Barkley should go #1.

[Danger]

On 3/17/2018 at 10:26 PM, Iamcanadian said:

nobody in their right mind would trade up for a RB whose career expectancy is around 5 years vs a QB who can have at least a 15 year career.

That's hyperbolic on both ends. Runningbacks often get a solid 8 years and QB's will often be ineffective after 12-13.

Yes QB's have longer careers but the exaggeration is a bit much.

[Darbsk]

On 03/03/2018 at 3:13 PM, Suffering_Bills said:

I mean, THINK about it, Cleveland. You have an AMAZING RB prospect, the clear-cut best player in the draft, and you now WON'T get him at #4. I think that doubt has been removed.

Crowell is good as gone. Big deal. Barkley is the next Todd Gurley/David Johnson/Ezekiel Elliot. PERIOD. Maybe BETTER.

AND.... -3 out of the five top QB prospects will be available. At LEAST 3 out of the top 5. I could see Bradley Chubb going top 3 in this draft, EASY. Take your top remaining QB at #4, Cleveland. I think it's going to go this way.

While he may indeed be the most talented player in the entire class, it all depends on how the Browns view the QB prospects as Lancerman has said above. Much better IMHO to get your #1 QB prospect and then at the later pick draft the BPA than the other way around as conceivably they could be down to their #3 or #4 QB prospect then even though it only pick 4. I honestly don't think there'll be 4 franchise QBs in this class (as there very rarely is) so you have to get in early and get the guy you want. RB is a deep class and they could conceivably come away with something like their #1 QB, a guy like Chubb at #4 and then take a RB like Michel or whoever they like in round 2. Far better in my opinion than Barkley, their #3 choice QB and whoever they like in 2.

[Suffering_Bills]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 6:01 PM, Yin-Yang said:

If Buffalo moves up to 2 like many expect, I don’t see how Barkley goes #1 - and rightly so. 

Even if NYG stands pat, very real scenario that they take QB. Unless the Browns love Jackson/Allen (the only two who I’d say are extremely likely to make it past the NY teams) they ought to go QB #1. Can see the Jets taking Mayfield/Darnold/Rosen and the Giants taking Rosen/Darnold, but not either of those teams taking Allen/Jackson.

We won't move up to #2...

[Iamcanadian]

On 3/19/2018 at 7:00 AM, Broncofan said:

Kamara & Hunt will get more receiving yards on their own for sure - but the gap between the top 3-down back won't be only 200 yards as you portrayed, between the very elite 3-down backs, and other 3-down backs.  That's the point @BleedTheClock was making, and it's not just sound, it's borne out year in and year out.  Kamara may in fact join those ranks of the 3-down do-it-all bellcow, if NO decides to move on from Ingram and get a more complementary back, rather than a full split in carries.    The point still stands, though.   The truly elite 3-down back is a huge difference-maker, much more than the 200 yards you suggested in the OP.  And if they are elite at running and pass-catching, then they are worth a top 1st round pick.      The NFL is indeed a passing league - which is why I only reserve the 1st-round worthy status to do-it-all 3-down backs who are true threats in the pass game.    Fournette, who is just OK in pass catching, and not a natural threat, wouldn't have qualified.  Even MG3, who catches the ball well (but isn't quite on the same level for running), wouldn't have qualified.   Bell & Kamara would now but only in hindsight - they wouldn't have out of college (Bell because at his college weight, didn't have the running chops, nor the same elusiveness, and Kamara, no one realized the balance and tackle-breaking ability he had as a runner).   But Barkley?  He's got it all - elite running, pass-catching, even blocking is near-elite.   So I'd count him in the very special company

Regardless, though, QB is certainly more valuable than RB.  Thats' not the argument, remember?  The original point I made - CLE has 1.4.   So it wasn't a question of QB or RB.   It's a question of which QB & Barkley vs. QB 1.1.   Saying QB is more valuable than RB, no one disputes - but CLE's situation doesn't make it QB vs. RB, either/or.     Having said that, though, we know QB is going 1.1 given Hyde is now in CLE - the whole advantage to taking Barkley is that you use him as a 3-down bellcow, and not timeshare him.  If you want to argue that teams will want to trade down if they're offered an insane return for the pick - no argument here.   That's a decision that's going to happen though independent of Barkley being there or not.  Barkley's argument to go RB 1.1 was solely on the unique situation where CLE could still get a top 3 QB and the value of the 3-down bellcow who's that special - not whether his value is as good as a franchise QB.   That's an argument for past draft decisions teams made in taking a RB over QB - not this one.  CLE's made it moot with Hyde's acquisition, though.  

