Barkley should go #1.

[Super4]

On 4/3/2018 at 10:47 PM, Bonanza23 said:

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

No, I'm just shocked that anyone thinks any of these QBs are going to turn a franchise around dramatically.  I think Barkley + any of the best 4 options at QB is far more impactful than taking a QB first, and then hoping Barkley isn't gone at #4.

[BleedTheClock]

1 hour ago, Super4 said:

No, I'm just shocked that anyone thinks any of these QBs are going to turn a franchise around dramatically.  I think Barkley + any of the best 4 options at QB is far more impactful than taking a QB first, and then hoping Barkley isn't gone at #4.

But Barkley is likely to be there at #4. QB-needy teams aren't stupid enough to pass on a chance at a franchise QB. The Giants aren't taking Barkley and letting 84 year old Eli Manning continue to throw the ball to the other team for very long. QB's will be the top 3 picks. And if the Giants don't want to take a QB, they'll trade down or take Chubb. Barkley has about a 90% chance to fall to #4 IMO. The top QB (Darnold) has a 4% chance of falling to #4 if we pass on him.

[Super4]

5 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

But Barkley is likely to be there at #4. QB-needy teams aren't stupid enough to pass on a chance at a franchise QB. The Giants aren't taking Barkley and letting 84 year old Eli Manning continue to throw the ball to the other team for very long. QB's will be the top 3 picks. And if the Giants don't want to take a QB, they'll trade down or take Chubb. Barkley has about a 90% chance to fall to #4 IMO. The top QB (Darnold) has a 4% chance of falling to #4 if we pass on him.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm certain the board changes when someone is or is not picked, and the 90% and 4% numbers you gave me arent tangible numbers.  Yes, we agree that Darnold has a much less likely chance of being there at #4 than Barkley, no disagreement here.  I just like Barkley at #1 more than any of these QBs because I don't see a big drop between them, and it's mostly because I'm not high on them to begin with.  So I erase the risk of someone taking Barkley from me altogether by taking him #1, and happily settle for the best QB available at #4.

[BleedTheClock]

2 minutes ago, Super4 said:

So I erase the risk of someone taking Barkley from me altogether by taking him #1, and happily settle for the best QB available at #4.

The whole point of having the #1 pick is to not have to "settle" on the best available QB. You get to pick whatever one you want. I like all 4 QB's too, but even if there's a .0005% better grade on Darnold, you have to take him. Hell, even if they're favorite QB is Allen (my #4), they have to take him at #1. Don't get cute and end up with a lesser QB because you were scared a RB would get taken at #2 overall by a team that needs a QBOTF.

[Super4]

2 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

The whole point of having the #1 pick is to not have to "settle" on the best available QB. You get to pick whatever one you want. I like all 4 QB's too, but even if there's a .0005% better grade on Darnold, you have to take him. Hell, even if they're favorite QB is Allen (my #4), they have to take him at #1. Don't get cute and end up with a lesser QB because you were scared a RB would get taken at #2 overall by a team that needs a QBOTF.

That's my whole argument, in the bold.  I don't like the QBs that much at all, whereas I'm very high on Barkley, even moreso than I was on Zeke or Peterson.  The kid is a world-beater and more than any other QB in this draft, has the potential to turn the franchise around.  Zeke turned a 4th round after-thought into a Pro Bowler, right?  I kid, mainly because I'm of the few that actually believe that Dak is really good, just growing, but you get my point.

[BleedTheClock]

49 minutes ago, Super4 said:

That's my whole argument, in the bold.  I don't like the QBs that much at all, whereas I'm very high on Barkley, even moreso than I was on Zeke or Peterson.  The kid is a world-beater and more than any other QB in this draft, has the potential to turn the franchise around.  Zeke turned a 4th round after-thought into a Pro Bowler, right?  I kid, mainly because I'm of the few that actually believe that Dak is really good, just growing, but you get my point.

