2018 NFL Draft

letowski

I could see the Browns shopping their 4th overall pick to the Bills, if a QB is taken 1st, 2nd and 3rd overall. But they may have to wait until draft night to see the shape of the board. I get the feeling they Bills wanted to move up in the draft in order to get one of Darnold, Rosen, Allen or Mayfield.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I think he Jets trading up has completely changed the complexion of the first 5-6 picks especially the fact that there are two New York teams in the top 3.
The Giants will not want a franchise QB that they passed on going to the Jets, it would be a disaster for them, especially with Eli being so old. It's essentially forced them into picking a QB, and I don't think they want to be forced into that. The only way out of that position is if they trade to a team that considerably over-pays for their pick. And that would have to be a team going for a QB. It's also a huge show of confidence in this QB class, that they're willing to move up to get their man, which only further pushes Barkley down the pecking order.
I still can't see Barkley going past 4. A good RB completely changes a team's offence, and takes a lot pressure off the QB, which is especially important at Cleveland for whatever young QB they'll have, be it Tyrod or Darnold/Rosen. Gurley, Elliot and Fournette have been prime examples of this (all in consecutive drafts), and so too have players like Kamara. I know Kamara was chosen in the 3rd round, but if they wait for the later rounds for their RB its unlikely going to be their offence-changing RB. Barkley is their chance at that and I'd be surprised to see them pass it up.

Whatever I'm sure we're in for a lot more drama between now and the no. 4 pick. A lot more interesting that last year's draft that's for sure!

Knex*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R7FUzc3rlE

Guffy

Tbh, unless the Giants decide not to trade out or not to take a qb then barkleys ceiling is probably the buccs at 7. Even then the buccs could easily go minkah and barkley could then be looking further back with the bears picking and nelson on the board it could conceivably be 10 before he's taken with Gruden looking to go back to 1998. Its a longshot sure and things would have to go against barkley on the day but it is certainly as possible as him going at 4. (Browns would be taking ward in above scenario)

Foxtrol

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

I think he Jets trading up has completely changed the complexion of the first 5-6 picks especially the fact that there are two New York teams in the top 3.
The Giants will not want a franchise QB that they passed on going to the Jets, it would be a disaster for them, especially with Eli being so old. It's essentially forced them into picking a QB, and I don't think they want to be forced into that. The only way out of that position is if they trade to a team that considerably over-pays for their pick. And that would have to be a team going for a QB. It's also a huge show of confidence in this QB class, that they're willing to move up to get their man, which only further pushes Barkley down the pecking order.
I still can't see Barkley going past 4. A good RB completely changes a team's offence, and takes a lot pressure off the QB, which is especially important at Cleveland for whatever young QB they'll have, be it Tyrod or Darnold/Rosen. Gurley, Elliot and Fournette have been prime examples of this (all in consecutive drafts), and so too have players like Kamara. I know Kamara was chosen in the 3rd round, but if they wait for the later rounds for their RB its unlikely going to be their offence-changing RB. Barkley is their chance at that and I'd be surprised to see them pass it up.

Whatever I'm sure we're in for a lot more drama between now and the no. 4 pick. A lot more interesting that last year's draft that's for sure!

There is very little evidence to support that claim about RBs completely changing a team's offence. If RBs were so valued they'd be paid and drafted that way and and they simply aren't. The drop off between a 'good' and a 'fine' RB is a lot less than at other positions. One of your 3 examples of early drafts picks wasn't in the top 10 the season before last (Gurley) while every year the majority of that list is filled with players who weren't drafted on day 1. A few exceptions that end up in good situations doesn't prove a claim. RBs are great for highlight reels and for drafting in fantasy, but aren't valued highly in the NFL for a reason.

miocicmma

I'm seeing more and more mock drafts protecting OL Quinton Nelson to the Giants at number two. It's not the sexy pick. But the Giants do need to improve their offensive line in a big way.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Foxtrol wrote: »

There is very little evidence to support that claim about RBs completely changing a team's offence. If RBs were so valued they'd be paid and drafted that way and and they simply aren't. The drop off between a 'good' and a 'fine' RB is a lot less than at other positions. One of your 3 examples of early drafts picks wasn't in the top 10 the season before last (Gurley) while every year the majority of that list is filled with players who weren't drafted on day 1. A few exceptions that end up in good situations doesn't prove a claim. RBs are great for highlight reels and for drafting in fantasy, but aren't valued highly in the NFL for a reason.

But what you said becomes irrelevant when you draft a stud RB, which is what many people are expecting Barkley to be. If he is that, he will change Cleveland's offence hugely, in the same way that Zeke and Fournette have for their teams. Obviously there is big bust potential at RB, which is why they aren't drafted as high, but Cleveland having 2 in the top 4 picks gives them a little room for risk.
And your point about them not being paid as such, I may be open to correction on this, but those star RBs are among the highest paid players in the NFL after QBs, whereas even if you take the average of the top 10, the position drops off considerably in the salary by position ranking table.
If Barkley is one of those RBs, and I do realise it is a big if, he is easily worth the no. 4 pick.

