posted by BR1986FB

Give it time. There's been no buzz on Rosen yet. That will probably happen in the next 24 hours. lol

No kidding. I saw a Benjamin Albright convo last night where he said there is some non-public Rosen info that has moved him completely off of some boards. It's all a shit show, Thursday can't come soon enough.

posted by vball10set

This, in essence, was my thought process when posting what I did. We will draft a top rookie QB, and he will need help. Period.

He has help.  He will have a veteran QB to study, carlos hyde , a severely misused duke johnson, landry, and josh gordon. 

posted by iclfan2

No kidding. I saw a Benjamin Albright convo last night where he said there is some non-public Rosen info that has moved him completely off of some boards. It's all a shit show, Thursday can't come soon enough.

He's dropping to the Miami/Buffalo (11/12) range in most mocks I've seen. Agreed on Thursday. So tired of this silly shit.

posted by like_that

He has help.  He will have a veteran QB to study, carlos hyde , a severely misused duke johnson, landry, and josh gordon. 

And that's a big reason I prefer Guice, or a later RB. If they select Barkley, there's going to be pressure to make him the every down back immediately and Hyde would be a wasted pickup. With a later RB, you can ease them into the fold, eventually pushing Hyde out.

I'd hate to sacrifice a great talent though just because we signed Carlos Hyde. Who really cares? We aren't exactly paying him a ton. He's inconsequential to me.

posted by kizer permanente

I'd hate to sacrifice a great talent though just because we signed Carlos Hyde. Who really cares? We aren't exactly paying him a ton. He's inconsequential to me.

If I can get the QB, a stud edge rusher (trumps any RB) and the RB in the 2nd round, I'd care. Again, beating a dead horse, but the productive shelf life of an NFL RB is about 5 years, if lucky.

posted by kizer permanente

I'd hate to sacrifice a great talent though just because we signed Carlos Hyde. Who really cares? We aren't exactly paying him a ton. He's inconsequential to me.

There will be more than one great talent available at 4.  I am not sure why some of you all are pretending Barkley will be the only great prospect available that early in the draft.  

posted by like_that

There will be more than one great talent available at 4.  I am not sure why some of you all are pretending Barkley will be the only great prospect available that early in the draft.  

For the 100th time, most of us would be okay with ANY great talent at 4. Just because we said we wouldn't go absolutely ballistic if we drafted Barkley, doesn't mean we're completely obsessed with him at 4. If Dorsey believes he can be a Leveon Bell for the next 5+ years, then I'm cool with it. If he wants Chubb or Minkah or Ward or Nelson at 4, I'm also cool with that.

posted by SportsAndLady

For the 100th time, most of us would be okay with ANY great talent at 4. Just because we said we wouldn't go absolutely ballistic if we drafted Barkley, doesn't mean we're completely obsessed with him at 4. If Dorsey believes he can be a Leveon Bell for the next 5+ years, then I'm cool with it. If he wants Chubb or Minkah or Ward or Nelson at 4, I'm also cool with that.

I'm starting to fall off the Nelson train. I think the dude will be potential a HOF guard but that would be with the caveat that Bitonio swing to LT. Bitonio was recently interviewed and he said "I'm a left guard. I'm not a left tackle."

posted by SportsAndLady

For the 100th time, most of us would be okay with ANY great talent at 4. Just because we said we wouldn't go absolutely ballistic if we drafted Barkley, doesn't mean we're completely obsessed with him at 4. If Dorsey believes he can be a Leveon Bell for the next 5+ years, then I'm cool with it. If he wants Chubb or Minkah or Ward or Nelson at 4, I'm also cool with that.

For the 100th time, most of us against the Barkley at 4 bandwagon understand Barkley could be a great talent, but the value just isn't there for a RB to be drafted that high.  I never said you all would go ballistic, but saying shit like "it would be a shame if we passed on a great talent," tends to send ta different message.  Unless the ENTIRE draft is a pile of shit, there is going to be more than one great talent available at #4 if the Browns draft correctly.  I'd value a RB well below most positions in today's NFL and therefore would rather draft a great talent at another position (i.e. Chubb).  

I get the logic, but there’s a reason Barkley is slated to be picked early. People obviously value his talent at those sports. I’d be shocked if he falls just bc rb’s aren’t valued that high. 

posted by kizer permanente

I get the logic, but there’s a reason Barkley is slated to be picked early. People obviously value his talent at those sports. I’d be shocked if he falls just bc rb’s aren’t valued that high. 

