Drafting a RB in the Top 10 is...

[MLD Woody]

What say you?

[Orion]

6 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

What say you?

Depends on the hype.

.....has to be quite special to warrant a very high pick in today's NFL.

[PoeticG]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

What say you?

Say-what?

1 hour ago, Orion said:

Depends on the hype.

.....has to be quite special to warrant a very high pick in today's NFL.

Saquon!

 

I think your poll is missing a couple of options. You have to look at the PLAYER, not the POSITION.  

[TexasAg1969]

Depends on whether:

a. A couple of teams need him worse just below you

b. You have someone else in mind as BPA that will still be there if you trade down

c. RB isn't a strong need

[mjp28]

Depends if he's a top 3 or 4 or maybe a true once in a decade or generation talent in the often injured and short career running back position. 

If that is true AND you have multiple top first round picks then YES, still a gut-check move but on Barkley I'd say go.

The real question is if you have all of the above who do you pick with your second top pick? A QB or other position? 

......... oh I'm abstaining to vote as written, it's not always/good/never here.

[jcam222]

If he's a game changing talent and a need you do it. The "you can find one later in the draft thing" is way overused hindsight logic. 

[mjp28]

Just now, jcam222 said:

If he's a game changing talent and a need you do it. The "you can find one later in the draft thing" is way overused hindsight logic. 

A game changing talent AT RB would qualify.

Elliott (currently) Sweetness, J. Brown,  E.Smith, Sanders, LT, Dickerson, OJ...... for example. 

[BrownsnMopar]

I would like to move back into the 1st rd and take Darrius Guice from LSU! It would be better if he slipped to us at rd 2.1

[tiamat63]

2 hours ago, BrownsnMopar said:

I would like to move back into the 1st rd and take Darrius Guice from LSU! It would be better if he slipped to us at rd 2.1

Even with my slightly positive review on him, unless this team is prepared to shift it's style of running attack a bit - I still wouldn't take him in the 1st.   

[Louisville Slugger]

You should always draft top 10 talent with a top 10 pick. Best player available 

[mjp28]

17 minutes ago, Louisville Slugger said:

You should always draft top 10 talent with a top 10 pick. Best player available 

So with #1 and 4 scrap the quarterbacks and go other talent? (my choice here) Remember that they still have 10 Picks left.

[Westside Steve]

22 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

What say you?

I might have added another option Woodrow. A good idea if the back in question is a generational Talent.

A great one could certainly take a lot of pressure off whoever the retread or rookie quarterback is.

WSS

[wargograw]

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

I might have added another option Woodrow. A good idea if the back in question is a generational Talent.

A great one could certainly take a lot of pressure off whoever the retread or rookie quarterback is.

WSS

By generational you mean "comes along every 1-2 years," right?

[Richiswhere]

A whole slew of running back that were drafted in the top 10 in this years AFC and NFC games

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, wargograw said:

By generational you mean "comes along every 1-2 years," right?

I guess if you think there's a great one every year worthy of the first pick in the draft.

WSS

[sdballis]

Like many others, I think this question is lacking some plausible answers. I think that if you scout Saquon and he is CLEARLY the best player in the draft, you have to take him #1. RBs can certainly change the game enough to still be considered with that high a pick. Granted, I agree that production can be found later (mostly due to the O-line's impact on RB success), but if you have the next big thing waiting for you, you pull the trigger.

A related question I would pose is this:

If a player was a guaranteed perennial Pro Bowler/HoFer, what position WOULDN'T be worthy of (insert pick here)? (#1, top 5, etc.)

Would you look back and take a Urlacher #1 even though "MLBers aren't worthy of a top 10 pick?" A Deion Sanders? A Gronkowski?

 

I find it hard to say no to those impact guys regardless of the perception of where they "should" be picked. Obviously K/P aren't justified, and maybe not C/G, but given the hit rate on draft picks, I'd love to take a guaranteed guy at any position.

[SD_Tom]

Saquon is not even worth a top 10 pick. 