Billy86

miocicmma wrote: »

I'm seeing more and more mock drafts protecting OL Quinton Nelson to the Giants at number two. It's not the sexy pick. But the Giants do need to improve their offensive line in a big way.

Investing in the line is always a good idea and really pays off a few years down the line but outside of a real star LT in my opinion top 5-10 is generally too early for an OL - going back 20 years to 1998, the only offensive guards taken in the top 10 have been Leonard Davis (#2, 2001), Jonathon Cooper (#7, 2013) and Chance Warmack (#10, 2013), none of which lasted with their original team for more than six years.

Lines are really important obviously and you can brute force your way to an incredible one like Dallas (including the interior where Martin and Frederick are incredible), but I've always felt the interior can generally be filled at a lower 'cost' so long as they work well together and fit a defined style, while the bookends are where the high picks are (usually) best spent. Basically if the Giants are most interested in a guard at #2 overall, they've got their evaluation process a bit messed up or in my opinion should trade back.

I feel somewhat similar about Barkley at RB but he can be a serious game changer and guys like Zeke, Fournette and Gurley are adding a bit more weight to high picks on RBs given the copycat nature of the league.

Guffy

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

But what you said becomes irrelevant when you draft a stud RB, which is what many people are expecting Barkley to be. If he is that, he will change Cleveland's offence hugely, in the same way that Zeke and Fournette have for their teams. Obviously there is big bust potential at RB, which is why they aren't drafted as high, but Cleveland having 2 in the top 4 picks gives them a little room for risk.
And your point about them not being paid as such, I may be open to correction on this, but those star RBs are among the highest paid players in the NFL after QBs, whereas even if you take the average of the top 10, the position drops off considerably in the salary by position ranking table.
If Barkley is one of those RBs, and I do realise it is a big if, he is easily worth the no. 4 pick.

Utter bollox. The average of the top 10 rbs wouldnt even match tight ends, and thats including bell on his 2nd franchise tag and the boost that brings.

By bust you mean injuery right? Its the position with the most attrition there is.

https://economics.missouri.edu/paper/wp-14-10

If you are actually interested in the positional value in nfl this is worth a read

Guffy

Billy86 wrote: »

I feel somewhat similar about Barkley at RB but he can be a serious game changer and guys like Zeke, Fournette and Gurley are adding a bit more weight to high picks on RBs given the copycat nature of the league.

Zeke got dropped behind the best ol in the league at the time.

Fournette wasnt the reason the jags changed it around the change in play calling was. Jags won 10 games last year, 3 were won without Fournette where they rushed nearly 200 YPG and scoring 5 tds.

Gurly looked like for 3rd pick trent richardson in 2016. Didn't Doug Martin have alternating boom bust years? Why are you so sure Gurley is elite.

Billy86

Oh yeah I'm not disputing that for a moment, I'm saying it's a copycat league that is largely based on stupid knee-jerk reactions to what to others are doing.

ELM327

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

But what you said becomes irrelevant when you draft a stud RB, which is what many people are expecting Barkley to be. If he is that, he will change Cleveland's offence hugely, in the same way that Zeke and Fournette have for their teams. Obviously there is big bust potential at RB, which is why they aren't drafted as high, but Cleveland having 2 in the top 4 picks gives them a little room for risk.
And your point about them not being paid as such, I may be open to correction on this, but those star RBs are among the highest paid players in the NFL after QBs, whereas even if you take the average of the top 10, the position drops off considerably in the salary by position ranking table.
If Barkley is one of those RBs, and I do realise it is a big if, he is easily worth the no. 4 pick.

RB is a lower importance position these days, and - other than FB - is the least important skill position on offense.
They are not drafted highly, not because of the bust potential, but because other skill positions (QB/WR/TE) on offense are more important. It's a passing league, running back is by an large a committee these days.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Guffy wrote: »

Utter bollox. The average of the top 10 rbs wouldnt even match tight ends, and thats including bell on his 2nd franchise tag and the boost that brings.

By bust you mean injuery right? Its the position with the most attrition there is.

https://economics.missouri.edu/paper/wp-14-10

If you are actually interested in the positional value in nfl this is worth a read

ELM327 wrote: »

RB is a lower importance position these days, and - other than FB - is the least important skill position on offense.
They are not drafted highly, not because of the bust potential, but because other skill positions (QB/WR/TE) on offense are more important. It's a passing league, running back is by an large a committee these days.

I think you're both missing my point here. I am just referring to top tier RBs, of which there might be 2 or 3 a generation. And I don't think the position has lower importance, teams are placing lower importance on it because top class RBs are so rare. If Barkley is one of those top RBs he's easily worth that pick. As I've said before it's a big if, but the general consensus is that Barkley will go in the top 5 picks, which would indicate teams consider his potential to be worth that. That's all I'm saying.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

I think you're both missing my point here. I am just referring to top tier RBs, of which there might be 2 or 3 a generation. And I don't think the position has lower importance, teams are placing lower importance on it because top class RBs are so rare. If Barkley is one of those top RBs he's easily worth that pick. As I've said before it's a big if, but the general consensus is that Barkley will go in the top 5 picks, which would indicate teams consider his potential to be worth that. That's all I'm saying.

