lancerman Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Broncofan said: Again though - you have the 1 AND 4 pick. Getting Barkley doesn't prevent you from getting one of the top 3 QB's. You're getting a QB with one of the 2 picks. The question is what you want to do with the other pick. Which is fine. But saying your team because it can't go Barkley because it doesn't have a QB is tone-deaf to the very unique situation CLE is in. They can absolutely get a top 3 draft QB, and I'd venture one of the top 2 (but top 3 for sure). The tier of top 3 QB's few want to commit who's on top and who's third, at the very least there's strong disagreement. People want to argue that CLE should get their QB if they are sold on 1 over the other 2, fine. They want to argue that they can get a great RB at 2.1-2.4, and go QB-other guy at 1.4, fine. I don't agree, but those arguments have some basis. To say you can't take RB because you don't have a QB ignores the unique situation with 1.4 staring them in the face. It's very easy to see a situation like 1. Browns draft Barkley 2. Giants draft Rosen 3. Broncos/Jets swap with the Colts to get Darnold 4. Cleveland now has to take a QB who is a lesser prospect than Darnold/Rosen (which imo is a huge loss for them) 5. Colts take Chubbs To me that's a very real possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, lancerman said: It's very easy to see a situation like 1. Browns draft Barkley 2. Giants draft Rosen 3. Broncos/Jets swap with the Colts to get Darnold 4. Cleveland now has to take a QB who is a lesser prospect than Darnold/Rosen (which imo is a huge loss for them) 5. Colts take Chubbs To me that's a very real possibility. If CLE sees the 3rd guy as a drop down from the top 2...absolutely fair argument. I've said as much if they are sold on the 1st QB over the other 2, and if the 3rd guy is the guy they are terrified of getting vs. the other 2 (my scenario with DEN), then yes, that's fine too. But if they aren't seeing a meaningful difference between the top 3....well you get the idea. That's also a very different argument than "you can't go Barkley because you don't have a QB". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 22 minutes ago, Broncofan said: If CLE sees the 3rd guy as a drop down from the top 2...absolutely fair argument. I've said as much if they are sold on the 1st QB over the other 2, and if the 3rd guy is the guy they are terrified of getting vs. the other 2 (my scenario with DEN), then yes, that's fine too. But if they aren't seeing a meaningful difference between the top 3....well you get the idea. That's also a very different argument than "you can't go Barkley because you don't have a QB". I think if have a definite hierarchy of QB's and say we clearly think this guy is the best regardless of how close it is, you get your first choice. Unless you go into the draft thinking....."I see virtually no difference between Darnold/Rosen/some third QB you get a QB at one. This is not the year where the Browns can punt and leave the draft thinking they didn't get their first choice at QB. Get your guy and ride or die with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, lancerman said: I think if have a definite hierarchy of QB's and say we clearly think this guy is the best regardless of how close it is, you get your first choice. Unless you go into the draft thinking....."I see virtually no difference between Darnold/Rosen/some third QB you get a QB at one. This is not the year where the Browns can punt and leave the draft thinking they didn't get their first choice at QB. Get your guy and ride or die with him. That's absolutely fair...if they can figure out who it is....the chances they don't see any difference is definitely not a reach, though. I personally think there is (Darnold/Rosen is harder to separate, I'd personally have a hard time passing on either for Allen/Mayfield, but people are falling in love with Allen so hard, it's unreal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deekster37 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 If anybody thinks they should take anyone else but Barkley at #1 rethink how you study the draft it's the best thing for them to take him.......hands down!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deekster37 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 On 3/3/2018 at 9:13 AM, 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. What would be a better pick in the draft overall? Props to suffer bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deekster37 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Smartest comment in awhile that I've seen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 I get that it's apparently (by reports) only a 1-year deal in terms of guaranteed salary for Carlos Hyde, but this report is pretty puzzling, and sounds like a lying season puff piece answer. If GM Dorsey took Barkley 1.1, then the signing of Hyde would make absolutely zero sense. They already have Duke Johnson who would be a fantastic 2nd RB (he's one of the best pass-catching 3rd down backs, and he's actually a serviceable runner, so he backs up both roles that Barkley would fill). If