Those that don’t want a RB at four

[hornbybrown]

I have a question for you.

 

the main reason I’m hearing for not taking a RB in the top 5 is, when was the last time a RB lead their team to the super bowl?

 

My question to you is, when was the last time a OT, DT, WR, CB, FS, SS, OLB, MLB and so on and so on lead their team to a super bowl? 

I will wait here for the answer 

[Don Roshi]

Taking a running back at four would mean that you're willing to give that running back a second contract. Giving that running back a second contract would mean that we'd have to not pay a more valuable position.

It takes having good players at a few of those positions (and a QB) to be a Super Bowl team (consistently). Running backs get injured quite a lot. $15+m is a lot to be sat on the bench missing games. I know anyone can get injured, but the odds increase being a running back.

[dawgattack]

My main reason is because this is a deep RB draft class and you can still get a RB in Rounds 2 or 3 who is starter calibre and can help us win games. The drop-off at positions like DE, S and LB is huge!

[buno67]

3 minutes ago, dawgattack said:

My main reason is because this is a deep RB draft class and you can still get a RB in Rounds 2 or 3 who is starter calibre and can help us win games. The drop-off at positions like DE, S and LB is huge!

again, I hate the notion, its a deep class at the position, so lets wait to address in later rounds. Why in the hell would you want to settle for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th player at a position. I think if you have the chance to get the #1 guy at a position, no matter what the depth behind it is, you should try and take. I also believe taking the #1 guy at a deep position is a better idea because that means he is the best out of a very good group of players, so it really means you are getting a stud. Like you said, in rounds 2-3 you can get a starter caliber but I dont know if you can get a game changer like Barkley tho

[Don Roshi]

2 minutes ago, buno67 said:

again, I hate the notion, its a deep class at the position, so lets wait to address in later rounds. Why in the hell would you want to settle for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th player at a position. I think if you have the chance to get the #1 guy at a position, no matter what the depth behind it is, you should try and take. I also believe taking the #1 guy at a deep position is a better idea because that means he is the best out of a very good group of players, so it really means you are getting a stud. Like you said, in rounds 2-3 you can get a starter caliber but I dont know if you can get a game changer like Barkley tho

If you invest a second or a third in a running back, then you can let them walk after their rookie deal and potentially get a third or forth round comp pick. You can then replace them with another second or third round pick.

Are you willing to have to pay a QB and RB? Which would be the case with Barkley. The Steelers have the best running back in the league and don't want to.

[buno67]

3 minutes ago, Don Roshi said:

If you invest a second or a third in a running back, then you can let them walk after their rookie deal and potentially get a third or forth round comp pick. You can then replace them with another second or third round pick.

Are you willing to have to pay a QB and RB? Which would be the case with Barkley. The Steelers have the best running back in the league and don't want to.

Bell would be a lot cheaper for the Steelers if they were willing to give him a long term deal. Bell gets pricey because they are paying him franchise tag money. If Barkley lives up to the hype, he is def worth the money

[Don Roshi]

1 minute ago, buno67 said:

Bell would be a lot cheaper for the Steelers if they were willing to give him a long term deal. Bell gets pricey because they are paying him franchise tag money. If Barkley lives up to the hype, he is def worth the money

Not if the QB we select works out. An elite RB would give us a diminishing return for the investment it would require to keep him. I'd rather have a shutdown corner or an elite pass rusher.

If Dorsey does his job well, then would you rather keep Barkley with a decent pass rusher, or Garrett with a decent running back?

[TheeRealDeal]

42 minutes ago, hornbybrown said:

I have a question for you.

 

the main reason I’m hearing for not taking a RB in the top 5 is, when was the last time a RB lead their team to the super bowl?

 

My question to you is, when was the last time a OT, DT, WR, CB, FS, SS, OLB, MLB and so on and so on lead their team to a super bowl? 

I will wait here for the answer 

I always love a good challenge.

Junior Seau #5 Overall LB in 1990 Super Bowl in 1994
Willie McGinest #4 Overall DE in 1994 Super Bowl in 1996, 2001, 2003, 2004
Jonathan Ogden #4 Overall OT in 1996 Super Bowl in 2000
Orlando Pace #1 Overall OT in 1997 Super Bowl in 1999
Peter Boulware #4 Overall LB in 1997 Super Bowl in 2000
Charles Woodson #4 Overall CB in 1998 Super Bowl in 2002
Julius Peppers #2 Overall DE in 2002 Super Bowl in 2003
Larry Fitzgerald #3 Overall WR in 2004 Super Bowl in 2009
Von Miller #2 Overall LB in 2011 Super Bowl in 2013, 2015
Lane Johnson #4 Overall OT in 2013 Super Bowl in 2017

Just on the outside of Top 5
Walter Jones #6 Overall OT in 1997 Super Bowl in 2005
Richard Seymour #6 Overall DL in 2001 Super Bowl in 2001, 2003, 2004
Russell Okung #6 Overall OT in 2010 Super Bowl in 2013, 2014
Jake Matthews #6 Overall OT in 2014 Super Bowl in 2016

 

Seems to me like history heavily favors drafting an OT in the Top 5 being that  6 Top 6 offensive lineman have played in 7 Super Bowls. Pass rusher certainly make a strong case as well with Peppers, Seymour, McGinest, Boulware, and Miller pulling in a ridiculous 11 Super Bowls and Junior Seau was no slouch getting after the passer either even though I'd consider him a 100% off the ball linebacker. Only 1 DB and 1 WR on the list as well.

