First Round Locks: Players and Teams

[Don Roshi]

1 minute ago, Ozzy said:

You can dislike RBs, that is great, do not value them similar to Mel Kiper, that is great.  But Barkley is an elite talent, name me these great OLs on Penn State blocking for him, maybe Connor McGovern but that is about it.  That OL was ok at absolute best.  The TEs did not block at all and they did not use multiple TE sets either, oh and they did not have a FB either and their passing game was inconsistent and focuses mostly on the big play at all times.  Not exactly things that make RBs wildly successful, yet he still was and had a fine college career considering that offense he was it.  If he went to Wisconsin his production would be a little different, then again his wear and tear is arguably less because he was not asked to run inbetween the tackles often which could be a plus.  

 

But sure do not take him, but Barkley is transcendent point blank.  Could never call Ward, Chubb, Nelson or whoever the best player in the draft, but calling Barkley the best is not even a question honestly and most believe he is.  Thus I would not pass on him if he falls to 4 and would be shocked if they do.

 

 

So in order for Barkley to look like a good player, he needs to have a good run-blocking o-line, blocking TEs and a FB? That's quite a commitment of resources, not to mention a top 5 pick and the money associated with it.

I'm being facetious of course, but I just don't see it. I think that a running game is important, but I don't think you need to spend high draft picks to get one.

[Epyon]

59 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Sure they could do that potentially as well, but to me Barkley is a transcendent talent and the clear #1 player in this draft.  Absolute freak athletically, very well put together who can play in the pass game and play with power and off the field he is about as good as you can get character wise and in terms of work ethic.  Would take a ton of pressure off the QB honestly who is most likely going to struggle when forced to play early.  But they did get Hyde and have Dayes and Johnson as well so not exactly a need sure, but take the best player and then could even get a team trading with you to get him if they love Hyde, Johnson and Dayes at RB.  Oddly enough you put Johnson's pass catching ability with Hydes power and combine them, Barkley is still a better player than them combined.  

Agreed, Barkley is a transcendent talent.

49 minutes ago, Don Roshi said:

I disagree about Barkley being a transcendent talent. He's a good guy no doubt, but he was very inconsistent in college. Even if he is good I'd happily pass on him at four. Take the pass rusher or CB.

Earliest I'd take a RB would be the top of the second, though I'd rather wait until the third.

As a Chicago fan, I have Barkley rated highly enough to be willing to trade our 1st rounder (8 overall) and Jordan Howard (who has quietly been one of the league's best running backs the past two years) just to get him.... and that's as a Jordan Howard fan.

Essentially lighting a first round pick on fire, just to replace a player who's ALREADY played 2 years at a pro bowl level with a top4-6 pick (which is way ahead of where most RB prospects go).... Barkley is just on a completely different level as a prospect to me

[Don Roshi]

Just now, Epyon said:

Agreed, Barkley is a transcendent talent.

As a Chicago fan, I have Barkley rated highly enough to be willing to trade our 1st rounder (8 overall) and Jordan Howard (who has quietly been one of the league's best running backs the past two years) just to get him.... and that's as a Jordan Howard fan.

Essentially lighting a first round pick on fire, just to replace a player who's ALREADY played 2 years at a pro bowl level with a top4-6 pick (which is way ahead of where most RB prospects go).... Barkley is just on a completely different level as a prospect to me

I would turn that trade down. I'd be after picks to trade down and grab my RB the following day (ideally third). Jordan Howard was a fifth round pick (which supports not needing to pick one early), and has two years left before he'll price himself out.

[Epyon]

15 minutes ago, Don Roshi said:

I would turn that trade down. I'd be after picks to trade down and grab my RB the following day (ideally third). Jordan Howard was a fifth round pick (which supports not needing to pick one early), and has two years left before he'll price himself out.

That's like saying you don't take QBs early because Tom Brady was a 6th rounder.  I mean I understand the positional value exists, and that RBs aren't commonly first rounders...but it being a possibility to find a great, good, or even decent one later.... doesn't mean it's at all a likely outcome.  For every Howard or Kareem Hunt there's a dozen guys (or more) that bust spectacularly.

[Don Roshi]

Just now, Epyon said:

That's like saying you don't take QBs early because Tom Brady was a 6th rounder.  I mean I understand the positional value exists, and that RBs aren't commonly first rounders...but it being a possibility to find a great, good, or even decent one later.... doesn't mean it's at all a likely outcome.  For every Howard or Kareem Hunt there's a dozen guys (or more) that bust spectacularly.

