2018 NFL Offseason Thread -- Philadelphia Burning Edition

And you just bolstered my argument. The Browns arent going to win the Super Bowl next year. They arent like other teams where they are just one franchise QB away. They are a LONG way, just lost 31 out of 32 games way away. So if I were the Browns GM, I would treat the situation as such, and try to maximize my draft capital by securing the drafts best player, and then take one of those 4 guys at pick 4 and hope it works out, as even if they do nail it at 1 with the right QB, that wont be enough either. You mine as well take a chance on bringing in a dynamite player and see what happens with the QB as they need much more than a QB.

Edit: I'm still laughing at Cathans suggesting the Browns take 2 QBs with their top 4 picks. So how would that work exactly? Would they develop both at the same time so they can then use one as trade bait like you suggested? Would they each play a half? How would they pay them? I'm intrigued.

I only bolstered your argument in your head. If twenty plus years of drafts don't show you that taking a RB high is worthless and that getting the franchise QB that you want isn't then I don't know what to tell you. Now the Browns being the Browns could have Allen pegged as their guy and it will turn out horribly because they are the browns and dysfunctional as all get out. That doesn't mean you go with Barkley just because you suck at developing QBs. If like I said Rosen (Baker/Darnold is their guy), and he pans out to be a ten year franchise starter then he is worth ten Barkley's. But the odds are good that two out of Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield won't be there at 4 which like I said leaves you with possibly your third or fourth rated QB in the draft as your selection and you had them rated that low for a reason. From a personal perspective I have Allen/Darnold/Jackson being busts for various reasons. Rosen and Mayfield are the only dependable QBs from college production/how they play the game, even if this class is "deep" at QB.

But thats part of the discussion, the volatility of those crop of available top QBs. And again, you are just bulldozing me bringing up they have TWO top 4 picks. Its not just one pick. They have the extra pick, hence the ability to take a chance on a generational talent. If your not going to take a risk on Barkley who do you then? People are acting like QBs are now the entire fucking game because Wentz and Foles. Lets slow down, a QB is immensely valuable, but you cant say 10 starting seasons out of one of those QBs is worth TEN SAQUAN BARKLEYS....like come the fuck on.

The Browns will probably fuck it up, and take the offensive lineman number one and a sleeper at number 4 so this argument is moot. Either way Barkley will be gone by 2, so again, moot argument. They are probably just going to take their QB because the league knows the Giants want Barkley, they have made no secret.

So I guess the true argument surrounding Barkley and his draft position is the Giants. If they dont take him, then thats fucking crazy.

It's more than just Wentz and Foles haha. A QB is everything. Yes, Philly surprisingly won it with a backup. That's unbelievable. But every Super Bowl in the past 15 years with the exception of Flacco is a hall of famer.

Unless the Browns really have someone rated higher than the others in that group, or think/know that the Giants or Jets might take the guy they really want (if they actually have one they really want over the others), I'd expect them to take Barkley at #1, and it wouldn't be stupid. Again...if the teams all have a clear pecking order at QB, then you take the QB no questions asked. But if the teams all pretty much rank the top 2 or 3 QB's as equals, the fact is Barkley has no equal at his position or as a sure bet maybe at any position in this draft. In that situation, you'd take him at #1, and grab one of the QB's at #4.

With their WR's now and Barkley in the backfield (not to mention people sleep on how decent their defense was last year), just getting any of the top QB's could make them substantially better. Tyrod can start until the guy is ready, as well.

Jozu said:

But thats part of the discussion, the volatility of those crop of available top QBs. And again, you are just bulldozing me bringing up they have TWO top 4 picks. Its not just one pick. They have the extra pick, hence the ability to take a chance on a generational talent. If your not going to take a risk on Barkley who do you then? People are acting like QBs are now the entire fucking game because Wentz and Foles. Lets slow down, a QB is immensely valuable, but you cant say 10 starting seasons out of one of those QBs is worth TEN SAQUAN BARKLEYS....like come the fuck on.

The Browns will probably fuck it up, and take the offensive lineman number one and a sleeper at number 4 so this argument is moot. Either way Barkley will be gone by 2, so again, moot argument. They are probably just going to take their QB because the league knows the Giants want Barkley, they have made no secret.

So I guess the true argument surrounding Barkley and his draft position is the Giants. If they dont take him, then thats fucking crazy.

Click to expand...