Name me a 2-3 in a generation rb that has brought a team to a Super Bowl?

The problem with building around the run game is that's you better also have everything else in the offence working very well or it can be shut down easily these days and in that situation the running game is adding on to an already good offence.

I find Barkley to the Browns a very interesting idea but I don't think taking him top 5 is a good idea

Billy86

Kace Icy Bug wrote: »

The problem with building around the run game is that's you better also have everything else in the offence working very well or it can be shut down easily these days and in that situation the running game is adding on to an already good offence.

Patriots/Jags in the fourth quarter was a great example of this.

ELM327

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

I think you're both missing my point here. I am just referring to top tier RBs, of which there might be 2 or 3 a generation. And I don't think the position has lower importance, teams are placing lower importance on it because top class RBs are so rare. If Barkley is one of those top RBs he's easily worth that pick. As I've said before it's a big if, but the general consensus is that Barkley will go in the top 5 picks, which would indicate teams consider his potential to be worth that. That's all I'm saying.

In order to make use of a top tier running game you need to have a good passing game and play with the lead most of the time.
There's only 60 minutes in each game, the running game is used to close out a game. You don't see many games won by the RB, you see games where the team is leading and closed out by milking the clock in the second half.

If RB is so important, how come no RB led team has won the SB recently?

cosatron

the last running back to be drafted high and win a superbowl with said team was Reggie Bush with the saints and we all know he wasn't the reason he got them there and he only had 5 carries for 25 yards in the superbowl. Terrel Davis is a good example of a rb carrying a team to a superbowl but he was drafted in the sixth round.

TOss Sweep

Billy86 wrote: »

Investing in the line is always a good idea and really pays off a few years down the line but outside of a real star LT in my opinion top 5-10 is generally too early for an OL - going back 20 years to 1998, the only offensive guards taken in the top 10 have been Leonard Davis (#2, 2001), Jonathon Cooper (#7, 2013) and Chance Warmack (#10, 2013), none of which lasted with their original team for more than six years.

Lines are really important obviously and you can brute force your way to an incredible one like Dallas (including the interior where Martin and Frederick are incredible), but I've always felt the interior can generally be filled at a lower 'cost' so long as they work well together and fit a defined style, while the bookends are where the high picks are (usually) best spent. Basically if the Giants are most interested in a guard at #2 overall, they've got their evaluation process a bit messed up or in my opinion should trade back.

I would agree way too early to be picking up a guard. Nelson could possibly slide to 10-20. But there is quite a few mock drafts saying he will go within the Top 5. I do think he is a solid pickup so all wont be lost if they do grab him early. Nelson and McGlinchey were monsters on that Notre Dame offense line on the left side.

ELM327

cosatron wrote: »

the last running back to be drafted high and win a superbowl with said team was Reggie Bush with the saints and we all know he wasn't the reason he got them there and he only had 5 carries for 25 yards in the superbowl. Terrel Davis is a good example of a rb carrying a team to a superbowl but he was drafted in the sixth round.

Bush was an afterthought.
Davis is like 2 lifetimes ago at this stage

Foxtrol

TOss Sweep wrote: »

I would agree way too early to be picking up a guard. Nelson could possibly slide to 10-20. But there is quite a few mock drafts saying he will go within the Top 5. I do think he is a solid pickup so all wont be lost if they do grab him early. Nelson and McGlinchey were monsters on that Notre Dame offense line on the left side.

If he falls a bit I could see the Bears taking him given they now have the the Notre Dame OL coach. If they don't take him after letting Sitton go it could tell a bit.

Deco99

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

I think you're both missing my point here. I am just referring to top tier RBs, of which there might be 2 or 3 a generation. And I don't think the position has lower importance, teams are placing lower importance on it because top class RBs are so rare. If Barkley is one of those top RBs he's easily worth that pick. As I've said before it's a big if, but the general consensus is that Barkley will go in the top 5 picks, which would indicate teams consider his potential to be worth that. That's all I'm saying.

Can you give an example of who these RBs you're referring to are? Can't help agree with the other posters that this poorly informed

eagle eye

Guffy wrote:

Exactly. So why waste 1.04 on barkley? Why use a top 10 pick on him, particularly if you're not in that "window" when you can get one later in draft.

I didn't say they necessarily have to take him, was just an example of what they could do. They will almost certainly have their choice of safeties there which is another area of need for them.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Kace Icy Bug wrote: »

Name me a 2-3 in a generation rb that has brought a team to a Super Bowl?

The problem with building around the run game is that's you better also have everything else in the offence working very well or it can be shut down easily these days and in that situation the running game is adding on to an already good offence.