Drafting him #1 is RetardED

[mjp28]

On 1/21/2018 at 10:27 PM, sdballis said:

Like many others, I think this question is lacking some plausible answers. I think that if you scout Saquon and he is CLEARLY the best player in the draft, you have to take him #1. RBs can certainly change the game enough to still be considered with that high a pick. Granted, I agree that production can be found later (mostly due to the O-line's impact on RB success), but if you have the next big thing waiting for you, you pull the trigger.

A related question I would pose is this:

If a player was a guaranteed perennial Pro Bowler/HoFer, what position WOULDN'T be worthy of (insert pick here)? (#1, top 5, etc.) <---- ???

Would you look back and take a Urlacher #1 even though "MLBers aren't worthy of a top 10 pick?" A Deion Sanders? A Gronkowski?

 

I find it hard to say no to those impact guys regardless of the perception of where they "should" be picked. Obviously K/P aren't justified, and maybe not C/G, but given the hit rate on draft picks, I'd love to take a guaranteed guy at any position.

I don't think any college player Heisman or not is a guaranteed pro bowl or definitely not a HOF winner, the game is too tough and unpredictable. 

Maybe a guaranteed starter, top 5 at his position or something like that would be more suitable for a rookie UNLESS he was a unanimous  (by the experts?) once in a generation player.....you know one of those about once every 25 years guys, very rare. Plus those guys generally go to bad teams, stat killers, unless they luck out and they're pick is traded or they hold out and play chicken with potential teams.

[Ghoolie]

Barkley,  this year, it is a good idea.

[nickers]

Is there a Jim Brown clone in the draft?.. Okay , never mind then...

[TexasAg1969]

4 hours ago, Ghoolie said:

Barkley,  this year, it is a good idea.

Better go watch a few of his games. Not that impressive other than the occasional burst of speed for long gains. Down by down he goes down like a so so running back. there are better ones out there. Not getting much notice is my dark horse from Georgia not named Chubb. Has the speed of Barkley but far better YA contact. 7.9 ypc vs. 5.9 for Barkley in 2017 with both getting over 1200 yds for the season. Sony Michel had to share the load with Chubb at Georgia. Had he been the only feature back, he'd be rated up with Barkley. I'd rather get him early 2nd.

[jrb12711]

As I noted in the other thread, I have to admit I changed my mind a good bit on the idea of taking a RB high based on the previous two years. This isn't some ringing endorsement for Barkley, but he's going to grade out a similar prospect to Zeke and Fournette. Both of those guys were cornerstone pieces on bad teams (yeah yeah Dallas and Dak) to turn them around quickly. This year also objectively proved the value of the position when Zeke wasn't on the field. Run CMC in Carolina was also quickly becoming a difference maker too.

The old adage of not taking a RB high was something I really hung my hat on. But if Barkley goes top 10 (which I'm sure he will), and produces at the same level as the guys above that becomes a trend you can't ignore.

[TexasAg1969]

32 minutes ago, jrb12711 said:

As I noted in the other thread, I have to admit I changed my mind a good bit on the idea of taking a RB high based on the previous two years. This isn't some ringing endorsement for Barkley, but he's going to grade out a similar prospect to Zeke and Fournette. Both of those guys were cornerstone pieces on bad teams (yeah yeah Dallas and Dak) to turn them around quickly. This year also objectively proved the value of the position when Zeke wasn't on the field. Run CMC in Carolina was also quickly becoming a difference maker too.

The old adage of not taking a RB high was something I really hung my hat on. But if Barkley goes top 10 (which I'm sure he will), and produces at the same level as the guys above that becomes a trend you can't ignore.

He is not at the level of Fornette or Zeke in the ability to break tackles and get the tough yards after the first hit. Just not there. Go look at entire games not highlights. Georgia's Sony Michel is far better IMO. 7.9 ypc vs 5.9 for Barkley in 2017. There's a reason for that 2 yard discrepancy.

[jrb12711]

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

He is not at the level of Fornette or Zeke in the ability to break tackles and get the tough yards after the first hit. Just not there. Go look at entire games not highlights. Georgia's Sony Michel is far better IMO. 7.9 ypc vs 5.9 for Barkley in 2017. There's a reason for that 2 yard discrepancy.

