Barkley should go #1.

[Super4]

2 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

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."

If I take Barkley and (insert Top 5 QB, pref. Josh Allen), I'm happy.  If I take Darnold and miss out on Barkley, I'm upset.  That's the best way I can put it, but yes, it's certainly a possibilty that Barkley is sitting there at #4.

[Super4]

16 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

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!!! 

You logic here was actually already broken down and handily discredited before, and I can't remember seeing it in this thread or another, but I'll just say that you're dnacing on the knife's edge with hyperbole.  QB's don't usually last 20 years, that's rare.  Also, using alot of hypotheticals to support your argument seems really flimsy to me.  "Just because you say so, doesn't make it true.".. okay, and just because you say so doesn't make it true either.  Justbecause you and other people like Sam Darnold doesn't mean he's going to be worth a damn, either.  You know what is true however?  That QB is the hardest position to play in all of professional sports, and enormously difficult to transition from the collegiate level to the NFL.  You know what position is not hard to transition from?  Runingback, and it's much easier to miss on a QB than it is a RB, especially when the QB's in this class aren't even THAT special.  Barkley, an overall better talent, will have far less difficulty being productive in the NFL than any of these Top 5 QB's in this draft.

Also, alot of people liked Leaf more than Manning I agree.  But alot of people also liked Peyton Manning.  You kow alot of people liked Jamarcus Russell also.  Alot of people didn't like Tom Brady, and the Bucs gave up on Steve Young.  Oh yeah, and the last Sam that went #1 overall was named Braford.  He was also a highly touted QB.  So let's not pretend QB's drafted very high don't also flare out.  This is why we have a draft and scouting process, so we can measure the stats against the metrics, against the eye-test.  The stats, the metrics and the eye-test all tell me Squan Barkley is the best overall talent in this year's draft and it's not even close.  Opinion are opinions.  Take your emotion out of this debate please or I'll cease to continune having it.

[Iamcanadian]

3 minutes ago, Super4 said:

You logic here was actually already broken down and handily discredited before, and I can't remember seeing it in this thread or another, but I'll just say that you're dnacing on the knife's edge with hyperbole.  QB's don't usually last 20 years, that's rare.  Also, using alot of hypotheticals to support your argument seems really flimsy to me.  "Just because you say so, doesn't make it true.".. okay, and just because you say so doesn't make it true either.  Justbecause you and other people like Sam Darnold doesn't mean he's going to be worth a damn, either.  You know what is true however?  That QB is the hardest position to play in all of professional sports, and enormously difficult to transition from the collegiate level to the NFL.  You know what position is not hard to transition from?  Runingback.  Barkley, an overall better talent, will have far less difficulty being productive in the NFL than any of these Top 5 QB's in this draft.

Also, alot of people liked Leaf more than Manning I agree.  But alot of people also liked Peyton Manning.  You kow alot of people liked Jamarcus Russell also.  Alot of people didn't like Tom Brady, and the Bucs gave up on Steve Young.  Oh yeah, and the last Sam that went #1 overall was named Braford.  He was also a highly touted QB.  So let's not pretend QB's drafted very high don't also flare out.  This is why we have a draft and scouting process, so we can measure the stats against the metrics, against the eye-test.  The stats, the metrics and the eye-test all tell me Squan Barkley is the best overall talent in this year's draft and it's not even close.  Opinion are opinions.  Take your emotion out of this debate please or I'll cease to continune having it.

Seems to me you are the one getting emotional! Whatever you say, you are putting your opinion over pro scouts and GM's who actually have job security riding on their decisions and have done their homework on these QB's and they all say Darnold is a solid franchise QB prospect. 

What did Peterson actually do for Minny, were they a consistent playoff contender or mostly an also ran for his whole career, these are facts not opinion which is what you are basing your argument on. 

By any standard you are just ignoring the facts, it is quite obvious that franchise QB's have a substantially longer career than RB's, nitpicking about the # of years does not change that fact nor does it change the fact that in the passing era, QB's produce far greater stats than RB's and in case you missed it, franchise QB's have a far greater chance of winning a SB than any RB can accomplish.

