Colin Cowherd says the first three picks in the 2018 NFL Draft is obvious. Do you agree?

[stitches]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

By the way, if we pick Barkley at #3, Ballard loses two full letter grades in my book. 

My argument for taking Barkley would be that he provides more value than just as a RB and he does provide extremely high value there. IMO he can lineup out wide as well or in the slot. He can be an all around weapon and mismatch for the offense, not just a RB. I don't know if they would want to give him some punt or kick returns, but he might provide some marginal value there too... 

 

With all that said I still don't know if this is enough to take him at no. 3. 

[horseshoecrabs]

10 hours ago, MTC said:

Honestly believe the whole Barkley talk is smokescreen. Colts have a lot more holes to address than drafting a RB third overall. Didn't they learn from the whole Trent Richardson fiasco?

If you go only by that logic, then every position on a team shouldn't be drafted 3rd. I get the we have too many holes to fill logic, but if you cannot trade down and you have to pick someone at 3rd, there is no guarantee on any player, picked that high, regardless of position.

Edited January 8, 2018 by horseshoecrabs
spelling

[IndyScribe]

I agree with him. Who the Colts pick at #3 is going to be interesting, since there are so many options. I know people don't like taking a RB that high, but if Barkley is truly the BPA, I wouldn't mind taking him nor fault Ballard for doing so. Take a look at the other picks - I wouldn't take Nelson at 3. I'd be more comfortable with a trade back before drafting him. The ILBs aren't worth the third pick. The only other players I want at #3 are Fitzpatrick and Chubb. Chubb isn't a Bosa or Garrett level talent, and might not even be BPA, so I could see why Ballard would pass.

[Archer]

I’ll have to make a note to discount everything I read fron Cowherd.  The first three picks are never obvious, especially in January.  I disagree too - hope we take Chubb (though Barkley is a stud).

[Superman]

14 hours ago, Indeee said:

From what I have been reading there is a lot of people saying this guy is the best college RB ever. I'm not sure you can pass up on a guy that may be lights out a guaranteed super star

 

Someone's always "the best" something ever during this time of year. Barkley is the real deal, but I'm not buying the hyperbole about him. Trent Richardson was the best RB since Adrian Peterson -- per Mike Mayock, one of the most respected draft guys and probably the least prone to sensationalism. We can say whatever we want about these guys, what matters is honest scouting. And an honest scout would never guarantee that anyone will be a super star.

 

Also, I remember Reggie Bush and Adrian Peterson and Ricky Williams, and I'm familiar with the careers and legacies of Eric Dickerson, OJ Simpson, Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders and Herschel Walker. They all had better numbers than Barkley, some of them by a longshot. I'm not sure who's suggesting that Barkley is the best college RB ever, but I don't think I can agree.

 

That's all moot, though. I get that he's a rock solid prospect and I expect that he will be a really good, if not great, back in the NFL, probably right away. I know that he would have an impact on the Colts offense, if used correctly. I get all of that.

 

Still, for reasons stated elsewhere, I would absolutely pass on Barkley at #3, super star or not.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, stitches said:

My argument for taking Barkley would be that he provides more value than just as a RB and he does provide extremely high value there. IMO he can lineup out wide as well or in the slot. He can be an all around weapon and mismatch for the offense, not just a RB. I don't know if they would want to give him some punt or kick returns, but he might provide some marginal value there too... 

 

With all that said I still don't know if this is enough to take him at no. 3. 

 

I viewed McCaffrey as an all around weapon who would probably last a decade because of his ability to play multiple positions, and because I didn't think anyone would be giving him 300 touches a year and running him between the tackles. I would not have wanted McCaffrey at #15 last year.

 

Barkley is a different kind of prospect than McCaffrey. He is a prototypical every down back, and he's probably just as good in the open field. But he's going to be a 300-400 touch/year back. So now the durability and longevity questions come back into play. 

 

I just can't see it as good value. 

[IndyScribe]

1 hour ago, Archer said:

I’ll have to make a note to discount everything I read fron Cowherd.  The first three picks are never obvious, especially in January.  I disagree too - hope we take Chubb (though Barkley is a stud).

Yeah, the draft is a crapshoot to predict. There'll also probably be trades as well.

[IndyScribe]

McCaffrey was drafted way too high at #8, that I agree. Honestly, I'd be fine with Barkley, Chubb, Fitpatrick at #3 or trade down and get Nelson. There's just so much to do with the pick.

[richard pallo]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I viewed McCaffrey as an all around weapon who would probably last a decade because of his ability to play multiple positions, and because I didn't think anyone would be giving him 300 touches a year and running him between the tackles. I would not have wanted McCaffrey at #15 last year.