Running back isn't huge need for us right now though. Of course we could improve, but I don't think spending a high first is worth it. I'd trust Dorsey to grab someone useful later on to at least help out.

[Ozzy]

27 minutes ago, Epyon said:

Agreed, Barkley is a transcendent talent.

As a Chicago fan, I have Barkley rated highly enough to be willing to trade our 1st rounder (8 overall) and Jordan Howard (who has quietly been one of the league's best running backs the past two years) just to get him.... and that's as a Jordan Howard fan.

Essentially lighting a first round pick on fire, just to replace a player who's ALREADY played 2 years at a pro bowl level with a top4-6 pick (which is way ahead of where most RB prospects go).... Barkley is just on a completely different level as a prospect to me

But yeah with the success of Gurley, Elliott and now Forunette of late all high draft picks at RB, the days of no RB in the 1st round drafted are over.  At least for elite level players like Barkley come along.  Sure one can grab talent late but could say that about almost every position with a guy that turns out as a late round pick.

 

Sure it happen in 2014 with no RBs drafted in the 1st but really that was not a super strong RB class, and still Freeman became a Pro Bowl level player.  And 2013 was ridiculous Bell fell that far, he was much better prospect than that mid 2nd round selection I thought, at least late 1st round.  

 

For the Bears to do that, that would be saying a lot, not sure any team would take that trade however.  I agree though in principle I would give up a pick and Howard to get Barkley technically.  He is a special talent I agree and the teams that pass him could regret it soon.  

[mitch_connor]

If you have a top five pick and you don't love a QB, LT, or pass rusher who's available at that spot, you're usually best off seeing what you can get in trade for the pick. You really want to get a player who impacts each game in a way that a running back just doesn't impact it.

I think Barkley is better in relation to other running backs than Chubb is to other pass rushers, but Chubb is pretty clearly the more valuable overall player, IMO. A pass rusher is just too important. If I thought there was a great left tackle prospect in this class(I don't), I would consider him, as well. If Chubb is still available when the Browns pick at #4, he would be a better value than Barkley. If the Browns feel so good about Ogbah that they don't find Chubb worth drafting(and they might), they would be smart to thoroughly explore trade options.

I feel pretty much the same way in regards to Nelson. It's cool that he's such a great guard prospect, but it'd be a lot cooler if he was a great tackle.

[mitch_connor]

2 hours ago, Ozzy said:

But yeah with the success of Gurley, Elliott and now Forunette of late all high draft picks at RB, the days of no RB in the 1st round drafted are over.

Well, yeah, I would agree Barkley can be a good value in the first round. Heck, I think he'd be a reasonable value at #10, where Gurley went. But we're talking about taking him at #4, which is also where Elliott and Fournette went. Those guys are good RBS, but they were not good picks at that spot in the draft. And Barkley, while better than those guys, isn't SO much better that he becomes worth a top-five pick, IMO.

[mitch_connor]

3 hours ago, Don Roshi said:

I would turn that trade down. I'd be after picks to trade down and grab my RB the following day (ideally third). Jordan Howard was a fifth round pick (which supports not needing to pick one early), and has two years left before he'll price himself out.

Yeah, Howard's trade value is not much more than that of a fifth-round pick, IMO.

[Ozzy]

3 minutes ago, mitch_connor said:

Well, yeah, I would agree Barkley can be a good value in the first round. Heck, I think he'd be a reasonable value at #10, where Gurley went. But we're talking about taking him at #4, which is also where Elliott and Fournette went. Those guys are good RBS, but they were not good picks at that spot in the draft. And Barkley, while better than those guys, isn't SO much better that he becomes worth a top-five pick, IMO.

What are you freaking talking about?  Elliott the 5th pick for the Dallas Cowboys a team in need of a RB is a bad value?  How?  As if they would have been better off as a team drafting Ramsey, Stanley, Buckner, Conklin, Floyd, Apple, Hargreaves, Rankins or Tunsil.  The answer is no so how is that a bad value?  

 

Same with the Jaguars at 4 with Fournette, they would have been better off drafting Davis, Adams, Williams, McCaffrey, Ross, Mahomes or Lattimore.  I would say no on that as well.  

 

How is drafting a player you need and improving your team not worth the selection just because he is a RB?  