I find Barkley to the Browns a very interesting idea but I don't think taking him top 5 is a good idea

ELM327 wrote: »

In order to make use of a top tier running game you need to have a good passing game and play with the lead most of the time.
There's only 60 minutes in each game, the running game is used to close out a game. You don't see many games won by the RB, you see games where the team is leading and closed out by milking the clock in the second half.

If RB is so important, how come no RB led team has won the SB recently?

I don't understand how you continue to misrepresent my argument.

What I initially said was that a good RB can completely change an offence, which it clearly can. Nearly every team this year that made the playoffs had a strong running game. At a quick glance at the playoff teams I think funnily enough the Vikings had the weakest running game. To succeed without a running game in the NFL is clearly extremely difficult.

Am I saying that Barkley can be the centre piece of the Cleveland offence? No. More important that the QB? Absolutely not. Can he drag the team to Superbowl? I'd be shocked. However, can he dramatically change the offence, by all reports he has the potential.

If he is a generational talent which many proclaim him to be, Cleveland will become a much better team offensively overnight. That is my point, and it's clearly a point shared by many of the 'draft experts' who mostly have Barkley going in the top 5 picks. He will 100% go in the top 10 picks, and I'd be very surprised if he falls outside the top should the draft order remain as is.

Deco99 wrote: »

Can you give an example of who these RBs you're referring to are? Can't help agree with the other posters that this poorly informed

Cheap point scoring man. If you want to discuss this in a bit more detail please do, I'm finding it thoroughly interesting.

I'm fully prepared to admit that I'm completely wrong about Barkley, but I haven't seen anything to dissuade me from my point of view as of yet.

Jolly Red Giant

cosatron wrote: »

Terrel Davis is a good example of a rb carrying a team to a superbowl but he was drafted in the sixth round.

Davis dropped in the draft because he had an injury prone college career - and he carried the Broncos to 2 SB wins and almost a third (he rushed for an average of 6.5 yds per carry in the loss to Jacksonville - thank you Michael Dean Perry for not getting your fat ass off the field in time).

Foxtrol

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

I don't understand how you continue to misrepresent my argument.

What I initially said was that a good RB can completely change an offence, which it clearly can. Nearly every team this year that made the playoffs had a strong running game. At a quick glance at the playoff teams I think funnily enough the Vikings had the weakest running game. To succeed without a running game in the NFL is clearly extremely difficult.

Am I saying that Barkley can be the centre piece of the Cleveland offence? No. More important that the QB? Absolutely not. Can he drag the team to Superbowl? I'd be shocked. However, can he dramatically change the offence, by all reports he has the potential.

If he is a generational talent which many proclaim him to be, Cleveland will become a much better team offensively overnight. That is my point, and it's clearly a point shared by many of the 'draft experts' who mostly have Barkley going in the top 5 picks. He will 100% go in the top 10 picks, and I'd be very surprised if he falls outside the top should the draft order remain as is.

Cheap point scoring man. If you want to discuss this in a bit more detail please do, I'm finding it thoroughly interesting.

I'm fully prepared to admit that I'm completely wrong about Barkley, but I haven't seen anything to dissuade me from my point of view as of yet.

I agree that a good RB can change an offence but they have to be brought into the right situation to do so. Take one of the examples you cited for an early draft pick, if you judged Gurley on his 2016 form he would be deemed a bust. Teams worked out what the Rams were doing with him under Fisher and he was completely shut down. As other posters have already noted, the other two recent examples you chose were put into teams in a position where they were positioned to succeed, not that it was on their shoulders to 'dramatically change the offence' like it would be if Barkley gets selected by the Browns.

Take another look at those playoff teams that you believe have good run games and see in what round their RBs were drafted. You don't see RBs drafted regularly early because you can get guys coming out every year who are good enough to help a team in every round of the draft even to UDFA. In comparison the likelihood of getting top tier talent at other positions drops dramatically faster. This is why RB pay is so low, with the best RB in the league not being able to get a long term deal and why we see more of the starter RBs moving teams than you do for other positions.

The Browns have two good RBs already signed for next season while have big holes in other positions. At 1.4 they'll likely have their choice of every non-QB player in the draft so it isn't about necessarily picking the best player but getting the best value for their pick.

No matter what people say to you they aren't going to have a chance to dissuade you until you look at and accept the NFL market for players and why RBs don't regularly get paid nor drafted highly. Wherever he lands Barkley will likely do very well in the NFL but that won't necessarily justify spending a top 4 pick on him.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Foxtrol wrote: »

I agree that a good RB can change an offence but they have to be brought into the right situation to do so. Take one of the examples you cited for an early draft pick, if you judged Gurley on his 2016 form he would be deemed a bust. Teams worked out what the Rams were doing with him under Fisher and he was completely shut down. As other posters have already noted, the other two recent examples you chose were put into teams in a position where they were positioned to succeed, not that it was on their shoulders to 'dramatically change the offence' like it would be if Barkley gets selected by the Browns.