Sigh, you didn't even read my comment did you? I'm not for or against the guy, but I'd be willing to bet you $20 or more right now his draft grade is going to be just as high, if not higher, than those guys. Seriously, I'm a man of my word so just let me know.

[TexasAg1969]

3 minutes ago, jrb12711 said:

Sigh, you didn't even read my comment did you? I'm not for or against the guy, but I'd be willing to bet you $20 or more right now his draft grade is going to be just as high, if not higher, than those guys. Seriously, I'm a man of my word so just let me know.

I read it and if you read it again you seem to be leaning his way. May not have been your intent, but it reads that way to me. And I don't need to bet $20 because no doubt he will retain his high draft grade. But I will say that I think Michel will end up being the better back in the NFL. Just MO. I think he is going to be cheap if we get him in the early 2nd, but I will not be surprised that by the time of the draft he rises even higher into the 1st round.

[sdballis]

10 hours ago, mjp28 said:

I don't think any college player Heisman or not is a guaranteed pro bowl or definitely not a HOF winner, the game is too tough and unpredictable. 

Maybe a guaranteed starter, top 5 at his position or something like that would be more suitable for a rookie UNLESS he was a unanimous  (by the experts?) once in a generation player.....you know one of those about once every 25 years guys, very rare. Plus those guys generally go to bad teams, stat killers, unless they luck out and they're pick is traded or they hold out and play chicken with potential teams.

I guess I was approaching it from two different spots.

1. Looking at current prospects. Getting back to our original question, is a RB worth #1 overall? Well, again, if he is #1 on your board, then I say yes. Those who believe that a RB's shelf life and heavy pass offenses have led to the de-valuing of the position will argue no, obviously. Similarly, MLBs traditionally don't go top 10, however Roquan Smith is on another level (I've spent 8 years in Athens at UGA, so I've seen plenty of him). If you think he is an elite/Pro Bowl/potential HoF, can you bring yourself to NOT draft him where you think he is worthy just because society will frown upon it? Yes, no one can be a 100% lock to be a Pro Bowler, but this is the gamble you are taking with any player. Even those guys that scouts claim to be "LOCKS," about half of them seem to bust.

2. Looking back at past drafts. More was I was getting at with my examples. Again, if you could go back to 2000 and we have #1 (Courtney Brown), would you rather have Urlacher (who went #9) there? BUT BUT BUT, he's a MLB and they DON'T go #1............... OF COURSE YOU DO. Just because a position has the perception of less impact doesn't mean you pass on a guy that great just because he plays a "less valuable" position. If you graded Urlacher out as the #1 player, you don't drop him down your draft board just because he doesn't play QB/LT/DE. Again, outside of K/P and maybe C/G, there are very few positions that you should refuse to take #1 imo. 

[wargograw]

On 1/21/2018 at 8:50 PM, Westside Steve said:

I guess if you think there's a great one every year worthy of the first pick in the draft.

WSS

Well I don't think Barkley is, sooo....

[Westside Steve]

6 hours ago, wargograw said:

Well I don't think Barkley is, sooo....

Okay. Others do. So somebody is wrong. Won't be the first time.

WSS

[mjp28]

20 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Okay. Others do. So somebody is wrong. Won't be the first time.

WSS

Oh yes the RB Wheel of Fortune,  you just plug one in and spin the wheel and see what happens and will the 1st round pick do better than the 3rd or 4th rounder, chances are yes BUT no guarantees at that position. 

Still with #1 and 4 I'd grab Barkley AND if they can not get another experienced QB...... hold my nose and pick another rookie project QB and see what happens. 

In either case a great OL would be nice for the success of either.

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, mjp28 said:

Oh yes the RB Wheel of Fortune,  you just plug one in and spin the wheel and see what happens and will the 1st round pick do better than the 3rd or 4th rounder, chances are yes BUT no guarantees at that position. 

Still with #1 and 4 I'd grab Barkley AND if they can not get another experienced QB...... hold my nose and pick another rookie project QB and see what happens. 

In either case a great OL would be nice for the success of either.

And you'd stick us with another bust. May as well add QB Allen so that we continue the Browns tradition of f'n up the draft completely.