 

[mitch_connor]

37 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

What are you freaking talking about?  Elliott the 5th pick for the Dallas Cowboys a team in need of a RB is a bad value?  How?  As if they would have been better off as a team drafting Ramsey, Stanley, Buckner, Conklin, Floyd, Apple, Hargreaves, Rankins or Tunsil.  The answer is no so how is that a bad value?  

 

Same with the Jaguars at 4 with Fournette, they would have been better off drafting Davis, Adams, Williams, McCaffrey, Ross, Mahomes or Lattimore.  I would say no on that as well.  

 

How is drafting a player you need and improving your team not worth the selection just because he is a RB?  

 

How? Because they could have improved the team more by drafting a player who impacts the game more.

Nobody is claiming that Elliott or Fournette make their respective teams worse by being on the roster; just that in taking those players, the teams squandered opportunities to take other, more valuable players. Of course the Cowboys future would look brighter today with Ronnie Stanley, Jalen Ramsey, or Deforest Buckner on the roster in place of Elliott. Ditto the Jags with, say, Adams, Mahomes, or Watson(I omit Lattimore because the Jags already have two superlative CBS, but I probably shouldn't; a strong case can be made that another elite player in the secondary would be more impactful than Fournette). These guys are great players who get to impact the game more than a RB does, and that's what you need with an early pick.

[AlNFL19]

I've seen Roquan Smith to Oakland about a million times.

[Broncofan]

9 minutes ago, AlNFL19 said:

I've seen Roquan Smith to Oakland about a million times.

I think ILB for sure is the match - just whether it's Roquan or Edmunds.

[MistaBohmbastic]

5 hours ago, Don Roshi said:

Running back isn't huge need for us right now though. Of course we could improve, but I don't think spending a high first is worth it. I'd trust Dorsey to grab someone useful later on to at least help out.

From one Browns fan to another, I have to disagree. We have solid RB's, sure. We don't have anything in the same league as what Barkley could be. I've honestly been wishing he goes to NYG so that I don't have to be upset when CLE passes on him. I'm so conflicted because on one hand, he is so very clearly the best player in this draft. Watching that kid move, man...he's so fluid. It's like watching a masterpiece in motion. The tools he brings into this offense are unparalleled. I think the only thing that's got me held up is the typical RB shelf life. Not everyone can excel beyond their 20's quite like a Frank Gore, and while you want that BPA, you also want the guy who can last. 

I understand the undervaluing of running backs this early in the draft, but if there was ever a time to make an exception, it's right now.

[Ozzy]

8 hours ago, mitch_connor said:

How? Because they could have improved the team more by drafting a player who impacts the game more.

Nobody is claiming that Elliott or Fournette make their respective teams worse by being on the roster; just that in taking those players, the teams squandered opportunities to take other, more valuable players. Of course the Cowboys future would look brighter today with Ronnie Stanley, Jalen Ramsey, or Deforest Buckner on the roster in place of Elliott. Ditto the Jags with, say, Adams, Mahomes, or Watson(I omit Lattimore because the Jags already have two superlative CBS, but I probably shouldn't; a strong case can be made that another elite player in the secondary would be more impactful than Fournette). These guys are great players who get to impact the game more than a RB does, and that's what you need with an early pick.

Again what you say makes totally no sense to me, saying those other players would have been better valuable for their teams.  That is crazy.  "Of course the Cowboys future would look brighter today with (said players)....  Yeah right....  Elliott is one of the corner stones of that franchise right now and just look at last year, without him they looked quite average obviously!  

 

Say you do not value RBs personally great, but to call Elliott and Fournette not fine players and not worth a high pick, oh and you obviously never mentioned Gurley either.  Easily the best player on that roster and the a major reason for the Rams success last season offensively.  He did win offensive player of the year for a reason as well.  But sure do not value a RB whatever but they are worth high 1st round picks at times if a great player comes along, simple as that.  

 

Sure the typical value chart is QB,OT,DE/OLB,CB etc....  But sometimes that can change if certain things are not around in terms of elite talents.  And RBs will become more an more successful potentially in the NFL because finding quality LBs is getting harder and harder to do with so many teams making them situational pass rushers or under sized DEs in college.  Not as many great all around linebackers anymore it seems because more teams are focusing on the pass and thus more focus on stopping the pass compared to the run.  Does make it easier to run against almost constant nickle coverages.