See, I have opinions too, but my opinion are based on past experience and are fact based, while your opinion are based solely on assumptions. Fact, the QB position accounts for 67% of most team's offense while running the ball only accounts for 33% of most team's offense, so why in the world would a GM settle for a RB over the top QB prospect??? Fact, because of the previous statement, QB is considered the most important position on a football team by a mile, while the RB position is actually considered a secondary position on a modern pro football team!

I think you should consider not continuing this argument, unless you can come up with facts that show in the passing era where running the ball consistently gets you into the playoffs without a franchise QB.

[Super4]

8 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

Seems to me you are the one getting emotional! Whatever you say, you are putting your opinion over pro scouts and GM's who actually have job security riding on their decisions and have done their homework on these QB's and they all say Darnold is a solid franchise QB prospect. 

What did Peterson actually do for Minny, were they a consistent playoff contender or mostly an also ran for his whole career, these are facts not opinion which is what you are basing your argument on. 

By any standard you are just ignoring the facts, it is quite obvious that franchise QB's have a substantially longer career than RB's, nitpicking about the # of years does not change that fact nor does it change the fact that in the passing era, QB's produce far greater stats than RB's and in case you missed it, franchise QB's have a far greater chance of winning a SB than any RB can accomplish.

See, I have opinions too, but my opinion are based on past experience and are fact based, while your opinion are based solely on assumptions. Fact, the QB position accounts for 67% of most team's offense while running the ball only accounts for 33% of most team's offense, so why in the world would a GM settle for a RB over the top QB prospect??? Fact, because of the previous statement, QB is considered the most important position on a football team by a mile, while the RB position is actually considered a secondary position on a modern pro football team!

I think you should consider not continuing this argument, unless you can come up with facts that show in the passing era where running the ball consistently gets you into the playoffs without a franchise QB.

Again, your hyperbole was already broken down part by part earlier by others, so I don't need to do it myself.  However, your entire arguement was based on claiming facts as you so eloquently bolded (), so please, enlighten me on where any of the QBs in this draft are going to be - for a FACT - franchise QBs in the NFL?

Don't worry, I'll wait...

In the likely event you won't be able to produce any of those facts, then again, my point stands that this is a game of speculation, and scouting.  Where we measure the stats against the metrics, against the eye-test.  There are no guarantees that any of these players will be as good or as bad as advertised, based on their draft position.  You think there are 4 QBs in this draft that will be elite in the NFL, and I don't.  So again, we're back to opinions and speculation.  Using the phrase "facts" while you're speculating literally makes zero sense.

[Iamcanadian]

1 minute ago, Super4 said:

Again, your hyperbole was already broken down part by part earlier by others, so I don't need to do it myself.  However, your entire arguement was based on claiming facts as you so eloquently bolded (), so please, enlighten me on where any of the QBs in this draft are going to be - for a FACT - franchise QBs in the NFL?

Don't worry, I'll wait...

In the likely event you won't be able to produce any of those facts, then again, my point stands that this is a game of speculation, and scouting.  Where we measure the stats against the metrics, against the eye-test.  There are no guarantees that any of these players will be as good or as bad as advertised, based on their draft position.  You think there are 4 QBs in this draft that will be elite in the NFL, and I don't.  So again, we're back to opinions and speculation.  Using the phrase "facts" while you're speculating literally makes zero sense.

Well, GM's and scouts are actually paid to predict what the potential is for prospects and they are predicting at least one will be a star and their money is on Darnold. What any prospect actually produces as a pro is all supposition, even for Barkley. You want to take their opinion on Barkley as fact, yet, when they suggest Darnold will be a solid franchise QB, then they are wrong, because it does not suit your scenario???

You sit back on your couch and say, they are all wrong, because you, a fan, just do not see it, while they, with years of experience and training in finding the top prospects for the draft, say Darnold has a real shot to be a very good NFL QB.

Instead you turn to insults to make your argument and think that fools anybody, it is a clear sign you cannot back up your point with any kind of comeback except, 'well in my opinion, none of these QB's has a shot to be good', like anybody really cares what your opinion is and worse yet, you do not even bother to show why you hold this opinion, it's just your opinion and everybody should just accept it and hence accept my argument and when challenged, can give no argument outside of well the draft is all speculation! H...mmm

You are going to have to do a lot better than insults and opinion, if you want anybody to take you seriously!!!