Take another look at those playoff teams that you believe have good run games and see in what round their RBs were drafted. You don't see RBs drafted regularly early because you can get guys coming out every year who are good enough to help a team in every round of the draft even to UDFA. In comparison the likelihood of getting top tier talent at other positions drops dramatically faster. This is why RB pay is so low, with the best RB in the league not being able to get a long term deal and why we see more of the starter RBs moving teams than you do for other positions.

The Browns have two good RBs already signed for next season while have big holes in other positions. At 1.4 they'll likely have their choice of every non-QB player in the draft so it isn't about necessarily picking the best player but getting the best value for their pick.

No matter what people say to you they aren't going to have a chance to dissuade you until you look at and accept the NFL market for players and why RBs don't regularly get paid nor drafted highly. Wherever he lands Barkley will likely do very well in the NFL but that won't necessarily justify spending a top 4 pick on him.

I understand all that, especially the last part in relation to being paid. But on your first point didn't a QB under the same system have bust written all over him as well?

And as for your second point, to have a good running game I completely agree that you don't need a highly drafted RB.

But a running game is still clearly very important, and Cleveland, or anyone else, would have a better chance of having that if they draft what is considered the best RB, I think that much is undebatable.

It comes down to whether or not Cleveland, or indeed another team consider an early round pick good value for money for Barkley. And the evidence from all the "draft experts" is that he is indeed worth that high pick. If they do think he worth that pick, even if they are completely wrong, why do they believe he is worth that pick?

Let's just say that I'm right, and he does become a bona fide star, would you say then he was wroth the draft pick? A quick look a recent drafts shows a few players in 'less-important' positions that RB have been selected in the single digit picks. I'd be willing to bet that if I go back back further I'd see a common trend, and that is, if teams believe they will get a 'team changing player', they'll select him as early as possible, regardless of his position. Teams, scouts and 'draft experts' alike clearly must consider Barkley one of those players, hence his pre-draft stock value.

Now if in the draft Barkley falls outside the top 10 picks I'll hold my hand up and say I got it wrong, completely and utterly wrong. But this seems to be all about opinion, and my opinion on Barkley is clear. Based on the reports, I think he's worth the pick, maybe not for Cleveland, but definitely in the top 10.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

The draft speculation is such hyperbole.

Its all opinion and yet everyone in here seem's to be the resident expert on how good or bad Barkley is going to be and what his draft value is. The reality is that if he turns out to be a Bell or Hunt then the number 1 pick is value for the Browns.

If he turns into one of the worst of all time, so what plenty of rookies are busts, it is not going to ruin the organisation. Far more first round QB's are busts than 1st round Rb's, if it was me and I was head of the Cleveland war room. I would take Barkley, he has the talent and natural athleticism along with a good work ethic and appears to have a good attitude.

One thing for certain is he looks the best athlete in this years draft. Take him and hope for the best is all the Browns can do.

gstack166

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

The draft speculation is such hyperbole.

Its all opinion and yet everyone in here seem's to be the resident expert on how good or bad Barkley is going to be and what his draft value is. The reality is that if he turns out to be a Bell or Hunt then the number 1 pick is value for the Browns.

If he turns into one of the worst of all time, so what plenty of rookies are busts, it is not going to ruin the organisation. Far more first round QB's are busts than 1st round Rb's, if it was me and I was head of the Cleveland war room. I would take Barkley, he has the talent and natural athleticism along with a good work ethic and appears to have a good attitude.

One thing for certain is he looks the best athlete in this years draft. Take him and hope for the best is all the Browns can do.

Bless us & save us. We have been crying out for a QB since 1999, the last GM lost his job for passing on Wentz & Watson. We cannot pass a QB again this time. A QB at #1 is the only way Jackson keeps his job till the end of next season IMO.

I was all for us taking Barkley at #1 before the Jets jumped up & before all this talk about the Giants trading down came out. Take the QB you love at #1 and take Barkley, Chubb or Fitzpatrick at #4. If the Giants trade down then Barkley will be there at #4 anyways.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

gstack166 wrote: »

Bless us & save us. We have been crying out for a QB since 1999, the last GM lost his job for passing on Wentz & Watson. We cannot pass a QB again this time. A QB at #1 is the only way Jackson keeps his job till the end of next season IMO.

I was all for us taking Barkley at #1 before the Jets jumped up & before all this talk about the Giants trading down came out. Take the QB you love at #1 and take Barkley, Chubb or Fitzpatrick at #4. If the Giants trade down then Barkley will be there at #4 anyways.

Absolutely if you love a QB take him.

But the best Athlete in the draft is Barkley and he has done nothing but impress this year. Taking him IMO wouldn't be a mistake. There will be a quality QB still there at 4.

gstack166

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Absolutely if you love a QB take him.

But the best Athlete in the draft is Barkley and he has done nothing but impress this year. Taking him IMO wouldn't be a mistake. There will be a quality QB still there at 4.