Again, no one is arguing a franchise QB is more valuable than a RB, even a HoF-ceiling, elite 3-down runner & pass catcher (well I'm not anyways).   The team that takes Barkley already has a QB they feel good with in their mind (whether they actually do is another story).  But the max impact of the elite 3-down passcatching bellcow RB is far greater than 200 yards, which is what generated the latest round of discussion.  Which was your point.  And on that count there is no debate, it's far greater.  Again, it's not a QB vs. RB, pick only 1 - CLE had the choice of which QB, not deciding on a RB or a QB.  

Any way you slice it, a QB can account for 4,000 yards and around 25 to 35 TD's, while a RB at the top of his game, can account for around 2,100 yards and maybe 15 to 25 TD's, a team would have to be insane to pass on a franchise QB for a RB.

A team would also have to be totally insane to settle for the #4 QB in the draft when they have a shot at the #1 QB in the draft, considering the failure rate of top drafted QB's. With only around a 20% chance at success, you hardly want to go with the #4 QB in the draft, a position which accounts for 67% of NFL offenses for a RB who accounts for 33% of your offense.

You make it sound like an elite RB is great every season??? Was Elliott great last year? Was Gurley great the season before last? Has Peterson had great seasons every year??Etc. etc.

Does NE have a great RB = no and they have been to 8 SB's, but they do have a franchise QB!!!

[BleedTheClock]

44 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

 

Does NE have a great RB = no and they have been to 8 SB's, but they do have a franchise QB!!!

They have the best QB to ever play the game. The chances of finding Tom Brady in any draft is under .001%.

And this draft is odd in that there are multiple QB's worthy of being called franchise QB's. There is only 1 team-changing RB in the draft and his name is Saquon Barkley.

 

I'm taking the QB at #1 and I'm 99% sure Barkley will be there at #4 anyways, but it's not like finding the franchise QB is only solvable by taking Darnold at #1. Ultimately we need to take the best QB at 1, but Saquon is an incredible talent that is worthy of the #1 pick. It's just that Darnold makes more sense and is also worthy of the #1 pick. 

[JJ6]

7 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

They have the best QB to ever play the game. The chances of finding Tom Brady in any draft is under .001%.

And this draft is odd in that there are multiple QB's worthy of being called franchise QB's. There is only 1 team-changing RB in the draft and his name is Saquon Barkley.

 

I'm taking the QB at #1 and I'm 99% sure Barkley will be there at #4 anyways, but it's not like finding the franchise QB is only solvable by taking Darnold at #1. Ultimately we need to take the best QB at 1, but Saquon is an incredible talent that is worthy of the #1 pick. It's just that Darnold makes more sense and is also worthy of the #1 pick. 

When you factor in potenial trade offers for #1 taking Barkley there makes little sense. 

 

[BleedTheClock]

8 hours ago, jarren said:

When you factor in potenial trade offers for #1 taking Barkley there makes little sense. 

 

True. But I don't think taking Saquon would be a travesty or anything. We'd still be getting an elite NFL player.

[lancerman]

On 3/19/2018 at 9:34 AM, Danger said:

That's hyperbolic on both ends. Runningbacks often get a solid 8 years and QB's will often be ineffective after 12-13.

Yes QB's have longer careers but the exaggeration is a bit much.

A franchise QB usually has around 15. Brady’s at 18. Ben/Rivers/Eli are at 14. Peyton was at 18 when he hung them up. Bree’s is at 17. Rodgers has been in the league for 10 years. Matt Ryan’s at 10 as well and just hit his peak last year. 

[Super4]

I don't understand why you don't take Barkley at #1.  The drop from the QB's 1-4 isn't even tangible, to be fair.  You take Barkley, who is a transitional talent and then take the QB that's available and highest on your board at #4.  You get far more value out of Barkley + Any QB than you get out of ONLY (Insert QB).

