Odds are they'll take Callahan, but I'm hearing rumors they really like the LB from Ohio State. Vontae Mack?
NFL: 2018 NFL Draft
- Thread starter CloneGuy8
- Start date
Odds are they'll take Callahan, but I'm hearing rumors they really like the LB from Ohio State. Vontae Mack?
Giants will probably stay a 2 ( be smart to move back a bit) not sure if they take QB or Barkley.
I bet 2 of Cleveland, Giants, and Denver trade back and get a haul from a QB needy team.
I bet 2 of Cleveland, Giants, and Denver trade back and get a haul from a QB needy team.
A potential for an upgrade on the OL would be great, and depth at CB/ nickel is needed. Rhodes is great but if he is t out for games, he's missing a series here or there. If they don't like what's there at those spots, LB or DE to replace Kendrick's, Barr or Hunter if they can't resign them all after next year.
The Giants need both. That said, they should get Barkley, IMO. They can get a middle rounder later like the Wazzu kid Falk.
Statistically speaking, they are better off going QB early and RB in the middle rounds. Its all about value. RBs early don't have near the value compared to QBs if you get the pick right, and are more costly if you get it wrong.
Read this for why:
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...eally-take-saquon-barkley-second-overall-pick
It's such a deep RB class, I have a hard time picking Barkley at 2.
What if the Bills offer 12, 22, and a first next year? No way the Giants turn that down.
If I'm the browns I'm trying to trade the #1 for a king's ransom then taking the best available QB at 4.
As a Bears fan as long as they don't take a WR at 7 or make some asinine trade I will be satisfied.
Want Lazard and Lanning to go anywhere but Green Bay, would love to see them end up in Chicago.
As a Bears fan as long as they don't take a WR at 7 or make some asinine trade I will be satisfied.
Want Lazard and Lanning to go anywhere but Green Bay, would love to see them end up in Chicago.
If they are moving up for Lamar Jackson the Niners might be ok with it. Depending what they think of his potential.
If I were the Niners I would take whatever top talent is gifted to them by teams reaching for QBs and be happy.
Oh I get that. I just love Barkley as a RB. To me, he has the potential of Ladainian Tomlinson, and that's a once a decade type of guy.
Right. Running backs are are rarely worth taking this high, but Barkley is a special talent. If you think there's Hall of Fame potential there you just take the guy and hope you're right.
I thought Zeke was a once in a decade talent. Then Fournette was. Now Barkley? Seems like these guys are once a year talents. Are they good, absolutely. Are they worth guaranteeing them top 3 RB money for 4 years before they take a single pro snap? (which is what the Giants would have to pay based on slot) Compared to a potential franchise QB at 1/3 the going rate for top QBs, the value just isn't there.
The Browns would get roasted if they trade out of the top pick and whoever they take at 4 doesn't work out. They've already taken flack for not going after Deshaun Watson and Wentz before that. They are guaranteed to get their favorite QB in this draft and prove that their new front office knows what the hell it's doing.
The 4 pick is the real value for trading. There will be teams more willing and able to move up for a QB at 4, especially if the Giants take Barkley, giving a team options at 4 for QB.
The only way I think the Browns SHOULD keep the #4 pick is if Barkley is still there and they really like him enough to take him there.
Barkley is a better receiving back and more of a home run threat than either of those two. That's the separation.
Man, I don't know. Take Chubb at 4 and now you potentially have the best pair of defensive ends in the league locked down for the next half decade on rookie deals. Pretty tempting.
All three of them are great RBs, but one knee injury and they lose all that value. Also, their shelf life is, what, 6-8 years? A franchise QB at on a rookie deal is worth so much more than a top shelf RB at a similar price. Look at what Philly and the Rams are able to do in free agency because they have a franchise QB locked up for multiple years on a rookie deal. They can drastically improve their teams due to the value they are saving on. Win now with a stacked roster and then lean on your QB more when you have to resign him for more money.
That's the new way to win with a young QB.
The Cowboys could have done both with rookie deals for Dak and Zeke, but it looks like Dak might not be quite the guy they had hoped after his great rookie year.
If you are taking a RB in the top 5, you better have the entire rest of your team set and be ready to win in the next 2-3 years while he's fresh and cheap. The Giants might be able to get that value if Eli still has a few more years in him, but then they are in trouble when he's done.
If I'm a GM and I can take a guy I really like at QB in the top 5 I'm doing it.
Good point. Of course the Steeler fan in me doesn't want them to make the RIGHT moves. Chubb might be worth it. They just have to balance the value of someone offering a huge haul for the 4th pick. Could give them big picks for next year and the long haul.
Barkley could be fantastic, but you have to have a line to block for him or be prepared to get all the value throwing to him. I would be scared of using a pick that high on running back and only having them at top value for such a short time.
Fair, but when do the browns not get roasted. I would think the value for #1 could be absolutely insane if a bidding war were to break out between the right teams. Particularly if someone wanted to go get Chubb or their QB of choice. Should be one of the more entertaining drafts in quite some time.
I'm not sure the bidding war would be THAT high this year with a few possible franchise QBs available. Teams could give the same bounty to the Giants at 2 and still maybe get the QB they really want, depending on who the Browns end up taking.
I think the Browns, with a new GM, will take their favorite QB at 1 for sure.