Well I guess this quick little research just provides even more proof than ever that winning football is all about winning the trenches.

and the RBs to do it BTW

Jamal Lewis #5 Overall RB in 2000 Super Bowl in 2000
Reggie Bush #2 Overall RB in 2006 Super Bowl in 2009

 

Bush was a middling factor in that championship team and Lewis had one of the greatest defensive ever to help him as well as probably a Top 8 all time offensive line in front of him.

[Bonanza23]

I think the whole thing is, is Barkley truly a generational talent.  If so yeah I’d take him at 4. If not heck no I won’t. I don’t think he is. There are questions with his vision and I don’t see him going past first contact. He’s in the mix with several rbs that have come out in the last several years. 

Yet another reason I’m starting to hate the combine. 

[buno67]

3 minutes ago, Don Roshi said:

Not if the QB we select works out. An elite RB would give us a diminishing return for the investment it would require to keep him. I'd rather have a shutdown corner or an elite pass rusher.

If Dorsey does his job well, then would you rather keep Barkley with a decent pass rusher, or Garrett with a decent running back?

You could say the same thing.

If the Browns draft Chubb, do you think they will have the money to sign both DEs to top tier contracts if they live up to it. Who do you keep, Chubb or Garrett?

I love to play devil's advocate on here. I want Ward because the Browns need a #1 corner. I just wont be upset if they draft Barkley.

Also the great thing is, the Browns will have a great idea on what a contract will look like for Barkley because by that 2nd contract, Gurley, Zeke, Fournette, and etc will be on their 2nd contract

 

[TheeRealDeal]

28 minutes ago, buno67 said:

again, I hate the notion, its a deep class at the position, so lets wait to address in later rounds. Why in the hell would you want to settle for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th player at a position. I think if you have the chance to get the #1 guy at a position, no matter what the depth behind it is, you should try and take. I also believe taking the #1 guy at a deep position is a better idea because that means he is the best out of a very good group of players, so it really means you are getting a stud. Like you said, in rounds 2-3 you can get a starter caliber but I dont know if you can get a game changer like Barkley tho

That is exactly why you wait in a deep draft because with the pick you just grabbed the 3rd or 4th best available at a deep position it saved you from drafting the 3rd or 4th best at a weak position group.

I don't know about you but I would much rather have the 1st best DE and 4th best RB in this class than 1st best RB and 4th best DE. Same with WR and LT because those positions groups are even worse.

[buno67]

1 minute ago, TheeRealDeal said:

That is exactly why you wait in a deep draft because with the pick you just grabbed the 3rd or 4th best available at a deep position it saved you from drafting the 3rd or 4th best at a weak position group.

I don't know about you but I would much rather have the 1st best DE and 4th best RB in this class than 1st best RB and 4th best DE. Same with WR and LT because those positions groups are even worse.

I would also rather address FAs for a position with a weak draft class. I just want them draft with the idea of BPA. When you start drafting for need over most talent available, thats when bad picks are made 

[GongKong]

Draft QB 1, QB 4. 

One will work out. One will be traded or be cut as useless loser. 

There I solved the riddle for ya'll

[Don Roshi]

Just now, buno67 said:

You could say the same thing.

If the Browns draft Chubb, do you think they will have the money to sign both DEs to top tier contracts if they live up to it. Who do you keep, Chubb or Garrett?

I love to play devil's advocate on here. I want Ward because the Browns need a #1 corner. I just wont be upset if they draft Barkley.

Also the great thing is, the Browns will have a great idea on what a contract will look like for Barkley because by that 2nd contract, Gurley, Zeke, Fournette, and etc will be on their 2nd contract

 

I'd rather have two elite pass rushers. That's worth making sacrifices elsewhere. If you don't think you can pay them both, then you don't draft Chubb.

I don't think that running back is worth a corner, or a pass rusher. Nor is it worth a LT. It's Dorsey's job to find good players at those positions. If he does, then he has to pay them.

[TheeRealDeal]

5 minutes ago, buno67 said:

I would also rather address FAs for a position with a weak draft class. I just want them draft with the idea of BPA. When you start drafting for need over most talent available, thats when bad picks are made 

Pretty sure we did a good job of that already. If a player is clearly above another you take him regardless of position but Barkley is not clearly above Chubb, Nelson, James or even Ward & Edmunds for me.

If Barkley were a better inside runner or ran with more authority or had better balance or ran with more of a sense of urgency then maybe I'd consider the idea. I would not hate it if we took him at #4 but he is not my 1st choice. Ronald Jones runs harder inside and turns out more tough yards than Barkley.