Jump to content
lambdo

Barkley at #1?

Recommended Posts

Just now, domcucch1994 said:

passing on Barkley would be a monumental screw-up.

Take him! Im sure Darnold or Rosen will be there at 4, and if not, take Micah Fitzpatrick.

Or will he be the next Trent Richardson 3rd pick from that great football factory Alabama? Sure is a tough call to make, #1 pick for a RB.

BUT due to the BROWNS historical season they do have a #1 and 4 to play around with this year, nice do-over situation. "I'll take one of each please".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mjp28 said:

Or will he be the next Trent Richardson 3rd pick from that great football factory Alabama? Sure is a tough call to make, #1 pick for a RB.

BUT due to the BROWNS historical season they do have a #1 and 4 to play around with this year, nice do-over situation. "I'll take one of each please".

T-Rich also tore his meniscus in the BCS game, which I think affected him greatly.

Sad really, he was promising his first year, but failed to live up to the hype.

 

Surely Saquon could turn out to be the same, 

and there are other needs, but I think if we take him, we can still get a good QB with the 4th pick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SD_Tom said:

I think they go full Retard if they don't get a qb at #1.  They've failed to address this position for 20+ years. They passed on several top QB's. Can't stand the thought of it happening again.  

Get the qb you want,  figure it out after that pick 

If we were giving the Heisman stiff arm to an Andrew Luck only to wait 4 rounds to draft our QB - I would be inclined to agree with you.  This time around, the circumstances are uniquely different enough to where we have THE MOST $ to spend on a free agent QB before we even get to the draft.  I think this makes our situation a lot better than many seem to think it is.

My guess is if we want to interest WHATEVER experienced veteran QB we're trying to recruit - we might want to inform him we plan to take a scoring threat RB with great hands and reception volume like Barkley at #1 overall (especially since our starting RB is a FA that could be leaving).

If we draft Barkley 1st after bringing in our veteran FA QB; then 2 teams will pick or trade (maybe even with us?). We can part with some future rd 4-7 picks and throw in former 1st round pick Corey Coleman who can catch almost as good as Shaquem Griffin with 1 hand...

Keep in mind, we dictate this draft.  If we don't start the run on QBs at #1, the volume of equivalent top prospects will not have depleted itself at #4 overall.  In fact, there's a very good chance the guy our FO likes could still be on the board. And not for nothing, as GREAT as Elway was as a QB - the ONLY QB I've seen him get right is the very proven veteran Peyton Manning.  Other than that, he fell for Brock Osweiler TWICE and drafted Paxton Lynch.  The rumor is he's got the hotsies for Josh Allen (attended a few of his games himself before the 75-80 yard combine throw punctuated it) to the extent he'll try to trade up for him.  What stands out in all the QBs he likes?  They're all taller than 6'/6'1".  Then again is the reason everyone keeps suddenly saying we're most interested in Mayfield is because that's what our FO wants them all thinking?  Silly season is officially upon us...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As fans we only get a partial view of the big picture. This FO gets to meet with these QB Prospects face to face and put them through the paces. They will have a #1 QB by the time the dust settles, and they cannot take the chance that someone else will draft him. 

If they draft scared and let other teams determine who their QB will be so they can use #1 overall on one of the easiest positions to fill, it will be the same old Sheet(unless it works).

Edit: Barkley will probably be there at 4, and if he isn’t, it’s not like you missed out on your QB, so it’s no biggie. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Or will he be the next Trent Richardson 3rd pick from that great football factory Alabama? Sure is a tough call to make, #1 pick for a RB.

BUT due to the BROWNS historical season they do have a #1 and 4 to play around with this year, nice do-over situation. "I'll take one of each please".

Penn State hasn't been a football factory since Kerry Collins QBed them to an undefeated season way back in the early 90s.

Right now, what scoring threat do we have to recruit a FA QB to consider coming here?   Telling them we plan to take Barkley and reminding them Emmitt Smith was Aikman's game changer like Marshall Faulk was Warner's game changer like Zeke Elliott was a big reason Dak Prescott earned Rookie of the Year while Leonard Fournette was the first time a 3rd overall QB like Bortles got to an AFC Championship.  In places that don't have a Tom Brady, these RBs can matter a lot.  Riggins for Theisman, Byner for Rypien, and Elway didn't WIN Superbowls until he had Terrell Davis while a 2000 yard RB helped drag Trent Dilfer to a Superbowl. 

We haven't had a RB that can score from anywhere on the field via pass or run since my avatar Greg Pruitt. I kind of miss that dimension...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hoorta said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There's some corners thinking this QB class could be a replay of 1983. Like at least four, and maybe 5-6 going in the first round? Just have to find the right one. 

And there are some that think this may be a repeat of the Ponder/Lockert/Gabbert draft...or the Joey Harrington/David Carr draft.

My guess:  It may be like 1999.  1 will have a borderline HOF career (McNabb),  another will be a good serviceable QB for a good while (Culpepper),  One will have his career cut short by injury (Couch)....and two will be out and out busts (Akili,  McNown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

And there are some that think this may be a repeat of the Ponder/Lockert/Gabbert draft...or the Joey Harrington/David Carr draft.

My guess:  It may be like 1999.  1 will have a borderline HOF career (McNabb),  another will be a good serviceable QB for a good while (Culpepper),  One will have his career cut short by injury (Couch)....and two will be out and out busts (Akili,  McNown)

The scary thing there they're hyping this group as maybe three in the top 10 or so even higher expectations than that bust class. I wonder if they drop some draft day?