I suppose if you aren't seeing any of the QBs as being a clear cut above the other's then yes you could make the argument you are making. The problem is the "experts" need to drive clicks and views with the latest hot take to keep things interesting up to the draft. In reality you have this;

1.) Rosen - most ready to play has all the measurables you would want and has room to grow but can function fine as is
2.) Mayfield - Mobile, almost as pro ready as Rosen and can make all the throws. Height and possible Manziel light status are his question marks.
3.) Darnold - Big project. Has turnover issues but with a possible ceiling from a skill perspective over Rosen and Mayfield. Regressed his senior season, which is mostly blamed on losing his weapons.
4.) Allen - Has out of this world physical tools. Strongest arm since Jamarcus Russel. Highest theoretical upside out of all the QBs in this draft. Had a very poor senior season and has never been an accurate passer. Gets destroyed whenever he faced a quality opponent.
5.) Jackson - Michael Vick-alike with a smaller frame. Is perceived to be a run first QB and did very poorly at his combine whiteboard workouts.

Once you get past all the espn or whatever talking heads there is a pretty clear distinction between the first two and the latter three as far as actual boom versus bust status. I'd even make the argument that first round quality QB is only 3 people deep in this draft.

I'll stand behind my comment that even getting a Matt Ryan level of QB out of the first pick is worth ten Barkley's. If they end up getting the next Drew Bree's or Big Ben then its more like 15 of Barkley as far as winning value goes. The point you're ignoring or undervaluing is that having a generational back means nothing when it comes to sustained late round playoff success or even getting a championship. If we go back to 2000 and look at generational or HoF bound running backs you get...

1.) Peterson - O championships
2.) Tomlinson - O chamionships
3.) Faulk - 1 championship (paired with a future HoF QB)
4.) The remaining 16 titles are a bunch of Jay Ayjaji or Deon Lewis types. Good serviceable backs who make the running game get some respect.

Then on the QB side you have

1.) Brady 5
2.) Big Ben 2
3.) P. Manning 2
4.) Eli Manning 2 (shouldn't be a HoF but he beats the patriots)
5.) Rodgers 1
6.) Brees 1
7.) Kurt Warner 1

It just isn't equal. Franchise level QBs will give you success over and above what any other position on the field will even if the player in that other position is generational. A generational or HoF QB is worth giving up entire drafts for when it comes to winning a championship.

he does have a point, however you have 2 of the top 4 picks, 3 potentially high quality QB's and a -potentially HOF (barring injury/being a flame out etc) RB and a high quality DE...and no guarantee that teams 2 and 3 are Going to pick the RB or 2 of the 3 QB's...

do you -as the Browns GM- who's team while bad wasn't THAT bad last year defensively- take the risks of taking the QB@1 and then possibly not having the RB @4 OR take the RB@1, and take one of the 3 quarterbacks (with possibly 1 or 2 left) at 4....

Personally, this is hard, if you rate all 3 about even, then i'd go RB then QB knowing you'd get -potentially- a very large boost in offense year 1 with the RB and the QB being a starter year one as well (look at the prescott/Elliot duo in dallas as rookies 2 years ago)

if you rate one of the QB's as "I MUST HAVE THIS PLAYER ON MY TEAM" then you take the QB, then take best remaining player- or if you are Lucky, the RB @ 4.

Lenardo said:

he does have a point, however you have 2 of the top 4 picks, 3 potentially high quality QB's and a -potentially HOF (barring injury/being a flame out etc) RB and a high quality DE...and no guarantee that teams 2 and 3 are Going to pick the RB or 2 of the 3 QB's...

do you -as the Browns GM- who's team while bad wasn't THAT bad last year defensively- take the risks of taking the QB@1 and then possibly not having the RB @4 OR take the RB@1, and take one of the 3 quarterbacks (with possibly 1 or 2 left) at 4....

Personally, this is hard, if you rate all 3 about even, then i'd go RB then QB knowing you'd get -potentially- a very large boost in offense year 1 with the RB and the QB being a starter year one as well (look at the prescott/Elliot duo in dallas as rookies 2 years ago)

if you rate one of the QB's as "I MUST HAVE THIS PLAYER ON MY TEAM" then you take the QB, then take best remaining player- or if you are Lucky, the RB @ 4.

Click to expand...

I take my QB and hope the giants pick a QB at two to be manning's successor, we know the jets traded up for a QB. If they Giants do take Barkley I take Chubb which makes an already good defense even better. So your QB + elite edge rusher as a worst case or your QB and Barkley anyway as best case scenario.