Barkley isn't better than Peterson. Did you watch him play at Oklahoma? He murdered everyone. Barkley has more pass game versatility, but that's about all he has on Peterson. AP was the best RB prospect maybe ever. Barkley is a 100% stud, but I'm not putting him ahead of Peterson.

Additionally, you'd be the only human being on the face of the earth that believes a RB could turn a franchise around quicker than a good QB.

The argument is this: Is it worth the 10% chance that Barkley gets taken before pick #4 to miss out on your top rated QB? And the answer has to be "no."

[MistaBohmbastic]

So @Super4, you're not a Browns fan I take it?

Because if you were, you'd understand that, regardless of how the Browns front office values these quarterbacks compared to Barkley, the agony of passing on franchise QB's year after year is something that I'd bet owner Jimmy Haslam cannot afford to extend any longer. The QB position NEEDS to be addressed, and if they have their guy at that position, they are GOING to take him. 

The bottom line is, it's so much wiser to get your QB at 1 because it's more than likely that Barkley will be there at 4. Hell, the Browns might pass on him then, too. Dorsey has a history of passing up round 1 RB's.

You look at these recent RB draft picks, Elliot, Fournette, etc, they have competent QB play. Jacksonville would not have accomplished what they did without a dominant defense and, dare I say, acceptable play from Bortles. Everything revolves around the QB play, NOT the RB, period. 

[Super4]

45 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

Barkley isn't better than Peterson. Did you watch him play at Oklahoma? He murdered everyone. Barkley has more pass game versatility, but that's about all he has on Peterson. AP was the best RB prospect maybe ever. Barkley is a 100% stud, but I'm not putting him ahead of Peterson.

Additionally, you'd be the only human being on the face of the earth that believes a RB could turn a franchise around quicker than a good QB.

The argument is this: Is it worth the 10% chance that Barkley gets taken before pick #4 to miss out on your top rated QB? And the answer has to be "no."

I'd appreciate it if you didn't continue to strategically rearrange and misplace what I say.  You did it with making it seem like I said I liked these QBs, which I didn't, and you did it again by making it sound like I said a RB is more invalueable to a franchise than a good QB, which I also did not.  Again, I said I'm not high on most of these QBs and I think Saquan Barkley has far more potential to turn around a franchise than ANY of these QBs they could draft above him.  I hope that clears up my position, finally.

Also, I respect your opinion on Peterson being a better prospect than Barkley, and I fully understand that thought process.  I watched Peterson run in college, yes.  He was an animal.  I'm just saying that I like Barkley as a draft prospect more as a complete back and I'm a big fan of the RBs that are receiving threats, ala Marshall Faulk and Le'Veon Bell.

[Super4]

13 minutes ago, MistaBohmbastic said:

So @Super4, you're not a Browns fan I take it?

Because if you were, you'd understand that, regardless of how the Browns front office values these quarterbacks compared to Barkley, the agony of passing on franchise QB's year after year is something that I'd bet owner Jimmy Haslam cannot afford to extend any longer. The QB position NEEDS to be addressed, and if they have their guy at that position, they are GOING to take him. 

The bottom line is, it's so much wiser to get your QB at 1 because it's more than likely that Barkley will be there at 4. Hell, the Browns might pass on him then, too. Dorsey has a history of passing up round 1 RB's.

You look at these recent RB draft picks, Elliot, Fournette, etc, they have competent QB play. Jacksonville would not have accomplished what they did without a dominant defense and, dare I say, acceptable play from Bortles. Everything revolves around the QB play, NOT the RB, period. 

I agree, again, a good QB is far more important than a good RB.  If you truely believe that one of these QBs are the transitional, turn-your-franchise-around, type of QBs... then by all means, take the one you like at #1.  I don't see it out of any of them.  I see 4-5 complimentary pieces that alone will be much of what we're used to seeing at QB for CLE but, paired with a monster of a RB, will be more than servicable.