1. 2011 - Busts (pick): Jake Locker (8th), Blaine Gabbert (10th), Christian Ponder (12th)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flugel said:

Gunz, I was where you are all the way until Saturday.  At #1 overall, I've always been under the impression you have to get yourself someone that has emerged as the best player in the draft (unless a QB emerged as a clear cut #1 QB). We did it last year with Garrett and a consensus was fine with it right?  That said, we traded out of pick #12 so Houston could draft Watson who was great while he lasted.  Because he did NOT last neither did their brief bout of competing so we are now drafting 4th overall because of it.

THIS YEAR what QB has separated himself from the rest?   If we're being honest nobody did better than Josh Allen; and I cannot stand his accuracy issues when there's corners and pass rushers on the field or especially when he faced the better DI defenses.  I posted his catastrophic stats against the better competition in 2017.  So who else?  Darnold is so confident in himself - he's waiting?  Really? For those saying all we have to do is teach ball security - bad habits can be repeated so long they're perfected to the extent they never get corrected (see Kizer).   Rosen threw well.   Mayfield looked good.  Lamar Jackson was inconsistent.  Was there a big difference between the more hyped up QBs and Toledo's Logan Woodside, WKU's Mike White or Richmond's Kyle Lauletta (also Senior Bowl MVP)? Not as much as I wanted to see. Not that the combines are a tell-all; because again defenses challenging time to throw, mechanics and accuracy didn't show us the same Josh Allen at all unless 16 TD passes in a season dazzles one.  IMO, we've already had QBs exactly like Josh Allen (DA, Weeden and Kizer). 

I didn't make Barkley the #1 rated player PRIOR to the combines, not to be confused with the mock drafts.  Here's his stats before we even get to the combines punctuating them.  I think you'll see a big difference between his reception volume of 54 and Sony Michel's volume of 9 in 14-15 games to understand why he'll be a 3 down back. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/saquon-barkley-1.html

There's only 2 teams drafting between us and us at 1 and 4 with not 1 QB separating himself from the rest in a draft I can't ever remember so many equivalent QB prospects. If there was an Andrew Luck emerging, I'd be all in.  Even in that draft with Andrew Luck, do you know what QBs became better than the 1st round QBs like RG3, Ryan Tannehill and Brandon Weeden?   Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins (about to be paid serious cake). Back to my question, was there a BIG difference between the perceived 1st round QBs and the Logan Woodsides, Mike Allens, and Lyle Laulettas?  Not as much as I hoped to see.  Every fave I have or had - has some serious things I worry about. That being the case, I'm way more okay with the worst case scenario of taking the 3rd QB off the board in this draft class.  Keep in mind, if we WANT a FA QB interested - it might be a good idea to tell him we're drafting Barkley 1st. People are acting like I'm saying I want to wait until round 3 or 4. No, just pick #4 where someone once chose Philip Rivers (over Ben Roethlisberger). The following QBs have been drafted long after pick#4 - Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garapollo, Big Ben, Nick Foles, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, Dan Marino and Tom Brady just off the top of my head...  This might be a year a very good year to pick a QB at #4 overall just 3 picks after securing our very first scoring weapon in the starting lineup. 

I dont care if the Browns take Barkley, but to think that EVERYTHING is going to work out perfectly is just a bit cuckoo to me. There are certainly cases each year where a lower round guy turns out to be good. They are then called steals. They were ranked close to where they should have been, but there are things you just can't measure. 

To me, I just don't like the idea of possibly your 3rd choice of QB especially that is the most important position. There maybe what 20 franchise QB in the league, give or take. There is a low chance that 3 come out of same draft. It could be like Eli, Rivers, Big Ben, or Cam, Locker, Ponder, etc.

But the biggest key to me replying when people are talking about Barkley, is how he is talked about. From the beaming stuff of Po, to it seems like others just think he is the perfect prospect with no flaws, to not looking at some of his inconsistency playing. 

Besides Po, who from what I have read will never admit he was wrong ( hmm Ghoolie little brother maybe) as he still on the Colt, Trent, Gordon, Hogan bandwagon, how many other people here who are the Barkley train will be SCREAMING about the Browns passing on the QB, no matter how good Barkley is.

Here is a good way to look at the building of a team. Think of it as grades in school, with GPA. So say the Browns get Barkley, and even if I certainly see flaws in his tape, let's give him an A, because he certainly has that ability. (And this is under the assumption that he doesn't last to 4, and top 2 qbs dont last to 4) so the Browns then COULD get 3rd QB at 4 and they turn out to be Paxton or even a bit better, so we will give that QB a C. And then 33- they get a B/C defender.

So Saquon at 1 (A), QB at 4 (C), and defender at 33 (B). Average of B

QB at 1 (A), defender at 4 (A/B), RB at 33 (B). That's an average of B+

The best case scenario for EVERYONE is to get THE guy at QB and Barkley. Well not everyone, as some want QB and defense, but which is the greater of 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

The scary thing there they're hyping this group as maybe three in the top 10 or so even higher expectations than that bust class. I wonder if they drop some draft day?