[Don Roshi]

33 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

most team's offense while running the ball only accounts for 33% of most team's offense

That 33% is diminished even further if you use more than one back. Throw in the increased injury chance of that position. I just don't see the value in taking a RB top ten, no matter how good he may be.

[Iamcanadian]

1 minute ago, Don Roshi said:

That 33% is diminished even further if you use more than one back. Throw in the increased injury chance of that position. I just don't see the value in taking a RB top ten, no matter how good he may be.

It's OK, nobody else understands it either.

[Super4]

35 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

Well, GM's and scouts are actually paid to predict what the potential is for prospects and they are predicting at least one will be a star and their money is on Darnold. What any prospect actually produces as a pro is all supposition, even for Barkley. You want to take their opinion on Barkley as fact, yet, when they suggest Darnold will be a solid franchise QB, then they are wrong, because it does not suit your scenario???

You sit back on your couch and say, they are all wrong, because you, a fan, just do not see it, while they, with years of experience and training in finding the top prospects for the draft, say Darnold has a real shot to be a very good NFL QB.

Instead you turn to insults to make your argument and think that fools anybody, it is a clear sign you cannot back up your point with any kind of comeback except, 'well in my opinion, none of these QB's has a shot to be good', like anybody really cares what your opinion is and worse yet, you do not even bother to show why you hold this opinion, it's just your opinion and everybody should just accept it and hence accept my argument and when challenged, can give no argument outside of well the draft is all speculation! H...mmm

You are going to have to do a lot better than insults and opinion, if you want anybody to take you seriously!!!

Lol re-read what you just typed.  You said I insulted you, and I didn't.  Show me where please.  In fact you've been the one who's been kind of aggressive, over... a debate?

You also claim that I view my opinion as fact, and discredit the opinion of others.  Again I didn't, and I'd like you to show me where.  If I recall, I've just been essentially saying.. we can agree to disagree.  I only brought up the fact that there have been countless drafted NFL QB's that haven't panned out, not that there is any gaurantee that Barkley will still be a world beater in the NFL.  Simply that RB is night-and-day easier to transition to than QB.  I'm not sure what your deal is, man.  Lol

I'm also curious as to where you are getting your information from when you claim that every scout and GM view Darnold as a show-in for an Elite NFL QB.  The last time I'll say this is again, it's all speculation and opinion.  Do I believe ALL (as you're claiming) or even most GM's and scouts think Darnold is the next big thing?  No.  Do I believe they believe he's the most NFL ready and has the highest ceiling of the QBs in this class?  Yes, but that doesn't mean any player - not just the QBs and including Barkley - won't bust.

Now while I'm not a paid scout or GM, I'm gonna say it's safe to assume that you aren't either.  I have however played D1 college football, and would like to say I'm not ignorant when it comes to knowing about football.  I think Barkley is the safer pick at #1, and take someone like Allen at #4 - and you don't.  You agree with the select scouts and GMs (again, not sure where you're getting your inside information from) and media that tell you Darnold is a can't-miss prospect - and I don't.

It's as simple as that.  It's okay for us to not agree without you blowing up your post full of bolded words and exclamation marks.

[MistaBohmbastic]

24 minutes ago, Super4 said:

I'm also curious as to where you are getting your information from when you claim that every scout and GM view Darnold as a show-in for an Elite NFL QB.  The last time I'll say this is again, it's all speculation and opinion.  Do I believe ALL (as you're claiming) or even most GM's and scouts think Darnold is the next big thing?  No.  Do I believe they believe he's the most NFL ready and has the highest ceiling of the QBs in this class?  Yes, but that doesn't mean any player - not just the QBs and including Barkley - won't bust.

Now while I'm not a paid scout or GM, I'm gonna say it's safe to assume that you aren't either.  I have however played D1 college football, and would like to say I'm not ignorant when it comes to knowing about football.  I think Barkley is the safer pick at #1, and take someone like Allen at #4 - and you don't.  You agree with the select scouts and GMs (again, not sure where you're getting your inside information from) and media that tell you Darnold is a can't-miss prospect - and I don't.