Chanur said:

Vimesh did a good job representing my opinion on drafting a RB vs QB. There is no guarantee Barkley is a "generational" talent. I am literally laughing at this nonsense. We all know college success translates to the NFL amirite. RB success is a function of two things, how good your Oline is and how good your QB is. Barkley could be the greatest RB to ever play the game ( he wont be) but if no one fears the pass he will not do shit offensively. You want him to get LT like stats (he wont) you need someone that can throw him the ball.

Quarterback is the most important position on a team period full stop. RB's can be easily replaced. They just run with a god damned ball. It's not some fucking voodoo. The Browns have drafted horribly in years past. IF they believe there is a legitimate franchise QB you MUST take him first. An RB is not doing anything for a team with no QB. What a fucking joke.

Click to expand...

I tried. In my post talking about generational talent type backs I even tried to leave out who was QB for them to get those numbers. Faulk had Warner, LT had RiversFace, and the only time if I remember correctly that a Peterson team was relevant in to the playoffs was when they had Brett Favre at the helm.

edit: Also last time the Browns drafted a RB number one they took Trent RIchardson.

Chanur said:

Vimesh did a good job representing my opinion on drafting a RB vs QB. There is no guarantee Barkley is a "generational" talent. I am literally laughing at this nonsense. We all know college success translates to the NFL amirite. RB success is a function of two things, how good your Oline is and how good your QB is. Barkley could be the greatest RB to ever play the game ( he wont be) but if no one fears the pass he will not do shit offensively. You want him to get LT like stats (he wont) you need someone that can throw him the ball.

Quarterback is the most important position on a team period full stop. RB's can be easily replaced. They just run with a god damned ball. It's not some fucking voodoo. The Browns have drafted horribly in years past. IF they believe there is a legitimate franchise QB you MUST take him first. An RB is not doing anything for a team with no QB. What a fucking joke.

Click to expand...

This is all why Lesean McCoy has never had a good year at Buffalo with Tyrod Taylor at QB, right? No, I don't think Taylor is a long term answer at QB for Cleveland, but lets not pretend he isn't better than what they've had there recently, either. It's also not a normal draft situation to have 2 of the first 4 picks, so it changes the calculus some in some opinions. Not to mention basically everyone said if you have one of the QB's you rate higher than the rest, or one guy you really want for whatever reason...you go ahead and take him at #1. Just that situation could exist where you think the top 3 guys are about equal, it could make sense to take the best RB and then the best QB. Not like picking top QB's is any less of a crapshoot than picking RB's high.

Chanur said:

Must be why the Bills are perennial contenders. Oh wait they suck because the they don't have a good QB. Did you hit your head today or what?

Click to expand...

Hang on now, I thought RB success was only a function of how good your oline was and how good your QB was. If Taylor is trash than there's no way McCoy could have had the seasons he did have (not sure where exactly we'd rank Buffalo's line, but they were hardly the Dallas line of a couple years ago)...unless the idea that a RB's success depends only on those two things isn't quite right. I also never argued that Taylor was a good QB or a long term solution there (hell I literally said he wasn't, just that he was better than they've had there recently). Bills did make the playoffs last year, fwiw, even with the guy who I don't consider a long term answer.

Best case for Browns is Taylor starts less than 8 games for them as the guy they draft is ready to take over by then (as early as possible).

Chanur said:

The team lucked into the playoffs after an enourmous drought over a team with the same wins that completely embarressed them. This year was a fluke.

Yes McCoy had some okay years nothing to celebrate and the team went no where...because who is at RB doesn't matter much.

Click to expand...

An average RB would not have put up the numbers McCoy did, was my main point. Agreed on everything with Buffalo, it's even funnier b/c the Ravens allowed a 45 yard TD pass on 4th and 12 to Cincy to lose their spot to Buffalo.

Great running back still matters though. The idea that they shouldn't be drafted high was blown up a little bit by there actually being elite RB's coming into the league again (Elliott, Fournette, etc). Sure, Barkley could somehow not work out. I find it extremely unlikely. But each of the QB prospects could bomb as well.

Chanur said:

And yet the outcome was the same. It made no difference. That is the entire point. The RB is not carrying a team to a title.

Click to expand...

I think this is the point I and others have been making prior to this though...Cleveland isn't winning a title any time soon, regardless of who they draft at QB.

Belichick would trade down like 8 times and end up with 12+ picks in the next like 5 drafts.