1. 2011 - Busts (pick): Jake Locker (8th), Blaine Gabbert (10th), Christian Ponder (12th)

We will have to really give it 5-7 years to decide if this draft class is 1983/2004ish....or 2011/1999ish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you have the right QB-----------take him and don't look back. Next take the big time FS coach on the field so you can move Peppers to SS. Then you trade back up into the 1st for your RB and maybe even for the CB if you have one targeted. Only exception might be if Chubb is still there @4. You can't pass the complimentary pass rusher in the DL to go with Garrett & Ogbah. There are other FSs in the 2nd round that are serviceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boo fagley said:

The Coach got fired for benching Manning.

 

The Colts defense was 10th vs the run. Browns were 5th. Fair amount worse? Yeah, I guess so http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

The Colts run game was 24th in the NFL in 2017. Plus, they bad QB play. The Giants run game was ranked 29th. NYG or Indy will grab Barkley if the Browns pass. I reckon by your standards there Guns the Browns OFFENSE was a fair amount worse than the Giants http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff The only silver lining on the Browns offense was the 10th ranked run game and now Crowell is off to make his fortune.

Look at team efficiency and where the last 3 teams are drafting?  You take Barkley because he can help your offense the most right now http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

Sometimes it gets a little verbose.

I love sports analogies. Who told you different?

I know that the Browns dont have a QB. They also need a RB who can make a difference like a Bell, Gurley, Hunt, Fournette - all 2017 playoff teams.

The Giants have a QB, but they need a RB with the 29th rush offense in 2017

The Colts have a QB assuming Luck is healthy, but they had the 24th rush offense in the NFL and now Gore is gone.

 

I am building the best team.

Barkley at 1 and youre set at RB for 4 years. QB at 4 and youre set at that position for the foreseeable future. Sign a Vet FA QB to take over this season while your rookie QB learns the game.

Do you know how the NFL works?

My man, take off the Patriots hat for a second. That is clouding your judgement, as 31 teams aren't like your Patriots.

I'll go right down the line on what you said.

1. Coached fired, not exactly. It might have been the final straw, but I think how the team was performing and his relationship with players before the benching had more to do with his firing than sitting Manning 1 week. The owner was in board with it too, so if that were the ONLY reason, he should have fired himself as well.

2. The Colts/Giants offense was better and the Browns defense better than Indy. You know why? Better players on those sides of ball. Colts had the better QB.

NOBODY is saying that the Colts are going to draft a QB, if they stay at 3, I think there are 3 potential picks for them: Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson. They could also trade to a team who wants to trade up for a QB to move back a little and gain more picks, because their roster is bad. More on the Giants next

3. The Giants do have a QB, for maybe next 2 years, then what? I dont expect the Giants to be nearly that bad next season, as their entire team was hurt last year on offense, and thus defense on the field more, resulting in more points. The Giants STILL have a good defense. So do you honestly belief they will find Elis replacement drafting lower in 1st in a year or 2? If the Giants draft a QB, it isn't for next year or 2, it is for the FUTURE. Every team, including the Browns, are trying to build for the future. They got rid of aging vets for the future to play the young guys for the future.

Both teams also know, just like the Browns that there are good backs later in the draft, and that you can get similar production from later picks. Maybe not as much as Barkley, but close. The running game is largely predicated upon the O line as well, since they are the reason backs dont get the yards, they are the reason they do. 

4. You can build whatever team you want, but the fact doesn't change that the 3rd QB (potentially) isn't looked upon as highly as 1st. Maybe they all turn out good, and that is great, but having the best back for 4 years like you said isn't a long time, and without the QB it's all for naught. And you said none of these QBs have that buzz, but now they are setting the Browns up for the future, which is it?

If the Browns find the best QB in the 7th, that is great, but they have to find the QB.

Realistically, how much better does 4 years of Saquon Barkley make the team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flugel said:

Gunz, I was where you are all the way until Saturday.  At #1 overall, I've always been under the impression you have to get yourself someone that has emerged as the best player in the draft (unless a QB emerged as a clear cut #1 QB). We did it last year with Garrett and a consensus was fine with it right?  That said, we traded out of pick #12 so Houston could draft Watson who was great while he lasted.  Because he did NOT last neither did their brief bout of competing so we are now drafting 4th overall because of it.

THIS YEAR what QB has separated himself from the rest?   If we're being honest nobody did better than Josh Allen; and I cannot stand his accuracy issues when there's corners and pass rushers on the field or especially when he faced the better DI defenses.  I posted his catastrophic stats against the better competition in 2017.  So who else?  Darnold is so confident in himself - he's waiting?  Really? For those saying all we have to do is teach ball security - bad habits can be repeated so long they're perfected to the extent they never get corrected (see Kizer).   Rosen threw well.   Mayfield looked good.  Lamar Jackson was inconsistent.  Was there a big difference between the more hyped up QBs and Toledo's Logan Woodside, WKU's Mike White or Richmond's Kyle Lauletta (also Senior Bowl MVP)? Not as much as I wanted to see. Not that the combines are a tell-all; because again defenses challenging time to throw, mechanics and accuracy didn't show us the same Josh Allen at all unless 16 TD passes in a season dazzles one.  IMO, we've already had QBs exactly like Josh Allen (DA, Weeden and Kizer). 