It's as simple as that.  It's okay for us to not agree without you blowing up your post full of bolded words and exclamation marks.

I don't mean to nitpick, but, well...yeah I totally wanna nitpick. Because I LOVE draft talk (I'm a Browns fan, it's my super bowl), and I wanna continue discussion til the day I die.

Darnold is FAR from the most NFL ready. The mechanics issues and turnovers have to put him behind Rosen, who is as close to an NFL Ready signal caller as it gets. The ceiling, and the intangibles, the potential we've witnessed on film, his leadership and personality are all reasons that he should go number one. Despite the necessary fixes, he's incredibly accurate, mobile, durable...the talent and traits are just undeniable.

I'd like to address Saquon as the "safer pick," because I was damn close to spitting out my drink when I read that (that is, if I was actually holding a drink while bracing myself to read your retort). There is no way a RB at first overall should be considered "safe." That's just a straight up ridiculous statement. Barkley is not your traditional back. He excels in so many facets that it's almost certainty he will contribute in some way. But you can't tell me a running back who's biggest flaw is running up the gut will be safe. He's the homerun pick. He SHOULD be a superstar, but there is some possibility it won't happen. Not to mention, the shelf life of NFL RB's that devalues the position so often. That has to play a part.

Of this QB class, Darnold is probably the safest pick. Because Rosen and Mayfield both have had concussions in the past, among other reasons that I won't get into since we're talking Saquon. But I have to address the other elephant in the post here...Josh Allen at 4?!?! 

I'm no expert but I'll be damned if you think you can convince me that a Saquon/Allen draft is safer than Darnold/Barkley. HELL TO THE NAH

If I was not so lazy, I'd totally throw a gif in here to express my disappointment with that belief.

 

[Super4]

22 minutes ago, MistaBohmbastic said:

I don't mean to nitpick, but, well...yeah I totally wanna nitpick. Because I LOVE draft talk (I'm a Browns fan, it's my super bowl), and I wanna continue discussion til the day I die.

Darnold is FAR from the most NFL ready. The mechanics issues and turnovers have to put him behind Rosen, who is as close to an NFL Ready signal caller as it gets. The ceiling, and the intangibles, the potential we've witnessed on film, his leadership and personality are all reasons that he should go number one. Despite the necessary fixes, he's incredibly accurate, mobile, durable...the talent and traits are just undeniable.

I'd like to address Saquon as the "safer pick," because I was damn close to spitting out my drink when I read that (that is, if I was actually holding a drink while bracing myself to read your retort). There is no way a RB at first overall should be considered "safe." That's just a straight up ridiculous statement. Barkley is not your traditional back. He excels in so many facets that it's almost certainty he will contribute in some way. But you can't tell me a running back who's biggest flaw is running up the gut will be safe. He's the homerun pick. He SHOULD be a superstar, but there is some possibility it won't happen. Not to mention, the shelf life of NFL RB's that devalues the position so often. That has to play a part.

Of this QB class, Darnold is probably the safest pick. Because Rosen and Mayfield both have had concussions in the past, among other reasons that I won't get into since we're talking Saquon. But I have to address the other elephant in the post here...Josh Allen at 4?!?! 

I'm no expert but I'll be damned if you think you can convince me that a Saquon/Allen draft is safer than Darnold/Barkley. HELL TO THE NAH

If I was not so lazy, I'd totally throw a gif in here to express my disappointment with that belief.

 

I didn't say Barkley and Allen would be better than Barkley and Darnold.  Why does everybody in this thread who disagrees with my position seem to do this?

If not taken at #1 then I know for sure Darnold will be gone at #4, and I think Barkley will be also.  I like Barkley on my team if I'm CLE, and if I have chose between:

1. Darnold without Barkley

or

2. Barkley without Darnold

...then I'm choosing option 2.  Because I don't see much of a difference in terms of what the win column will bring between drafting Darnold, Rosen, Allen or Mayfield.  Does that make more sense?  I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just wondering if my stance on the subject in more clear since apparently I can't get my point s acrossed to anyone in this thread correctly.  My entire argument is that I don't think Barkley will still be on the baord at #4, and some do; but I don't wanna risk losing out on him because I can still draft one of the BIG 4 QBs in this draft.