they are hoping that Barkley falls to 1.4, and are taking Hyde as a plan B to pair with Duke, I get that. But there would be no reason to take Hyde in FA is you knew you were already locked into Barkley at 1.1. The only reason it has to be taken seriously is that at 1.1, it's not like CLE has to fake anyone out to get their guy lol. Now, if the Browns are committed to Hyde/Johnson and aren't considering Barkley at all (a mistake IMO to make that call but they've already committed to Hyde), then I get this could be spin to try and get the Giants to move up from 1.2 for Barkley, and then they get their QB at 1.2. This would be the only reason to spread misinformation about 1.1 for them. Given CLE's need to get QB guaranteed in there as well, though, I don't think that's a likely scenario to go any lower than 1.2, and in the end I think they stay at 1.1 and take their QB. But this has literally no other reasonable explanation than smokescreen to induce a trade up for 1.2...or they are somehow still considering Barkley. You don't need to fake anyone out if you're not going to move off 1.1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teen Girl Squad Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 I probably wouldn't draft Barkley at 1 or 4 but if you really want him, I think its a relatively safe bet that he will be there at 4. Neither Gettleman nor Ballard value RB that high and would pick other positions/trade back. Teams probably won't trade up that high for a RB. There is a lot of depth at RB as well. Are you really going to settle on QB#2-3 because there is like a 10-20% chance Barkley is taken AND that he's that much more valuable than Chubb/Fitzpatrick/Ward/trading down for a extra picks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamcanadian Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 On 3/11/2018 at 2:33 PM, Broncofan said: If CLE sees the 3rd guy as a drop down from the top 2...absolutely fair argument. I've said as much if they are sold on the 1st QB over the other 2, and if the 3rd guy is the guy they are terrified of getting vs. the other 2 (my scenario with DEN), then yes, that's fine too. But if they aren't seeing a meaningful difference between the top 3....well you get the idea. That's also a very different argument than "you can't go Barkley because you don't have a QB". I can guarantee you that Cleveland has its top QB already picked and feel he is head and shoulders above the rest, It will be exactly the same for the #2 QB, he will be significantly a better prospect than the #3 QB. It is always that way. People argued about Goff or Wentz and Peyton and Leaf, but both the Rams and the Colts never even considered the second guy!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said: I can guarantee you that Cleveland has its top QB already picked and feel he is head and shoulders above the rest, It will be exactly the same for the #2 QB, he will be significantly a better prospect than the #3 QB. It is always that way. People argued about Goff or Wentz and Peyton and Leaf, but both the Rams and the Colts never even considered the second guy!!!! Well since that post 5 days ago CLE signed Hyde so picking Barkley and only time-sharing him would be an incredible waste of resources. You don’t take Barkley 1.1 and then timeshare him esp. with Duke Johnson already there. It’s hard to think Barkley is going 1.1 with that news. So QB 1.1 is a foregone conclusion with the latest developments. Unless CLE wants to convince NYG they might take Barkley solely to move down to 1.2. The above blurb on Barkley not being ruled out seems only to be maneuvering to get NYG to move up from 1.2. Which I doubt they bite on. Hyde’s acquisition would be more indicative that Barkley’s out at 1.1 than GM Dorsey's statement. Which was pointed out...3 posts above, earlier today by some guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 On 3/11/2018 at 11:30 AM, lancerman said: It's very easy to see a situation like 1. Browns draft Barkley 2. Giants draft Rosen 3. Broncos/Jets swap with the Colts to get Darnold 4. Cleveland now has to take a QB who is a lesser prospect than Darnold/Rosen (which imo is a huge loss for them) 5. Colts take Chubbs To me that's a very real possibility. What the hell did I say! Yeah now you take a QB number 1. Barkley shouldn’t even be considered. Worst case for JR Browns is shenanigans happen with the Giants pick and they get Chubbs as a consolation prize to go along with their guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitch_connor Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 I don't expect Barkley to last past Tampa at #7, but I wouldn't be completely shocked to see him go as early as #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 You take the QB all day over the RB and don't think twice about it. I doubt the Giants take a RB at #2 and we know the Jets are going to take a QB at #3. Barkley probably lands right in their lap at #4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokeybandit Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Seems Barkley may confidently not be in the top 3 at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.