[mitch_connor]

59 minutes ago, Super4 said:

I don't understand why you don't take Barkley at #1.  The drop from the QB's 1-4 isn't even tangible, to be fair.  You take Barkley, who is a transitional talent and then take the QB that's available and highest on your board at #4.  You get far more value out of Barkley + Any QB than you get out of ONLY (Insert QB).

Even if that's so(and i'm not sure it is), we're not talking about getting ONLY(insert QB); we're talking about (insert QB) + the #4 pick.

[BleedTheClock]

53 minutes ago, Super4 said:

I don't understand why you don't take Barkley at #1.  The drop from the QB's 1-4 isn't even tangible, to be fair.  You take Barkley, who is a transitional talent and then take the QB that's available and highest on your board at #4.  You get far more value out of Barkley + Any QB than you get out of ONLY (Insert QB).

After spending months and months evaluating these QB's, these NFL teams are probably going to be heavily favoring one of these guys. Darnold and Rosen seem like extremely safe QB selections. After that, Mayfield is moderately safe, where Allen is a little more volatile. There are levels to these QB prospects. When you combine the safeness along with the upside each of these guys possess, I think you get a former ranking on this and it looks like this for me:

1. Darnold

2. Rosen

3. Mayfield

4. Allen

[BleedTheClock]

59 minutes ago, Super4 said:

I don't understand why you don't take Barkley at #1.  The drop from the QB's 1-4 isn't even tangible, to be fair.  You take Barkley, who is a transitional talent and then take the QB that's available and highest on your board at #4.  You get far more value out of Barkley + Any QB than you get out of ONLY (Insert QB).

Oh, and it's very likely that Barkley is there at #4 anyways. The Giants might take him, but I think they're more likely to select Josh Rosen. Or trade down. Or select Bradley Chubb. I think those are all more likely than Barkley going #2 to the Giants right now.

[Bonanza23]

9 hours ago, Super4 said:

I don't understand why you don't take Barkley at #1.  The drop from the QB's 1-4 isn't even tangible, to be fair.  You take Barkley, who is a transitional talent and then take the QB that's available and highest on your board at #4.  You get far more value out of Barkley + Any QB than you get out of ONLY (Insert QB).

Oh my, you’re about a month behind on what the media is telling you. 

[MistaBohmbastic]

I've formulated my opinions on Barkley for awhile now, but I still go back and forth on my desires to take him or someone else at 4 (Because I KNOW it's not happening at 1). However, when Charley Casserlie came on the show I was producing today and basically called him a better LaDanian Tomlinson, that really struck me. Like, man...I just don't know how that can be passed up for a guy like Chubb who almost certainly does not have the potential to be one of the all time greats...It just makes sense to go for Barkley if he's there, right? I am so. freaking. torn.

[Iamcanadian]

1 hour ago, MistaBohmbastic said:

I've formulated my opinions on Barkley for awhile now, but I still go back and forth on my desires to take him or someone else at 4 (Because I KNOW it's not happening at 1). However, when Charley Casserlie came on the show I was producing today and basically called him a better LaDanian Tomlinson, that really struck me. Like, man...I just don't know how that can be passed up for a guy like Chubb who almost certainly does not have the potential to be one of the all time greats...It just makes sense to go for Barkley if he's there, right? I am so. freaking. torn.

If Barkley gets to #4 and I think there is a reasonable chance he does, then Cleveland still might trade the pick to Denver, if Denver wants to draft the remaining top 4 QB, pick up extra assets and then draft Barkley or they might just take Barkley at 4. A Darnold/Barkley draft is bound to excite the Cleveland fan base, which has very little confidence in their owner Haslam, and practically guarantees a sold out stadium. Plus Barkley could carry the team's offense for 7 to 9 games, till Darnold is ready to take the snaps as the starter.

If the Giants take Barkley, well, Cleveland is still looking at one of the best RB crops in awhile and is sure to find a thousand yard potential RB in round 2, or with the assets they have, simply trade back up into round 1 for Guice. Either way, they have solved both their QB problem and their RB problem and if both develop as predicted, their offense should be set for many, many years!!!