I didn't make Barkley the #1 rated player PRIOR to the combines, not to be confused with the mock drafts.  Here's his stats before we even get to the combines punctuating them.  I think you'll see a big difference between his reception volume of 54 and Sony Michel's volume of 9 in 14-15 games to understand why he'll be a 3 down back. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/saquon-barkley-1.html

There's only 2 teams drafting between us and us at 1 and 4 with not 1 QB separating himself from the rest in a draft I can't ever remember so many equivalent QB prospects. If there was an Andrew Luck emerging, I'd be all in.  Even in that draft with Andrew Luck, do you know what QBs became better than the 1st round QBs like RG3, Ryan Tannehill and Brandon Weeden?   Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins (about to be paid serious cake). Back to my question, was there a BIG difference between the perceived 1st round QBs and the Logan Woodsides, Mike Allens, and Lyle Laulettas?  Not as much as I hoped to see.  Every fave I have or had - has some serious things I worry about. That being the case, I'm way more okay with the worst case scenario of taking the 3rd QB off the board in this draft class.  Keep in mind, if we WANT a FA QB interested - it might be a good idea to tell him we're drafting Barkley 1st. People are acting like I'm saying I want to wait until round 3 or 4. No, just pick #4 where someone once chose Philip Rivers (over Ben Roethlisberger). The following QBs have been drafted long after pick#4 - Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garapollo, Big Ben, Nick Foles, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, Dan Marino and Tom Brady just off the top of my head...  This might be a year a very good year to pick a QB at #4 overall just 3 picks after securing our very first scoring weapon in the starting lineup. 

I forgot one detail. You used the number of catches for each, does that mean the others CAN'T catch it, or the more likely answer is that they didn't throw it to them as much. Michel and Chubb split time as well.

There are reasons for EVERY stat. Just like there is a reason why Barkley struggled in games that could have very little to do him.

Now if you had a stat where they were thrown to same amount of times, that would help thst argument. And had they ran behind same line, that would show something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, boo fagley said:

I meant Phillip Rivers. 

There was draft talk about him from NC State.

And I said there was for him.

The point is, there was serious buzz about Leaf, enough thst there was real question whether he or Peyton went 1st.

Buzz means NOTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RoyceRolls said:

As fans we only get a partial view of the big picture. This FO gets to meet with these QB Prospects face to face and put them through the paces. They will have a #1 QB by the time the dust settles, and they cannot take the chance that someone else will draft him. 

If they draft scared and let other teams determine who their QB will be so they can use #1 overall on one of the easiest positions to fill, it will be the same old Sheet(unless it works).

Edit: Barkley will probably be there at 4, and if he isn’t, it’s not like you missed out on your QB, so it’s no biggie. 

Royce, you make some valid points.  BUT, the last time we drafted a QB in round 1 - there wasn't a consensus in our organization while a better QB like Carr got drafted a round later elsewhere.  This year's group of QBs may not be that easy for everyone in FO/staff to be on the same page with. For example, right now Mayock is saying he didn't see why he keeps hearing us taking Mayfield at #4 when there's Josh Allen and Sam Darnold (who was just too terrified to throw at the combines).   If anyone in our FO is thinking this very same way - what makes you so certain we HAVE to go QB 1st?  Haven't we gone the arm strength over accuracy route ad-nauseum here via DA, Weeden and Kizer? How many times does our history need to show us you can't square peg a round hole?

Again, we've never had way more $ than everyone else needing a veteran FA QB like we have this time around.  Nothing about this needs to be terrifying for our Front Office if they defer the QB to #4 overall.  Do you know how many great QBs have been drafted after #4 overall?  Here's a ratload of those:   Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garapollo, Ben Roethlisberger, Nick Foles, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Joe Montana and Mark Brunell just off the top of my head...  And Philip Rivers was drafted at #4 (ahead of Ben Rapen) while Kurt Warner wasn't even drafted. A ton of those guys had at least 2 QBs drafted in front of them.  Were their finders all just a bunch of Jethro Clampetts striking oil by accident - or did they have some degree of research behind the investments?

And in Favre's case, the team that drafted him wasn't willing to put the things into him that the team who traded for him did up in GB.

With our FA situation, this might be a very good year to pick a QB at #4 overall just 3 picks after securing our very first scoring weapon in the starting lineup. If we WANT to recruit a veteran QB to come here money alone won't do it.  They're going to want at least 1 reliable scoring weapon.  Even Josh Gordon isn't one if we count his last 10 starts since 2013 with only 1 TD.  This is ANOTHER reason I want us to bring Barkley here aside from his very underrated receiving skills.  Counting his 2 kickoff returns for scores in 2017, he's got 45 TDs in the last 2 years.  I'm pretty confident that will help us recruit a veteran QB; plus we may be losing our previous starting RB.

There's more than 1 thing that took this stubborn knucklehead from 1 side of this debate to the other.  If people can just read the rationale, they might get it more than they are willing to. There's only 2 teams drafting between us at 1 and us at 4 and if one of them takes Josh Allen - I'll send them all the candy and flowers they could ever want.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on which QB they think is the best.  If' it's Darnold, they have to take him at 1.  If they think that Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield are all basically equals and they all have positives and negatives and they're happy ending up with any of the 3 then I can see taking Barkley and then taking whatever QB is left.   From what I heard (I didn't watch) Rosen didn't look all that great on Saturday.  I still like Darnold and I am very intrigued by Mayfield.  I think he could be a Brees or Wilson type player.

No question Barkley is a stud and certainly looks like a guy who will be a game changer, the problem is we need a QB and we have the choice of the litter and really shouldn't settle for our 3rd choice in exchange for a RB, when history has proven that stud running backs can be found later in the draft, at say pick 33. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, boo fagley said:

HOF QBs have won 12 of the last 15 Super Bowls. Who is the HOF QB in this bunch? Not 1 guy is creating the buzz of a E Manning or a Ben or a Brees when they were drafted.