Of course if I'm CLE and I only have 1.1 pick without the 1.4 pick, Im taking a QB because I can't get both.  I'm saying because CLE does have the 1.1 and 1.4 picks, they would be doing themselves a diservice is they didn't take Barkley, and then the highest QB left on their board at 4.

[MistaBohmbastic]

22 minutes ago, Super4 said:

I didn't say Barkley and Allen would be better than Barkley and Darnold.  Why does everybody in this thread who disagrees with my position seem to do this?

If not taken at #1 then I know for sure Darnold will be gone at #4, and I think Barkley will be also.  I like Barkley on my team if I'm CLE, and if I have chose between:

1. Darnold without Barkley

or

2. Barkley without Darnold

...then I'm choosing option 2.  Because I don't see much of a difference in terms of what the win column will bring between drafting Darnold, Rosen, Allen or Mayfield.  Does that make more sense?  I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just wondering if my stance on the subject in more clear since apparently I can't get my point s acrossed to anyone in this thread correctly.  My entire argument is that I don't think Barkley will still be on the baord at #4, and some do; but I don't wanna risk losing out on him because I can still draft one of the BIG 4 QBs in this draft.

Of course if I'm CLE and I only have 1.1 pick without the 1.4 pick, Im taking a QB because I can't get both.  I'm saying because CLE does have the 1.1 and 1.4 picks, they would be doing themselves a diservice is they didn't take Barkley, and then the highest QB left on their board at 4.

I do get it. Trust me. I just think if I'm Cleveland, I NEED my #1 QB, not my second or third choice, and that's gotta take priority over Barkley. If Jim Brown was in this draft and I had to choose between him or Ryan Leaf, I'm taking Leaf, because that's what you do as a front office before anything else, you get your (potential) franchise QB.

Frankly, I think the drop from Darnold to Allen is significantly WORSE than the drop between Barkley and the #2, #3 RB's. I'd love Saquon personally, I don't think Dorsey pulls the trigger on him, though. 

It is your opinion and it looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree. You don't seem to care for this QB class so I understand your point, but speaking on behalf of the majority of Cleveland fans here, this class will suffice in terms of finding your QB for the future.

[Kiwibrown]

2 hours ago, Don Roshi said:

That 33% is diminished even further if you use more than one back. Throw in the increased injury chance of that position. I just don't see the value in taking a RB top ten, no matter how good he may be.

x50 when you don't hav a franchise QB or a LT or a CB.

[Super4]

32 minutes ago, MistaBohmbastic said:

I do get it. Trust me. I just think if I'm Cleveland, I NEED my #1 QB, not my second or third choice, and that's gotta take priority over Barkley. If Jim Brown was in this draft and I had to choose between him or Ryan Leaf, I'm taking Leaf, because that's what you do as a front office before anything else, you get your (potential) franchise QB.

Frankly, I think the drop from Darnold to Allen is significantly WORSE than the drop between Barkley and the #2, #3 RB's. I'd love Saquon personally, I don't think Dorsey pulls the trigger on him, though. 

It is your opinion and it looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree. You don't seem to care for this QB class so I understand your point, but speaking on behalf of the majority of Cleveland fans here, this class will suffice in terms of finding your QB for the future.

I totally get that, and I appreciate the unemotional and non-aggressive response rather than what I've gotten from others.  Much easier to have conversation and debate that way.  

[Bonanza23]

23 hours 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.

If a GM doesn’t have one of these guys as his favorite than he shouldn’t be GMing. 

Barkley will be there at 4 and if we’re picking at 4 he will probably be available after. I don’t see Dorsey taking him. 

[Super4]

41 minutes ago, Bonanza23 said:

If a GM doesn’t have one of these guys as his favorite than he shouldn’t be GMing. 

I mean that's pretty subjective.  There isn't anything here about these QBs that screams 'Franchise QB'... but again I understand that doesn't mean they all don't turn out to be Hall of Famers either.  We're speculating at this point.