[Iamcanadian]

1 hour ago, Super4 said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm certain the board changes when someone is or is not picked, and the 90% and 4% numbers you gave me arent tangible numbers.  Yes, we agree that Darnold has a much less likely chance of being there at #4 than Barkley, no disagreement here.  I just like Barkley at #1 more than any of these QBs because I don't see a big drop between them, and it's mostly because I'm not high on them to begin with.  So I erase the risk of someone taking Barkley from me altogether by taking him #1, and happily settle for the best QB available at #4.

The only problem with your reasoning is that 32 GM's in the NFL would never even consider it. When is the last time in the passing era that any RB went #1 overall = zero and how many QB's have gone #1 overall for that same period = many, many!

You might not see a drop off between these QB prospects, because you are caught up in the hype that surrounds them, but Darnold is now head and shoulders ahead of the other 3 QB's as a prospects and there is a significant drop off even between the last 3 when comparing them to each other. We might not know the exact order they will go, but there is significant differences between them all and we will see it on draft day!

There is zero chance Cleveland takes Barkley at #1 overall, the GM would be fired the same day and no GM in their right mind, would take a RB at #1 overall and accept that they will settle for the #4 QB in the draft. 

[Super4]

2 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

There is zero chance Cleveland takes Barkley at #1 overall, the GM would be fired the same day

I mean, if we're talking about job security, then I can't argue that.  Take the guy that keeps your job for you, regardless if (in my opinion) it's the wrong choice.  I'm not cutting his paycheck.

[BleedTheClock]

20 minutes ago, Super4 said:

You did it with making it seem like I said I liked these QBs

I did misread your post. I thought you said you did like all these QB's, not didn't. That made my entire post responding back to you seem quirky and off-beat. You're right.

 

...but I'd say you're dead wrong about these QB's in my opinion. There are 4 good ones. Not sure how you could dislike this QB class without hating every other recent class as well. These guys are every bit as good as most of the QB's that declare for the draft every year.

[BleedTheClock]

16 minutes ago, Super4 said:

I see 4-5 complimentary pieces that alone will be much of what we're used to seeing at QB for CLE but, paired with a monster of a RB, will be more than servicable.

Ok about this argument though...don't you think it's VERY likely that Barkley is there at #4? If that's the case, there's no reason to take him at #1. You'd still have your personal FAVORITE QB in the draft and the RB to complement him and make that QB "more than serviceable."

[Super4]

5 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

I did misread your post. I thought you said you did like all these QB's, not didn't. That made my entire post responding back to you seem quirky and off-beat. You're right.

 

...but I'd say you're dead wrong about these QB's in my opinion. There are 4 good ones. Not sure how you could dislike this QB class without hating every other recent class as well. These guys are every bit as good as most of the QB's that declare for the draft every year.

Hey man it's all good, we can disagree.  We can even disagree to the point of you not thinking I have a clue about what I'm talking about... but I just don't see it with these guys.

[Iamcanadian]

3 minutes ago, Super4 said:

I mean, if we're talking about job security, then I can't argue that.  Take the guy that keeps your job for you, regardless if (in my opinion) it's the wrong choice.  I'm not cutting his paycheck.

Your missing the main point, no GM secure in his job or not, would do as you are suggesting, it makes absolutely no sense in the passing era to pass on a passer and draft a RB.

Even if Barkley pans out as predicted and other #1 overall picked RB's in the running era, have flopped, you will likely get around 2,000 yards and maybe 20 TD's while a QB can produce 4,000 yards and 25 to 35 TD's in the passing era, we are now in, so why in the world would any GM settle for the #4 QB in a draft year for a RB. Considering a QB can play for close to 20 years while a RB is very lucky to make to close to 8 years!!!

Just because, you do not think Darnold is a top QB prospect, well, a lot of people doubted Goff and Wentz and since I have be around a long time, I can remember when people doubted Peyton and preferred Leaf. Just because you are assuming that Darnold will not be a solid franchise QB, does not make it true and if Darnold turns out to be the star predicted for him, your draft method would have doomed Cleveland to another decade of mediocrity, because there is far less chance that the #4 QB in the draft turns out to be as good!!!