Marshall Faulk won in 2000 https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FaulMa00.htm

Marshwan Lynch won the Super Bowl in 2013 https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LyncMa00.htm

Lynch helped Wilson win one as a rookie. The Browns would be crazy to pass on Barkley.

He says "few and far between" and you support your claim by posting two examples in 17 years of football seasons. One of those examples had a HOF QB under center and a current top 10 QB in the NFL. Very nice! 

If the Browns like a QB enough to think he's the future of franchise, we take him number 1-there's no debate. Sam Darnold is being compared to Andrew Luck by NFL scouts, he got a little buzz if I'm remembering correctly. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/profiles/sam-darnold?id=2560057

The Browns have been awful for going on two decades because they've failed to draft a franchise QB. You can point to busts all you want, but I can equally point to Ki-Jana Carter and others (cough, Trent Richardson, cough) for massive failures at the RB position. Don't even get me started on the whole "well he could have been good if the talent was better" argument either. Dozens of Browns rejects have gone to better teams, gotten a chance to start, and showed they were equally bad to back-up caliber players (Quinn, Anderson, McCoy) and that's just off the top of my head.

I think Barkley is going to be a great player, don't get me wrong. But a QB is unquestionably and always more valuable. Hell, we've had RB's on the team that are currently 2nd and 3rd for most rushing yards in a game and it sure as hell hasn't gotten the organization very far along.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Do you know how the NFL works?

My man, take off the Patriots hat for a second. That is clouding your judgement, as 31 teams aren't like your Patriots.

I'll go right down the line on what you said.

1. Coached fired, not exactly. It might have been the final straw, but I think how the team was performing and his relationship with players before the benching had more to do with his firing than sitting Manning 1 week. The owner was in board with it too, so if that were the ONLY reason, he should have fired himself as well.

2. The Colts/Giants offense was better and the Browns defense better than Indy. You know why? Better players on those sides of ball. Colts had the better QB.

NOBODY is saying that the Colts are going to draft a QB, if they stay at 3, I think there are 3 potential picks for them: Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson. They could also trade to a team who wants to trade up for a QB to move back a little and gain more picks, because their roster is bad. More on the Giants next

3. The Giants do have a QB, for maybe next 2 years, then what? I dont expect the Giants to be nearly that bad next season, as their entire team was hurt last year on offense, and thus defense on the field more, resulting in more points. The Giants STILL have a good defense. So do you honestly belief they will find Elis replacement drafting lower in 1st in a year or 2? If the Giants draft a QB, it isn't for next year or 2, it is for the FUTURE. Every team, including the Browns, are trying to build for the future. They got rid of aging vets for the future to play the young guys for the future.

Both teams also know, just like the Browns that there are good backs later in the draft, and that you can get similar production from later picks. Maybe not as much as Barkley, but close. The running game is largely predicated upon the O line as well, since they are the reason backs dont get the yards, they are the reason they do. 

4. You can build whatever team you want, but the fact doesn't change that the 3rd QB (potentially) isn't looked upon as highly as 1st. Maybe they all turn out good, and that is great, but having the best back for 4 years like you said isn't a long time, and without the QB it's all for naught. And you said none of these QBs have that buzz, but now they are setting the Browns up for the future, which is it?

If the Browns find the best QB in the 7th, that is great, but they have to find the QB.

Realistically, how much better does 4 years of Saquon Barkley make the team?

Gun

I got no problem with you, but youre not reading what I write.

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported that, "McAdoo's handling -- or mismanagement -- of how Eli Manning has been benched has been met with open unhappiness from Giants [CEO] John Mara, who is extremely fond of the two-time Super Bowl MVP."  https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/giants-reportedly-fire-ben-mcadoo-days-after-he-benches-eli-manning/

Macadoo went 11 - 5 the previous season with Manning. In 2017 they lost Beckham and had a lousy run game.

2 Yes the Browns run offense was better with Crowell who is now a FA. Colts have the better QB if Luck is back 100%, but now they no RB. Giants have a 2 time Super Bowl QB who has proven that he can win in big games, but they had the 29th rushing offense in the NFL last year.

3 If the Giants take a QB at 2 then Manning is done. He will have 1 foot on a banana peel from the get go. The Giants are a well run franchise. Always have been, but I just do not see them taking a QB in the 1st round. They traded up for Manning when they wanted to make a move at QB. Also, youre taking a player who would sit and do your team little good if Manning does somehow turn it around. 

4 I am not hearing that this Rosen kid looks like the best QB in the crop. Nor Darnold, or Allen, or Rudloph etc. With about 7 weeks to go till draft day you would think that at least 1 guy would distance himself from the others. If the Giants took Rosen would Darnold, Mayfield, Rudolph or Allen be a bad pick for the Browns? I dont think so. You are building for the future because the rookie QB should learn behind a Vet QB.

With Barkley, if the Browns rushing attack was top 5 for 4 years I guess I am missing how that would not be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gunz41 said:

I dont care if the Browns take Barkley, but to think that EVERYTHING is going to work out perfectly is just a bit cuckoo to me. There are certainly cases each year where a lower round guy turns out to be good. They are then called steals. They were ranked close to where they should have been, but there are things you just can't measure. 

To me, I just don't like the idea of possibly your 3rd choice of QB especially that is the most important position. There maybe what 20 franchise QB in the league, give or take.