If we take Barkley #1. The Giants are going to get a Kings ransom & then some on top of it for the #2 pick. The word is they don’t want a QB. Arizona, Bills, Dolphins & Broncos one will trade up for sure. Giants could trade with Broncos to #5 and will still 100% get the player they wanted at #2 knowing Barkley was gone.

So Broncos take for argument sake Darnold at #2. Jets take Rosen at #3, you’re down to Jackson & Mayfield who couldn’t possibly be higher on your board than the 2 drafted.

You do that & Barkley turns out a star, ok great, but Jackson or Mayfield turn out busts & Darnold & Rosen end up stars too, you lose!

I know it could easily turn out the other way with the QB’s but you have to go with the QB you rate highest, not just let one fall into your lap. Let Barkley fall into your lap, every chance he still will.

eagle eye

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote:

Its all opinion and yet everyone in here seem's to be the resident expert on how good or bad Barkley is going to be and what his draft value is. The reality is that if he turns out to be a Bell or Hunt then the number 1 pick is value for the Browns.

I haven't read anything talking about Barkley's talent.
I've read comments about how it is or isn't worth taking a RB so high in the draft and how important the position is.

Jolly Red Giant

gstack166 wrote: »

If we take Barkley #1. The Giants are going to get a Kings ransom & then some on top of it for the #2 pick. The word is they don’t want a QB. Arizona, Bills, Dolphins & Broncos one will trade up for sure. Giants could trade with Broncos to #5 and will still 100% get the player they wanted at #2 knowing Barkley was gone.

So Broncos take for argument sake Darnold at #2. Jets take Rosen at #3, you’re down to Jackson & Mayfield who couldn’t possibly be higher on your board than the 2 drafted.

Can't see any scenario where the Broncos trade up - too many holes to fill and it would cost too much. I can see Elway taking Rosen (or Darnold) if he drops to 1.5 - otherwise don't expect the Broncos to take a QB.

You also haven't mentioned Josh Allen who many are mocking to the Browns at 1.1 - although, personally I don't see that happening. Jackson is lower first round territory - or maybe mid-round if someone panics.

Paully D

Darnold will go #1 without question, IMO.

gstack166

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Can't see any scenario where the Broncos trade up - too many holes to fill and it would cost too much. I can see Elway taking Rosen (or Darnold) if he drops to 1.5 - otherwise don't expect the Broncos to take a QB.

You also haven't mentioned Josh Allen who many are mocking to the Browns at 1.1 - although, personally I don't see that happening. Jackson is lower first round territory - or maybe mid-round if someone panics.

I knew I was missing a QB, I was in a rush

I was using the Broncos as an example, but even still, it mightn’t take a whole lot to swap with the Giants if New York don’t get want they want from the other QB needy teams as they’ll get the player at 5 that they would of got at 2, but I think they move down regardless with someone.

Without question we take Darnold or Rosen at #1. Word seems to be it’s going to be Darnold, be delighted to let him learn behind Tyrod for the year, he mightn’t even need the year but we’ll be safe with Tyrod I feel.

Guffy

#neverjoshallen

eagle eye

Paully D wrote:

Darnold will go #1 without question, IMO.

I'd have Allen ahead of him personally. I wouldn't put either of them, or any qb, down as a top tier pick. Allen has the most going for him in my book, has the potential to develop into a solid starter.

I can see many fumbles in Darnold's future and a short career ended by concussion for Rosen.

phatkev

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd have Allen ahead of him personally. I wouldn't put either of them, or any qb, down as a top tier pick. Allen has the most going for him in my book, has the potential to develop into a solid starter.

I can see many fumbles in Darnold's future and a short career ended by concussion for Rosen.

Allen has great physical attributes but he couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo. Christian Hackenberg version 2 in my eyes!

gstack166

interesting!

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=22870328

Guffy

Personally i feel like we just traded away an Allen in Kizer. Darnold or Mayfield for me but i honestly don't mind once they get the guy they want and don't settle.

Foxtrol

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Absolutely if you love a QB take him.

But the best Athlete in the draft is Barkley and he has done nothing but impress this year. Taking him IMO wouldn't be a mistake. There will be a quality QB still there at 4.

Just because someone is the best athlete doesn’t mean they should be picked first. It is like taking a QB with the #1 pick in fantasy. Just because they might be the best player doesn’t mean it is worth the pick when you take building a team.

Foxtrol

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

I understand all that, especially the last part in relation to being paid. But on your first point didn't a QB under the same system have bust written all over him as well?

He looked poor but out of Goff’s entire 2016 draft there is only 1 QB who was drafted outside of the first round that is a starter in the NFL going into 2019. Take Gurley’s 2015 draft and you’ll see numerous guys outside of the first round who are either starters or are active pieces on teams (Johnson, Jones, Ajayi, Coleman, Johnson). That is the difference in the value of the two positions.

And as for your second point, to have a good running game I completely agree that you don't need a highly drafted RB.