 

Barkley is a different kind of prospect than McCaffrey. He is a prototypical every down back, and he's probably just as good in the open field. But he's going to be a 300-400 touch/year back. So now the durability and longevity questions come back into play. 

 

I just can't see it as good value. 

I think people tend to  make to much of this durability and longevity stuff.  The draft is a crapshoot anyway.  Barclay is the best player in the draft and if he can help us win a SB or two in the next five years no one is going to complain about his longevity. 

[IndyScribe]

2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think people tend to  make to much of this durability and longevity stuff.  The draft is a crapshoot anyway.  Barclay is the best player in the draft and if he can help us win a SB or two in the next five years no one is going to complain about his longevity. 

Yep. Player longevity is short anyways, outside of franchise QBs. If Barkley can play well for 5-8 years and bring home a SB(or two), he'd be well worth the third pick.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think people tend to  make to much of this durability and longevity stuff.  The draft is a crapshoot anyway. Barclay is the best player in the draft and if he can help us win a SB or two in the next five years no one is going to complain about his longevity. 

 

I think the opposite. People make too little of durability and longevity, probably because they aren't aware of or ignore the data. RB is the position most likely to be run into the ground during a rookie contract, least likely to be worthy of a significant second contract, and the lifespan of a RB -- especially with a high level of production, not just guys sticking around like Andre Ellington, etc. -- is much shorter than any other position. 

 

Also, the draft is not really a crapshoot. No, you won't hit on every player or even every high first rounder, and we all know there are various reasons why. But there are variables that clearly have an effect on how players turn out in the NFL. If you take a player with significant off the field issues or injury history, that player is less likely to succeed than a player at a similar talent level with no such issues. 

 

Similarly, if you take a RB, he's less likely to last 8-10 years than a player at virtually any other position. The data is obvious on that.

 

So your argument is that the draft is a crapshoot, so why not roll the dice on a player that can help you win now, and not worry about 8-10 years, right? But by that logic, there is no reliable way to determine which player is going to be most able to help you win now, because it's all a roll of the dice. And to extend it further, why can't another player help the team win a SB or two in the next five years the way you're assuming Barkley will? It's a crapshoot, we might as well take a receiver and hope he's the next Randy Moss, or a TE and hope he's the next Gronk.

 

This argument basically boils down to 'I'm in love with Player X,' bottom line.

 

My hope with any first rounder -- but especially a top five pick -- is that we draft a foundational player who can be a difference maker for 8-10 years, because the draft is usually the only place you can acquire such players. If we cluck off what is probably our only top five pick for the next decade, it will be a major missed opportunity. And while you might not care right now, if we take a player who has a solid 6 year career and then disappears, while another player goes on to play 12 years and does a bunch of good things in the league, I think you might see it differently.

 

Of course, if your thinking is 'the draft is a crapshoot, no one knows what they're doing so you might as well just take whoever you like and cross your fingers,' then none of this resonates with you.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, IndyScribe said:

Yep. Player longevity is short anyways, outside of franchise QBs. If Barkley can play well for 5-8 years and bring home a SB(or two), he'd be well worth the third pick.

 

Look at the All Pro list. Several non-QBs with 8-10 years of service already, including trench players. None of them are RBs. 

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the opposite. People make too little of durability and longevity, probably because they aren't aware of or ignore the data. RB is the position most likely to be run into the ground during a rookie contract, least likely to be worthy of a significant second contract, and the lifespan of a RB -- especially with a high level of production, not just guys sticking around like Andre Ellington, etc. -- is much shorter than any other position. 

 

Also, the draft is not really a crapshoot. No, you won't hit on every player or even every high first rounder, and we all know there are various reasons why. But there are variables that clearly have an effect on how players turn out in the NFL. If you take a player with significant off the field issues or injury history, that player is less likely to succeed than a player at a similar talent level with no such issues. 

 

Similarly, if you take a RB, he's less likely to last 8-10 years than a player at virtually any other position. The data is obvious on that.

 

So your argument is that the draft is a crapshoot, so why not roll the dice on a player that can help you win now, and not worry about 8-10 years, right? But by that logic, there is no reliable way to determine which player is going to be most able to help you win now, because it's all a roll of the dice. And to extend it further, why can't another player help the team win a SB or two in the next five years the way you're assuming Barkley will? It's a crapshoot, we might as well take a receiver and hope he's the next Randy Moss, or a TE and hope he's the next Gronk.

 

This argument basically boils down to 'I'm in love with Player X,' bottom line.