Good point.  Let's take a look at QBs drafted and currently starting with at least 3 years of experience on their resumes:

Tom Brady -  6th round

Russell Wilson -  3rd round

Aaron Rodgers - #24 overall (who first sat behind a 2nd round pick Brett Favre)

Ben Roethlisberger -  #11 overall

Drew Brees - 2nd round

Philip Rivers - #4 overall and traded to SD from NYG for Eli

Joe Flacco - #18 overall

Derek Carr -  2nd round

Jimmy Garoppolo - 2nd round

Kirk Cousins - 4th round

Matt Ryan - #3 overall

Eli Manning - #1 overall for SD traded to NYG for 4th pick overall Rivers

Blake Bortles - #3 overall

Matthew Stafford - #1 overall

Andrew Luck - #1 overall

Alex Smith - #1 overall

Cam Newton - #1 overall

There's a TON of guys above that were drafted from pick #4 overall and later... One of them is about to get the biggest FA contract of 2018 and he started longer than RG3 for the same team that up to #2 to take RG3.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Do you know how the NFL works?

 

Yes, the NFL is not baseball where you take a QB like he is a starting pitcher up on the mound. 

These guys need development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flugel said:

Good point.  Let's take a look at QBs drafted and currently starting with at least 3 years of experience on their resumes:

Tom Brady -  6th round

Russell Wilson -  3rd round

Aaron Rodgers - #24 overall (who first sat behind a 2nd round pick Brett Favre)

Ben Roethlisberger -  #11 overall

Drew Brees - 2nd round

Philip Rivers - #4 overall and traded to SD from NYG for Eli

Joe Flacco - #18 overall

Derek Carr -  2nd round

Jimmy Garoppolo - 2nd round

Kirk Cousins - 4th round

Matt Ryan - #3 overall

Eli Manning - #1 overall for SD traded to NYG for 4th pick overall Rivers

Blake Bortles - #3 overall

Matthew Stafford - #1 overall

Andrew Luck - #1 overall

Alex Smith - #1 overall

There's a TON of guys above that were drafted from pick #4 overall and later... One of them is about to get the biggest FA contract of 2018 and he started longer than RG3 for the same team that up to #2 to take RG3.

 

Ist overall picks

Smith - 0 super bowls

Luck - 0 super bowls

Stafford - 0 super bowls

Manning - 2 super bowls

25% odds of hitting it right aint good odds to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

And I said there was for him.

The point is, there was serious buzz about Leaf, enough thst there was real question whether he or Peyton went 1st.

Buzz means NOTHING.

OK

Might as well draw names out of a hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jrb12711 said:

He says "few and far between" and you support your claim by posting two examples in 17 years of football seasons. One of those examples had a HOF QB under center and a current top 10 QB in the NFL. Very nice! 

The exact quote was that Emmit Smith was the last RB to lead a team to a championship 20 years ago. Its happened as recently as 2013. 

Youre right. All you need to do is select the next HOF QB in this draft. 

20 minutes ago, jrb12711 said:

If the Browns like a QB enough to think he's the future of franchise, we take him number 1-there's no debate. Sam Darnold is being compared to Andrew Luck by NFL scouts, he got a little buzz if I'm remembering correctly. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/profiles/sam-darnold?id=2560057

The Browns have been awful for going on two decades because they've failed to draft a franchise QB. You can point to busts all you want, but I can equally point to Ki-Jana Carter and others (cough, Trent Richardson, cough) for massive failures at the RB position. Don't even get me started on the whole "well he could have been good if the talent was better" argument either. Dozens of Browns rejects have gone to better teams, gotten a chance to start, and showed they were equally bad to back-up caliber players (Quinn, Anderson, McCoy) and that's just off the top of my head.

I think Barkley is going to be a great player, don't get me wrong. But a QB is unquestionably and always more valuable. Hell, we've had RB's on the team that are currently 2nd and 3rd for most rushing yards in a game and it sure as hell hasn't gotten the organization very far along.

Youre getting a QB at 4 and signing a Vet QB. Thats how you win now. Watson was a surprise in Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mark O said:

It all depends on which QB they think is the best.  If' it's Darnold, they have to take him at 1.  If they think that Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield are all basically equals and they all have positives and negatives and they're happy ending up with any of the 3 then I can see taking Barkley and then taking whatever QB is left.   From what I heard (I didn't watch) Rosen didn't look all that great on Saturday.  I still like Darnold and I am very intrigued by Mayfield.  I think he could be a Brees or Wilson type player. - Mark O

Agree with everything except for the Rosen thing. He got a lot of compliments even though he had a couple critics.  It seemed like more people that thought he looked good than bad who covered the day. In fact, they showed his great deep throw that hit the receiver in stride when they said Allen wasn't the only one looking impressive on the deep ball  - Flugel

No question Barkley is a stud and certainly looks like a guy who will be a game changer, the problem is we need a QB and we have the choice of the litter and really shouldn't settle for our 3rd choice in exchange for a RB, when history has proven that stud running backs can be found later in the draft, at say pick 33. - Mark O

Last week  I was right there with this train of thought enjoying how well you articulated to somebody you were debating. In fact, I was on that side of this for months.  This week I'm remembering a couple differences than I was willing to previously:

1) We have the most $ to spend for a FA QB by a ton making that a potential pick of the litter opportunity as well in an experienced QB arena.  And Philly and Minnesota showed us how important vet QBs can be.  It also equips us with an ability to not throw a young guy in way before he's ready to start which is bigger than some give it credit for.

