ends up being a jack-of-all-trades and can't be an elite boundary corner or an elite centre fielder?

I definitely see your point. But I think this team could do much worse than a touchdown making machine that makes plays game in game out and is Darnold's best friend, helping his transition so much.

We need points and impact so badly. We could also use someone with the sheer star power and ability to just change the way this team is looked at. That matters for a 1-31 team in my opinion. For me, Barkley provides the most likely source of it in the entire draft, short of the franchise QB at 1.

I look at Goff and Gurley in LA and think I would do anything for the production and star power that those two have brought. Top coaches want to coach them, free agents want to play with them etc.

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Ideallly were not comparing drafting Barkley to a quasi bust slot receiver, but to a talented player at a different position. I’d rather draft a good punter at two than Ryan Leaf, but that doesn’t mean I want a punter.

Right, and my point is that in this scenario, I'd take the #1 ranked RB over the 1st WR drafted...and that would actually also hold true in this draft. I don't love any of the WRs in the first round as far as Top 10 prospects go. That's my original point in sticking to your rankings and draft board.

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Le’Veon Bell is a great example, where was he drafted?  Where are all of these perennial Super Bowl contenders getting their RB’s? Why are we going to be the ones to pretend it’s still ‘97?

Right, I understand. In a perfect scenario, it would be great to get that guy in the 2nd round or later. I'd actually prefer that scenario, as I've said countless times. However, avoiding drafting Barkley at #4 just to get that guy in the 2nd round is very much a huge gamble, because you're probably ignoring your draft board.

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Plenty of franchises have shown the ability to find dynamic playmakers at the position in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, including one led by our current GM last April. Kareem Hunt or Alvin Kamara do 90% (or more) or what guys like Gurley and Elliot do at a fraction of the cost.

See above, we are on the same page. That said, I'll see your Kamara/Hunt and I'll raise you a Hardesty, Travis Prentice, Terrance West, Lee Suggs, and James Jackson. The odds aren't in your favor getting one of those guys as opposed to AD, Gurley, or Zeke. 

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Im looking at about as prime of an asset as a franchise can have and we’re talking about spending it on a position that is commonly an afterthought.

Understood. I would also say that RB as an afterthought is a bit of an exaggeration.

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Sure, but there’s no guarantee that Barkley is going to be anything, good or bad.  This was the same argument folks were making with TRich, and in his situation they were completely right, the longevity of a stud running back didn’t matter.

You could literally make that argument for any single position/player in the draft, period. Trust the draft board, trust the evaluation, and go from there. I also find it hilarious that the Browns got a 1st rounder for him, so that's not even really a blown draft pick, but the guy that they used it on sure was (JFF).

To me, it boils down to:

Would I rather have ARGUABLY the best player in the entire draft in Barkley at a position not as important as it was 10 years ago

OR

Any other prospect in the draft, who probably isn't quite as highly rated.

I'd rather have Barkley than any of the WR (bad class), S, OL (not a need), DL (not a need), LB (not a need). If we used that pick on a superstar DB (Fitzpatrick or a legitimate shutdown CB), then I'm all for it. Or if we got an AMAZING trade offer (not pennies on the dollar).

[Aztec Hammer]

I think Kamara and Hunt are making it really overstated at how easy it is to draft a franchise altering back in the middle rounds. Don't get me wrong, I know it happens a good deal. But I think the nature of the position means a mid round RB steal like those two or Bell or Johnson stands out more than say a mid round WR or DB steal (which also happens a great deal).

I look at it like this.

It's a good RB class. Barkley is clearly the best. Sure you've got Jones or Michel or Penny, but anyone in their right mind is not remotely comparing those guys to Saquon.

It's a good DB class. Is Fitzpatrick clearly the best? I don't know... you've got Derwin James guys, Josh Jackson guys, Denzel Ward guys.

Here's where I understand both sides of the argument though:

If you told me Saquon is Zeke, and Minkah is Jalen Ramsey. I'll take Minkah. Then if you told me Ronald Jones was Jamaal Charles, even better.

But if you told me Saquon was LaDainian Tomlinson, and Minkah was Tyrann Mathieu. I'm taking Saquon all day long.

To me, I think Saquon is the surer thing to provide huge impact in the NFL. That's why I'd like to take him.

You can just as easily go Saquon at 4 and a DB at 33.

[buno67]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

He has the strength/size/measurables for it but it takes more than that. I don't think anyone really expects him to be that kind of runner though. Bounce tackles sometimes I just don't see the mentality or body structure to be a power back. You don't have to be a power back to be an every down back though.

I just think with his ability to jump cut there was never a need for him to be a down hill runner. Specially when he was in that option offense at PSU. I think he will do more down hill running when a team actually lines him up in a single back or I formation. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

23 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Right, and my point is that in this scenario, I'd take the #1 ranked RB over the 1st WR drafted...and that would actually also hold true in this draft. I don't love any of the WRs in the first round as far as Top 10 prospects go. That's my original point in sticking to your rankings and draft board.

In this draft, sure, but it’s an awful WR class.  I’d rather let someone move up for a QB.

23 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Right, I understand. In a perfect scenario, it would be great to get that guy in the 2nd round or later. I'd actually prefer that scenario, as I've said countless times. However, avoiding drafting Barkley at #4 just to get that guy in the 2nd round is very much a huge gamble, because you're probably ignoring your draft board.

If you pick a lesser talent over Barkley, then yes’m you ignored your board.  But to trade the pick for a collection of picks is not ignoring your board, it’s asset valuation.