And most of the teams that would be looking to add Barkley are likely in better shape than the Browns and can afford that luxury (taking a RB high)

posted by like_that

For the 100th time, most of us against the Barkley at 4 bandwagon understand Barkley could be a great talent, but the value just isn't there for a RB to be drafted that high.  I never said you all would go ballistic, but saying shit like "it would be a shame if we passed on a great talent," tends to send ta different message.  Unless the ENTIRE draft is a pile of shit, there is going to be more than one great talent available at #4 if the Browns draft correctly.  I'd value a RB well below most positions in today's NFL and therefore would rather draft a great talent at another position (i.e. Chubb).  

Talent is talent. And Barkley is considered a once in a generation talent. If you QQ over taking him at 4 because you have some personal belief that the RB position in the NFL doesn't matter, then that's on you. But at this point, coming off a 1-15 and 0-16 season, I'll take talent anywhere we can get it. 

And ask Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Carolina, Dallas, LAR and other teams with great young RB's how good they feel about having that RB on their team. If Barkley turns into one of those RB's, we'll be happy too.

posted by BR1986FB

And most of the teams that would be looking to add Barkley are likely in better shape than the Browns and can afford that luxury (taking a RB high)

Lol the Browns aren't lacking in talent. They're lacking a QB worth a shit. We have more talent at some of our positions than other teams do. Spare me the "Browns can't afford to risk a pick on a RB! We need to risk a pick on a defensive lineman!" bullshit because that's exactly waht it is.

posted by BR1986FB

And most of the teams that would be looking to add Barkley are likely in better shape than the Browns and can afford that luxury (taking a RB high)

This.  Good gms don't draft RBs in the first round when they are building a team from the bottom.

posted by SportsAndLady

And ask Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Carolina, Dallas, LAR and other teams with great young RB's how good they feel about having that RB on their team. If Barkley turns into one of those RB's, we'll be happy too.

What do all of the teams you mentioned have in common?

They all had an established QB when they added what they thought was a missing "piece" to get them over the top. Pittsburgh (Fat Boy) took Bell in the 2nd round, New Orleans (Brees) took Kamara after the 1st round, Carolina (Newton) took McCaffrey in 1st, Dallas (Romo before he got injured and Dak shocked everyone) took Zeke with a top 5 pick and LAR (Bradford) took Gurley.

Except for Zeke, none of these were top 5 picks. The fact that you mentioned teams that found their bell cow in the 2nd round or later kind of proves our point.

You add a RB when your other positions are solidified and you have that QB in place. Get your QB up to speed and THEN add the RB, once the QB's established. You take a RB like Barkley high, it takes the QB 2-3 years to get established, and you've used 2-3 of the stud RB's prime years for what?

posted by SportsAndLady

Lol the Browns aren't lacking in talent. They're lacking a QB worth a shit. We have more talent at some of our positions than other teams do. Spare me the "Browns can't afford to risk a pick on a RB! We need to risk a pick on a defensive lineman!" bullshit because that's exactly waht it is.

Yes, a team that has gone 1-31 isn't lacking in talent.  Come on man. 

posted by like_that

Yes, a team that has gone 1-31 isn't lacking in talent.  Come on man. 

As to this, I will say there were teams the Browns faced last year (Bills, Colts, Dolphins (didn't face) and Packers) that I think the Browns had more talent than. The only thing that moved the needle in the opponents favor was the fact that they had a functioning QB. In fact, I'd say the Browns have more talent than both the Colts & Packers, except for QB (Luck & Rodgers).

posted by BR1986FB

And ask Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Carolina, Dallas, LAR and other teams with great young RB's how good they feel about having that RB on their team. If Barkley turns into one of those RB's, we'll be happy too.

What do all of the teams you mentioned have in common?

They all had an established QB when they added what they thought was a missing "piece" to get them over the top. Pittsburgh (Fat Boy) took Bell in the 2nd round, New Orleans (Brees) took Kamara after the 1st round, Carolina (Newton) took McCaffrey in 1st, Dallas (Romo before he got injured and Dak shocked everyone) took Zeke with a top 5 pick and LAR (Bradford) took Gurley.

Except for Zeke, none of these were top 5 picks. The fact that you mentioned teams that found their bell cow in the 2nd round or later kind of proves our point.

You add a RB when your other positions are solidified and you have that QB in place. Get your QB up to speed and THEN add the RB, once the QB's established. You take a RB like Barkley high, it takes the QB 2-3 years to get established, and you've used 2-3 of the stud RB's prime years for what?