2) #1 above won't do it alone so we could use a recruiting attraction for a FA QB like a playmaker/scoring threat the #1 overall that could help us significantly with in lassoing a yes tag of a veteran FA QB. This is bigger to me today than I allowed it to be previously while I'm reading and learning more about the top rated QBs in this draft. The QB I'm hearing to be is most ready is Rosen and I think he'll be there at #4 if our FO likes him. 

3) IMO a part time RB like Sony Michel with only 9 receptions does not = a complete every down back who's equally dangerous in the passing game as he is at running the ball.  54 receptions in 13 games plus 18 TDs on the ground would have made Crow a keeper here instead of a FA we may lose.  The last time we drafted Tim Couch at #1 overall - what did people bitch about?  The only time we made the playoffs was in 2002 when we drafted a RB in round 1 who averaged over 100 yards rushing the final 6 weeks of his rookie year.  You can't sell play action fakes if you can't run the ball so the pass pro struggles especially with younger QBs that tend hold onto the ball a littler longer.  - Flugel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, boo fagley said:

Gun

I got no problem with you, but youre not reading what I write.

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported that, "McAdoo's handling -- or mismanagement -- of how Eli Manning has been benched has been met with open unhappiness from Giants [CEO] John Mara, who is extremely fond of the two-time Super Bowl MVP."  https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/giants-reportedly-fire-ben-mcadoo-days-after-he-benches-eli-manning/

Macadoo went 11 - 5 the previous season with Manning. In 2017 they lost Beckham and had a lousy run game.

2 Yes the Browns run offense was better with Crowell who is now a FA. Colts have the better QB if Luck is back 100%, but now they no RB. Giants have a 2 time Super Bowl QB who has proven that he can win in big games, but they had the 29th rushing offense in the NFL last year.

3 If the Giants take a QB at 2 then Manning is done. He will have 1 foot on a banana peel from the get go. The Giants are a well run franchise. Always have been, but I just do not see them taking a QB in the 1st round. They traded up for Manning when they wanted to make a move at QB. Also, youre taking a player who would sit and do your team little good if Manning does somehow turn it around. 

4 I am not hearing that this Rosen kid looks like the best QB in the crop. Nor Darnold, or Allen, or Rudloph etc. With about 7 weeks to go till draft day you would think that at least 1 guy would distance himself from the others. If the Giants took Rosen would Darnold, Mayfield, Rudolph or Allen be a bad pick for the Browns? I dont think so. You are building for the future because the rookie QB should learn behind a Vet QB.

With Barkley, if the Browns rushing attack was top 5 for 4 years I guess I am missing how that would not be a good thing.

It wouldn't be a bad thing, I just don't see it making the difference in what any franchise wants, a championship, not without the right QB, whether that guy is at 1,4,33, or Mr Irrevelent. Again, I dont dislike Barkley at all, dont mind if the Browns take him (even at 1).

What I do think is wrong is people talking like Barkley is perfect, has no flaws, or is a savior. And then there seems to be a 50/50 split on whether it's a great QB class or subpar. If you see 3 of them as great, and closely rated together, then sure. That doesn't happen a lot though. And if you only have 1-2 You really like, then you are risking it. And IF you don't have one rated highly, and saying just wait until 4 to take him, well why take him AT ALL if he isn't good enough to draft at 1 at the most important position. 

And then for the sake of argument, say the Browns take Barkley at 1 like a lot of people seem to be saying now, and then the QB gets chosen before their next pick and that QB turns out to be great, then those same people will be up in arms because they didn't draft thst guy. So the team did what THEY wanted then to do, and will still whine.

As far as the Giants, you still have that Pats gear on apparently. There is only 1 Tom Brady. Even the better Manning (Peyton) retired at what 39? So Eli has 2 years until that. So after those 2 years, the Giants will NEED a QB, and chances are that Giants are not in position to draft top QB then. Eli may very well turn it around this year, but he isn't turning the clock backwards. And as you said, they are a well run franchise and know that his time is coming to an end, and need to build for future.

As far as McAdoo, when the decision was made, the owner was on board. They had 1 win at THAT point. He was already losing his job, the benching just added to it. Him benching Manning was NOT the sole reason he was fired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, boo fagley said:

OK

Might as well draw names out of a hat.

No, you shouldn't. You just seem to fail to realize that things work both ways. You started the talk about buzz saying not for these guys, but there was for other GOT QBs. I just point out that there has been just as much buzz for guys who are on top 10 busts of all time.

So what is the difference in the buzz for Eli/Rivers/Ben vs buzz for Leaf/Russell/RG3?

And then there are ones who had no buzz.

So exactly what does this buzz do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

In what world do you live in where you think Ryan Leaf could very well make the Hall of Fame. Now I like you Boo, but that was stoopid

You're actively being trolled into responses and you don't even realize it.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, boo fagley said:

The exact quote was that Emmit Smith was the last RB to lead a team to a championship 20 years ago. Its happened as recently as 2013. 

Youre right. All you need to do is select the next HOF QB in this draft. 

Youre getting a QB at 4 and signing a Vet QB. Thats how you win now. Watson was a surprise in Houston.

OK forgot about Faulk, my bad. I said "generational" RBs. That means to my mind a once in a 20 year talent, not a once in every 3-5 year talent. A guy who you can put in the conversation with the GOATs- the Browns, Payton's, and Sanders. Faulk, Tomlinson, and certainly not Lynch aren't on that level. So, Boo you want to tell me that Saquon will be on the GOAT level, since you're saying draft him #1 overall? Plenty of game tape to the contrary? Plenty of history showing a HOF QB trumps HOF RB?  I'll even put Barkley on Adrian Peterson level for comparison, he'd be a nice complimentary piece on the Browns if we already had our franchise quarterback, too bad we DON'T.