23 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

See above, we are on the same page. That said, I'll see your Kamara/Hunt and I'll raise you a Hardesty, Travis Prentice, Terrance West, Lee Suggs, and James Jackson. The odds aren't in your favor getting one of those guys as opposed to AD, Gurley, or Zeke. 

I can’t argue against our incompetence.  I can try, and I’ll fail.  We can screw up any and all picks.

23 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Understood. I would also say that RB as an afterthought is a bit of an exaggeration.

Maybe a bit, but I can think of a half dozen more critical imo.

23 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

You could literally make that argument for any single position/player in the draft, period. Trust the draft board, trust the evaluation, and go from there. I also find it hilarious that the Browns got a 1st rounder for him, so that's not even really a blown draft pick, but the guy that they used it on sure was (JFF).

To me, it boils down to:

Would I rather have ARGUABLY the best player in the entire draft in Barkley at a position not as important as it was 10 years ago

OR

Any other prospect in the draft, who probably isn't quite as highly rated.

Where does a collection of prospects, as opposed to a single prospect come in though?

23 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I'd rather have Barkley than any of the WR (bad class), S, OL (not a need), DL (not a need), LB (not a need). If we used that pick on a superstar DB (Fitzpatrick or a legitimate shutdown CB), then I'm all for it. Or if we got an AMAZING trade offer (not pennies on the dollar).

Define amazing, define pennies.

[Aztec Hammer]

1 minute ago, buno67 said:

I just think with his ability to jump cut there was never a need for him to be a down hill runner. Specially when he was in that option offense at PSU. I think he will do more down hill running when a team actually lines him up in a single back or I formation. 

Yeah he was starting from a stop/start shotgun handoff with no head of steam and the defensive line often already penetrated into the backfield.

His best option most of the time was to bang out a jump cut and try and bounce it into some acceleration and open field action.

Give him a more conventional running head start like you say, and watch him explode downhill and then add in his ridiculous shiftiness and cutting ability further downfield rather than behind the line.

I've seen him use power a fair few times, against the Aztecs etc but I think he was mostly so rapid that he often was hardly touched in the first place.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, Aztec Hammer said:

Yeah he was starting from a stop/start shotgun handoff with no head of steam and the defensive line often already penetrated into the backfield.

His best option most of the time was to bang out a jump cut and try and bounce it into some acceleration and open field action.

Give him a more conventional running head start like you say, and watch him explode downhill and then add in his ridiculous shiftiness and cutting ability further downfield rather than behind the line.

I've seen him use power a fair few times, against the Aztecs etc but I think he was mostly so rapid that he often was hardly touched in the first place.

Yeah under Hue we didn't utilize our backs much differently.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, Thomas5737 said:

Yeah under Hue we didn't utilize our backs much differently.

When we utilized them...

[Aztec Hammer]

17 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Yeah under Hue we didn't utilize our backs much differently.

Hue's gone by mid season. Then we'll have Haley running the offense, who utilised Le'veon Bell pretty well.

[MWil23]

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

In this draft, sure, but it’s an awful WR class.  I’d rather let someone move up for a QB.

Yeah, definitely, as long as we aren't moving WAAAAAAAAAY down in the draft.

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

If you pick a lesser talent over Barkley, then yes’m you ignored your board.  But to trade the pick for a collection of picks is not ignoring your board, it’s asset valuation.

Correct. I wasn't even considering a trade in the scenario above. I'm more or less arguing about the scenario of taking a guy at #4 who is a blue chipper. If it's not Fitzpatrick, it's Barkley. I'm not a Chubb guy personally (I laughed too).

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I can’t argue against our incompetence.  I can try, and I’ll fail.  We can screw up any and all picks.

That's what concerns me. Granted, we seem to screw up obvious picks that everyone else loves too, but this organization outsmarts itself time after time.

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Maybe a bit, but I can think of a half dozen more critical imo.

Yes, but I'd also add that we've addressed those aside from the obvious QB and DB, and the WR aren't close to good enough to even warrant consideration. That would be a terrible value decision, even worse than drafting Barkley.

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Where does a collection of prospects, as opposed to a single prospect come in though?

As long as the collection of prospects are a collection of upper echelon and not a bunch of mid tier value for one great prospect. 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Define amazing,

Amazing would be what we got from Buffalo in the Watkins trade. I'd even take your mock value...an extra 2 and 3 to move back two spots. That's perfect.

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

define pennies.

What we got in the Phil Taylor/Julio trade. Move from 5 to the mid to late 20s, for an additional mid 20s selection in the following year, plus a 2nd that we used on Greg Little, the 4th we used on the worst FB of all time, and some other dude that sucked. I hated the value at the time and I still hate it.

[buno67]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Yeah under Hue we didn't utilize our backs much differently.

Difference is Barkley can play out of the shotgun, Crowley not so much. 

Good thing it’s no longer Huebris’ offense. All Hail the Haley! 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

7 minutes ago, buno67 said:

Difference is Barkley can play out of the shotgun, Crowley not so much. 

Good thing it’s no longer Huebris’ offense. All Hail the Haley! 

And yet Crowell still had as good of (or better) ypc than Zeke and Fournette.

And that was apparently playing him in a role he’s not able to.

Maybe we should just resign him? idk...

[buno67]

44 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

And yet Crowell still had as good of (or better) ypc than Zeke and Fournette.

And that was apparently playing him in a role he’s not able to.

Maybe we should just resign him? idk...

nah, Just draft Barkley

I want to say around the first couple of weeks they stopped running him out of the shotgun. I rather get a back who can do both, like Fournette and Zeke

[James Burgess Jr.]

I think the only person i’d Like to see drafted at 4 would be Barkley 

other than that i’d Like to see Denzel ward with a trade down