But a running game is still clearly very important, and Cleveland, or anyone else, would have a better chance of having that if they draft what is considered the best RB, I think that much is undebatable.

It comes down to whether or not Cleveland, or indeed another team consider an early round pick good value for money for Barkley. And the evidence from all the "draft experts" is that he is indeed worth that high pick. If they do think he worth that pick, even if they are completely wrong, why do they believe he is worth that pick?

Let's just say that I'm right, and he does become a bona fide star, would you say then he was wroth the draft pick? A quick look a recent drafts shows a few players in 'less-important' positions that RB have been selected in the single digit picks. I'd be willing to bet that if I go back back further I'd see a common trend, and that is, if teams believe they will get a 'team changing player', they'll select him as early as possible, regardless of his position. Teams, scouts and 'draft experts' alike clearly must consider Barkley one of those players, hence his pre-draft stock value.

Now if in the draft Barkley falls outside the top 10 picks I'll hold my hand up and say I got it wrong, completely and utterly wrong. But this seems to be all about opinion, and my opinion on Barkley is clear. Based on the reports, I think he's worth the pick, maybe not for Cleveland, but definitely in the top 10.

At no point have I said Barkley is not a bona fide star in the making, that isn’t at issue here.

Remember many ‘draft experts’ had Manziel going as the first pick in the draft in 2014 while few had Watson nor Mahomes going as high as they did last year. Their mock drafts are generally flawed and don’t recognize value, especially given the lack of trades, and that is even before going into their need to create hype, their group think and obvious prejudices (see Lamar Jackson).

Foxtrol

Given the JPP trade, is Chubb now on top of the board for the Giants if they don’t trade out?

Guffy

Foxtrol wrote: »

Given the JPP trade, is Chubb now on top of the board for the Giants if they don’t trade out?

That's what Rapaport claims, according to gstack on the Browns' thread. Interesting twist of affairs

letowski

Guffy wrote: »

That's what Rapaport claims, according to gstack on the Browns' thread. Interesting twist of affairs

It make things interesting but the Giant's are going 3-4 base though. To take the deal on its own, to pay JPP $15mil in a position he is not going to be too comfortable with, and being in slight decline, it makes sense to trade him and get his salary off the books, as te Giants are tight enough on cap space.

Wouldn't be surprised if they took Chubb all the same. But for me they should take a QB for the various reasons that have been discussed.

Jolly Red Giant

Foxtrol wrote: »

Given the JPP trade, is Chubb now on top of the board for the Giants if they don’t trade out?

Here is a scenario that the JPP trade has opened up - to start with it the Giants have shown their hand and Chubb is the pick.

Now depending on how the board falls the Gaints could trade out of 1.2 - and here is how it could happen.

The Browns trade 1.4 to the Bills for 1.12 and 1.21 and a couple of 2nds - it is now a lock that -

1.1 Browns - QB
1.2 Giants - Chubb
1.3 Jets - QB
1.4 Bills - QB

Now the Giants could trade down to 1.5 with the Broncos and the Broncos take Rosen at 1.2 while the Giants still get Chubb at 1.5.

I have been arguing that the Broncos would not pay what it costs to get to 1.2 because they would be competing with the Bills - but in this scenario the trade could happen. The Giants can't drop below 1.5 because either the Broncos or the Colts would take Chubb - so I could see the trade happening for as little as a second-rounder.

Now - all of this is dependent on the Browns trading with Buffalo - because otherwise they could take Chubb and that would be too big a risk for the Giants. But it also devalues the potential return to the Browns of a trade with the Bills. From the Bills perspective the board could fall as follows

1.1 Browns QB
1.2 Giants Chubb
1.3 Jets QB
1.4 Browns Barkley
1.5 Broncos QB or Nelson or Fitzpatrick or Ward
1.6 Bills trade with the Colts and they get one or a pick of two QBs.

So - not alone have the Giants shown their hand - and devalued the 1.2 pick - they have also put the Browns in a difficult spot, with Chubb gone do they take Barkley or trade down and if they trade down will they have to take less from the Bills. It also puts the Bills on the spot because now the Giants won't drop to 1.12 - and the Broncos can jump them to 1.2 with the Giants still getting Chubb.

All of a sudden the mad scramble for a QB and the potential of a kings ransom has been devalued by this trade. And behind it all - Miami are still a potential wild card to trade up for a QB - although they don't have anything like the firepower of Buffalo. In effect Miami would have to trade most of their draft picks to get to 1.4 - or a stack of high picks next year with 1.11 and 2.42 this year.

Foxtrol

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Here is a scenario that the JPP trade has opened up - to start with it the Giants have shown their hand and Chubb is the pick.

Now depending on how the board falls the Gaints could trade out of 1.2 - and here is how it could happen.