PS regarding Seattle and Beast Mode, (as with Payton and the Bears) he can thank the Legion of Boom for getting them there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

It wouldn't be a bad thing, I just don't see it making the difference in what any franchise wants, a championship, not without the right QB, whether that guy is at 1,4,33, or Mr Irrevelent. Again, I dont dislike Barkley at all, dont mind if the Browns take him (even at 1).

What I do think is wrong is people talking like Barkley is perfect, has no flaws, or is a savior. And then there seems to be a 50/50 split on whether it's a great QB class or subpar. If you see 3 of them as great, and closely rated together, then sure. That doesn't happen a lot though. And if you only have 1-2 You really like, then you are risking it. And IF you don't have one rated highly, and saying just wait until 4 to take him, well why take him AT ALL if he isn't good enough to draft at 1 at the most important position. 

And then for the sake of argument, say the Browns take Barkley at 1 like a lot of people seem to be saying now, and then the QB gets chosen before their next pick and that QB turns out to be great, then those same people will be up in arms because they didn't draft thst guy. So the team did what THEY wanted then to do, and will still whine.

As far as the Giants, you still have that Pats gear on apparently. There is only 1 Tom Brady. Even the better Manning (Peyton) retired at what 39? So Eli has 2 years until that. So after those 2 years, the Giants will NEED a QB, and chances are that Giants are not in position to draft top QB then. Eli may very well turn it around this year, but he isn't turning the clock backwards. And as you said, they are a well run franchise and know that his time is coming to an end, and need to build for future.

As far as McAdoo, when the decision was made, the owner was on board. They had 1 win at THAT point. He was already losing his job, the benching just added to it. Him benching Manning was NOT the sole reason he was fired

The Giants won the super bowl going 9 - 7 and 10 - 6. Manning has proven that he can win big games on the road.

2 years of a clutch QB or a rookie who is unproven? Im going with the guy who has the resume. You cant teach coming through in the clutch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, domcucch1994 said:

passing on Barkley would be a monumental screw-up.

Take him! Im sure Darnold or Rosen will be there at 4, and if not, take Micah Fitzpatrick.

Thank you.

He is gone by 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flugel said:

Royce, you make some valid points.  BUT, the last time we drafted a QB in round 1 - there wasn't a consensus in our organization while a better QB like Carr got drafted a round later elsewhere.  This year's group of QBs may not be that easy for everyone in FO/staff to be on the same page with. For example, right now Mayock is saying he didn't see why he keeps hearing us taking Mayfield at #4 when there's Josh Allen and Sam Darnold (who was just too terrified to throw at the combines).   If anyone in our FO is thinking this very same way - what makes you so certain we HAVE to go QB 1st?  Haven't we gone the arm strength over accuracy route ad-nauseum here via DA, Weeden and Kizer? How many times does our history need to show us you can't square peg a round hole?

Again, we've never had way more $ than everyone else needing a veteran FA QB like we have this time around.  Nothing about this needs to be terrifying for our Front Office if they defer the QB to #4 overall.  Do you know how many great QBs have been drafted after #4 overall?  Here's a ratload of those:   Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garapollo, Ben Roethlisberger, Nick Foles, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Joe Montana and Mark Brunell just off the top of my head...  And Philip Rivers was drafted at #4 (ahead of Ben Rapen) while Kurt Warner wasn't even drafted. A ton of those guys had at least 2 QBs drafted in front of them.  Were their finders all just a bunch of Jethro Clampetts striking oil by accident - or did they have some degree of research behind the investments?

And in Favre's case, the team that drafted him wasn't willing to put the things into him that the team who traded for him did up in GB.

With our FA situation, this might be a very good year to pick a QB at #4 overall just 3 picks after securing our very first scoring weapon in the starting lineup. If we WANT to recruit a veteran QB to come here money alone won't do it.  They're going to want at least 1 reliable scoring weapon.  Even Josh Gordon isn't one if we count his last 10 starts since 2013 with only 1 TD.  This is ANOTHER reason I want us to bring Barkley here aside from his very underrated receiving skills.  Counting his 2 kickoff returns for scores in 2017, he's got 45 TDs in the last 2 years.  I'm pretty confident that will help us recruit a veteran QB; plus we may be losing our previous starting RB.

There's more than 1 thing that took this stubborn knucklehead from 1 side of this debate to the other.  If people can just read the rationale, they might get it more than they are willing to. There's only 2 teams drafting between us at 1 and us at 4 and if one of them takes Josh Allen - I'll send them all the candy and flowers they could ever want.

 

 

I understand that historically a lot of good QBs come after #4, but you can multiply that argument by ten for the RB position.  Not only do RBs have the shortest shelf life, but they are also one of the easiest positions to fill.  To argue a RB at #1 is only a few clicks south of saying we need a punter or kicker at #1. I’m not convinced that Barkley will have the best career of this RB group, because every year there’s a mid round guy who comes out of nowhere to become a superstar. The 2 best backs from last draft were taken in the third round. 

I like Barkley, but I’m in no way upset if the browns don’t draft him. If they want to take their QB at 4, then I’d prefer they take Bradley Chubb at 1. take a premium position and set this defense up to be murderous. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×