 

My hope with any first rounder -- but especially a top five pick -- is that we draft a foundational player who can be a difference maker for 8-10 years, because the draft is usually the only place you can acquire such players. If we cluck off what is probably our only top five pick for the next decade, it will be a major missed opportunity. And while you might not care right now, if we take a player who has a solid 6 year career and then disappears, while another player goes on to play 12 years and does a bunch of good things in the league, I think you might see it differently.

 

Of course, if your thinking is 'the draft is a crapshoot, no one knows what they're doing so you might as well just take whoever you like and cross your fingers,' then none of this resonates with you.

I'll take my chances with the best player in the draft.  What's a crapshoot is the longevity and durability issue.  Any player can have his career shortened.  In this case Player X is the best player in the draft and also a position of need.   He would be a foundation player and he would be a difference maker.  

[IndyScribe]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Look at the All Pro list. Several non-QBs with 8-10 years of service already, including trench players. None of them are RBs. 

I never said that RBs had high longevity. I just said that player longevity, in general, is decreasing. Expecting Barkley to play 8+ years is over the norm. Those players were drafted in a different era. I count very few players with 8+ years in the league. Most were drafted 5-6 years ago to now.

[horseshoecrabs]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the opposite. People make too little of durability and longevity, probably because they aren't aware of or ignore the data. RB is the position most likely to be run into the ground during a rookie contract, least likely to be worthy of a significant second contract, and the lifespan of a RB -- especially with a high level of production, not just guys sticking around like Andre Ellington, etc. -- is much shorter than any other position. 

 

Also, the draft is not really a crapshoot. No, you won't hit on every player or even every high first rounder, and we all know there are various reasons why. But there are variables that clearly have an effect on how players turn out in the NFL. If you take a player with significant off the field issues or injury history, that player is less likely to succeed than a player at a similar talent level with no such issues. 

 

Similarly, if you take a RB, he's less likely to last 8-10 years than a player at virtually any other position. The data is obvious on that.

 

So your argument is that the draft is a crapshoot, so why not roll the dice on a player that can help you win now, and not worry about 8-10 years, right? But by that logic, there is no reliable way to determine which player is going to be most able to help you win now, because it's all a roll of the dice. And to extend it further, why can't another player help the team win a SB or two in the next five years the way you're assuming Barkley will? It's a crapshoot, we might as well take a receiver and hope he's the next Randy Moss, or a TE and hope he's the next Gronk.

 

This argument basically boils down to 'I'm in love with Player X,' bottom line.

 

My hope with any first rounder -- but especially a top five pick -- is that we draft a foundational player who can be a difference maker for 8-10 years, because the draft is usually the only place you can acquire such players. If we cluck off what is probably our only top five pick for the next decade, it will be a major missed opportunity. And while you might not care right now, if we take a player who has a solid 6 year career and then disappears, while another player goes on to play 12 years and does a bunch of good things in the league, I think you might see it differently.

 

Of course, if your thinking is 'the draft is a crapshoot, no one knows what they're doing so you might as well just take whoever you like and cross your fingers,' then none of this resonates with you.

I think right now it's all about throwing out names. When the combine is done, character, work ethics, any off field baggage. etc. , then you make an educated analysts of the player. but the fact remains you still make a guess on the pick. No guarantee. But it's hard to argue with the success that the Patriots have had with mostly filling it's team's needs  , with the only constant being the owner, head coach, and Brady. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, IndyScribe said:

I never said that RBs had high longevity. I just said that player longevity, in general, is decreasing. Expecting Barkley to play 8+ years is over the norm. Those players were drafted in a different era. I count very few players with 8+ years in the league. Most were drafted 5-6 years ago to now.

 

Whitworth, Gronkowski, Campbell, AB, Saffold, Griffen, just off the top of my head. And a few more at 6-7 years.

 

The most seasoned RB is Le'Veon Bell, in Year 5, and some expect him to fall off dramatically next season due to his high workload this year. We'll see about that... 

 

The point is that there's a clear difference between RBs and everyone else. Expecting a lineman, receiver, TE, LB, etc., last 8-10 is not unreasonable. Expecting a RB to last 6-8 years is questionable anymore. Player longevity is decreasing, so let's take a player at the position that's least likely to have any durability? 

 

It's also interesting that 'those players were drafted in a different era,' but we're hoping to draft the next Edgerrin James here... 

[wig]

It depends on who the coach is. If it's McDaniels, like I hope, then Barkley is perfect because he will get the most out of him. Barkley would help the o-line protect Luck immensely. Both because of the improved run game and because of screens. A guy like that as a pass catcher makes DEs cautious. They can't just run up field without worrying about him. Barkley could help protect more than any single OL. 

[Dark Superman]

I could easily see Barkley going one or two.

It's a toss-up.