The Browns trade 1.4 to the Bills for 1.12 and 1.21 and a couple of 2nds - it is now a lock that -

1.1 Browns - QB
1.2 Giants - Chubb
1.3 Jets - QB
1.4 Bills - QB

Now the Giants could trade down to 1.5 with the Broncos and the Broncos take Rosen at 1.2 while the Giants still get Chubb at 1.5.

I have been arguing that the Broncos would not pay what it costs to get to 1.2 because they would be competing with the Bills - but in this scenario the trade could happen. The Giants can't drop below 1.5 because either the Broncos or the Colts would take Chubb - so I could see the trade happening for as little as a second-rounder.

Now - all of this is dependent on the Browns trading with Buffalo - because otherwise they could take Chubb and that would be too big a risk for the Giants. But it also devalues the potential return to the Browns of a trade with the Bills. From the Bills perspective the board could fall as follows

1.1 Browns QB
1.2 Giants Chubb
1.3 Jets QB
1.4 Browns Barkley
1.5 Broncos QB or Nelson or Fitzpatrick or Ward
1.6 Bills trade with the Colts and they get one or a pick of two QBs.

So - not alone have the Giants shown their hand - and devalued the 1.2 pick - they have also put the Browns in a difficult spot, with Chubb gone do they take Barkley or trade down and if they trade down will they have to take less from the Bills. It also puts the Bills on the spot because now the Giants won't drop to 1.12 - and the Broncos can jump them to 1.2 with the Giants still getting Chubb.

All of a sudden the mad scramble for a QB and the potential of a kings ransom has been devalued by this trade. And behind it all - Miami are still a potential wild card to trade up for a QB - although they don't have anything like the firepower of Buffalo. In effect Miami would have to trade most of their draft picks to get to 1.4 - or a stack of high picks next year with 1.11 and 2.42 this year.

Must disagree on the devaluing 1.2 pick. I don’t think the trade has much impact on what they’d get for the pick, but surely if anything, having a need, or making it seem like you have a need, to use your pick would increase the value of it. Generally, you pay a higher price for something that you think someone is planning to use than something that someone is trying to get rid of. It isn’t like they traded Eli and now they must get a QB so can’t drop out of the top of the draft. Chubb is the best EDGE target, but they could still fill that need later along with a pile of picks. As was said, no matter where they were picking it made sense to get rid of JPP.

I think your hope of the Broncos paying just a 2nd round, or anything close to that little, is very much wishful thinking. What they may have devalued is the Brown’s 1.4 pick, as it has lessened the chance that you have to take it to get one of the 4 best QBs.

Jolly Red Giant

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think your hope of the Broncos paying just a 2nd round, or anything close to that little, is very much wishful thinking. What they may have devalued is the Brown’s 1.4 pick, as it has lessened the chance that you have to take it to get one of the 4 best QBs.

You are assuming that the Broncos are zeroed in on taking a QB - they are not. Elway is willing to roll with Keenum (and he has leaned on Kubiak for that decision).

And to be clear - I don't want the Broncos to trade up - I want Elway to trade down - pick an OG (Price, Hernandez, Wynn, Smith) and an OT (McGlinchey, Brown, Wynn, Williams) - and I would be pretty happy with any combination although my preference is for Williams and Hernandez. RT has to be a pick because Watson must be cut - he is useless and slated to make $7.5million next season.

Now if Chubb fell to 1.5 then I would snap him up - or if Denver traded down to 1.11 or 1.12 and Nelson fell I would grab him.

letowski

If the Bills or Cards are going to trade up, they will have to wait until draft night to see how the board is falling. To go from 12/15th overall to top 5 will cost an absolute fortune, they will need to see want they are getting first.

Foxtrol

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You are assuming that the Broncos are zeroed in on taking a QB - they are not. Elway is willing to roll with Keenum (and he has leaned on Kubiak for that decision).

And to be clear - I don't want the Broncos to trade up - I want Elway to trade down - pick an OG (Price, Hernandez, Wynn, Smith) and an OT (McGlinchey, Brown, Wynn, Williams) - and I would be pretty happy with any combination although my preference is for Williams and Hernandez. RT has to be a pick because Watson must be cut - he is useless and slated to make $7.5million next season.

Now if Chubb fell to 1.5 then I would snap him up - or if Denver traded down to 1.11 or 1.12 and Nelson fell I would grab him.

How does who the Broncos want to pick impact how much they have to hand over to get 1.2 from the Giants? You claimed the JPP trade has devalued their pick and that the Broncos could move up for as little as a 2nd round pick. There is no scenario that the Broncos move up 3 spots, for whatever player, for that little cost. The Giants haven’t damaged the value of their 1.2 at all.

Foxtrol

letowski wrote: »

If the Bills or Cards are going to trade up, they will have to wait until draft night to see how the board is falling. To go from 12/15th overall to top 5 will cost an absolute fortune, they will need to see want they are getting first.

Not sure if it is one of those two, but I can see a team picking up Lamar Jackson a lot earlier he is being mocked currently. My guess would be in the teens with Bengals, Jags, Steelers, Chargers being potential other teams interested.