But like S&L said, he's a generational RB.. not one you just pick next year or 2 or 3 years from now when you think you're set at QB. You're not always going to have that talent every year.

posted by like_that

Yes, a team that has gone 1-31 isn't lacking in talent.  Come on man. 

Decent O-line (at least when JT was here), one of the best WR corps in the NFL, good LB (Kirksey), solid D-line. We are 1-31 because our coach has shit for brains, we don't have even below average QB play, and when we need to close out a game we didn't (probably just bad coaching). But we do have some talent. 

posted by BR1986FB

And ask Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Carolina, Dallas, LAR and other teams with great young RB's how good they feel about having that RB on their team. If Barkley turns into one of those RB's, we'll be happy too.

What do all of the teams you mentioned have in common?

They all had an established QB when they added what they thought was a missing "piece" to get them over the top. Pittsburgh (Fat Boy) took Bell in the 2nd round, New Orleans (Brees) took Kamara after the 1st round, Carolina (Newton) took McCaffrey in 1st, Dallas (Romo before he got injured and Dak shocked everyone) took Zeke with a top 5 pick and LAR (Bradford) took Gurley.

Except for Zeke, none of these were top 5 picks. The fact that you mentioned teams that found their bell cow in the 2nd round or later kind of proves our point.

You add a RB when your other positions are solidified and you have that QB in place. Get your QB up to speed and THEN add the RB, once the QB's established. You take a RB like Barkley high, it takes the QB 2-3 years to get established, and you've used 2-3 of the stud RB's prime years for what?

3/5 of those teams took their stud RB in the top 10 lol

posted by SportsAndLady

Talent is talent. And Barkley is considered a once in a generation talent. If you QQ over taking him at 4 because you have some personal belief that the RB position in the NFL doesn't matter, then that's on you. But at this point, coming off a 1-15 and 0-16 season, I'll take talent anywhere we can get it. 

And ask Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Carolina, Dallas, LAR and other teams with great young RB's how good they feel about having that RB on their team. If Barkley turns into one of those RB's, we'll be happy too.

You must have short term memory, because there have been numerous RBs in recent drafts who were "once in a generation" talents.  Guess what?  There were equal or better RBs drafted after them.  

All of those teams you mentioned already had well established teams.  They focused on positions of HIGHER VALUE and then they drafted a RB.  As I mentioned previously the Steelers value Bell (not a first round pick btw) so much that they haven't offered him an extension.  Their offense remained high powered when Bell was injured/suspended, because they were solidified at positions that are much more valuable (QB, line, wr).  The same shit applies to all of the other teams you have mentioned.  Nobody is saying a great RB doesn't help any team.  The fact of the matter is every team that has won a SB focused on high value positions before they worried about a RB.  Look at the last 10+ SBs and tell me how many of those teams looked for a RB early in the process of building a contending team.  Talent is not talent in the NFL.  There are positions that are valued more than other positions.  You comprehend this when it comes to a QB (the most valued position in the NFL), but apparently not every other position.  Give me a talented non RB at #4 and then draft a RB in the later rounds.  There are plenty of good RBs to pick from.  History has shown us this and teams don't need to draft a RB in the first round let alone the top 4.

The point is, we find a QB at 1, and it doesn't really matter who we take at 4 as long as they're productive. Whether we improve our O line, D line, RB, etc. it doesn't matter because EVERYONE looks better with a great QB.

posted by SportsAndLady

The point is, we find a QB at 1, and it doesn't really matter who we take at 4 as long as they're productive. Whether we improve our O line, D line, RB, etc. it doesn't matter because EVERYONE looks better with a great QB.

I don't disagree with that, but I still value the other positions well before a RB, and so does the rest of the NFL.  As BR has stated most RBs have a short shelf life.  Let's say we draft an elite QB.  How long before he becomes a legit QB?  Most QBs don't come in lighting it up.  By the time he figures it out, our first round RB will be on the wrong side of his shelf life and at that point we all will be wishing we drafted (insert a position of a higher need). 

posted by SportsAndLady

Decent O-line (at least when JT was here), one of the best WR corps in the NFL, good LB (Kirksey), solid D-line. We are 1-31 because our coach has shit for brains, we don't have even below average QB play, and when we need to close out a game we didn't (probably just bad coaching). But we do have some talent. 

The o-line looked terrible without JT,  saying we have one of the best WR corps in the NFL is a reach (let's see how Gordon pans out with a full off season), Kirksey is above average, and I am not quite sure I would call our d-line solid yet (although it has potential, especially if we get Chubb).