Spending a top-20 pick on a RB is one of the worst decisions a team can make

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think BPA is a bit overrated but if you have a team that has that need as well then BPA becomes important. I like Mack but RB is still a need.

The RB Class is deeper than Rush, OL, and DB so at this point(pre FA) RB is not at the top of the list

[PrincetonTiger]

Question

Hypothetically what if the Colts add a Top level RB do you still think that SB should be added

[PrincetonTiger]

Friendly Reminder from TigerTown    

   Everyone and I mean EVERYONE should pump their brakes and wait until after FA to start predicting who the Colts should pick

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The RB Class is deeper than Rush, OL, and DB so at this point(pre FA) RB is not at the top of the list

I do like Guice as well, I have my doubts he will be there in Round 2 though. He is very explosive. We do pick real early in that round but I almost bet some team snags him late in Round 1. I have no idea where Nick Chubb will go either? Just talking RB's. If we drafted B.Chubb and somehow Guice was there in Round 2 then I would be thrilled. Getting Norwell would have to be top priority in Free Agency though because O.Line needs addressed too. I am not sure where Bill Price will be drafted either regarding O.Lineman. I like him.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Question

Hypothetically what if the Colts add a Top level RB do you still think that SB should be added

Obviously no.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I do like Guice as well, I have my doubts he will be there in Round 2 though. He is very explosive. We do pick real early in that round but I almost bet some team snags him late in Round 1. I have no idea where Nick Chubb will go either? Just talking RB's. If drafted B.Chubb and somehow Guice was there in Round 2 then I would be thrilled. Getting Norwell would have to be top priority in Free Agency though because O.Line needs addressed too. I am not sure where Bill Price will be drafted either regarding O.Lineman. I like him.

The Tagging of Ansah in Detroit really affects things

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The Tagging of Ansah in Detroit really affects things

Yeah I just heard about that. I am shocked Norwell didn't get franchised.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, life long said:

I think Bosa and Elliot are closer prospects than Barkley and Chubb. Obviously I am just not sold on Chubb being a true top 5 pick, as you are with Barkley. I am a firm believer in great teams do not draft based off of need or positional values. They draft the best player above all else. There is always valuable players found later in the draft at all positions, from RBs to DEs. 

 

Considering the workload I would like to take off of Lucks shoulder, I can see many reasons now is the perfect time for our franchise to take a true bellcow. Give the fans something to cheer for while this team is rebuilt.

 

I don't agree with the bolded.

 

First, your comment suggests there's a consensus "best player" at any point in the draft, and I don't think there always is. You'll get agreement on guys like Myles Garrett and Andrew Luck, but usually it varies from team to team, scout to scout.

 

There isn't even a consensus definition for what "best player" means. You might mean the player who will produce the most, the fastest; someone else might mean the player who will have the best career; another person might mean the player who will hit the highest peak. That's not always the same player. 

 

Second, I don't promote needs-based drafting; that's how you miss great players. And please note that I have never advocated drafting Chubb simply because the Colts need a pass rusher. We could be two-deep at both end spots and I'd always want more pass rushers.

 

Third, good drafting teams absolutely make draft decisions based on positional value. Practically no one would have argued that Jared Goff and Carson Wentz were the two best players in the 2016 draft (besides Mike Mayock, who was all over Wentz, but cooler on Goff). Yet, the Rams and Eagles both moved up several spots to take the two best QBs on the board, because QB is the single most important position in team sports. Neither team even committed to starting their rookie QB right away (and the Rams benched Goff for two months), so they didn't necessarily expect them to come in and light the world on fire. They gave up a bunch of draft capital because they knew they had to if they wanted their QB.

 

Now, I don't think every team agrees with my thinking on positional value, nor do I think every team feels that longevity is as important as I do, particularly at the top of the draft. Otherwise, Elliott, Gurley, Fournette, etc., wouldn't have been drafted as high as they were. But, five years from now, when Wentz and Goff are making $30m+ a year, and Bosa and Ramsey (and maybe Chubb) are making $20m+, all on long term extensions, but those RBs are in timeshares, or racking up 350 touches a year and frustrated because their teams won't commit to them long term, it will be obvious why I value other positions so much higher than RB.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I just heard about that. I am shocked Norwell didn't get franchised.

Me too 

[life long]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't agree with the bolded.

 

I knew most would not. Still I stand by my belief. BPA, if you have a guy at a need rated under a guy at less of a need, you take the better player. Just what I believe. Now if you have Chubb rated higher than Barkley feel free but IMO Barkley is better and will be a more productive pro than Chubb. We will just have to wait and see...

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, life long said:

I knew most would not. Still I stand by my belief. BPA, if you have a guy at a need rated under a guy at less of a need, you take the better player. Just what I believe. Now if you have Chubb rated higher than Barkley feel free but IMO Barkley is better and will be a more productive pro than Chubb. We will just have to wait and see...

Would you stil, pick RB if one is added in FA

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't agree with the bolded.

 

First, your comment suggests there's a consensus "best player" at any point in the draft, and I don't think there always is. You'll get agreement on guys like Myles Garrett and Andrew Luck, but usually it varies from team to team, scout to scout.

 

There isn't even a consensus definition for what "best player" means. You might mean the player who will produce the most, the fastest; someone else might mean the player who will have the best career; another person might mean the player who will hit the highest peak. That's not always the same player. 

 

Second, I don't promote needs-based drafting; that's how you miss great players. And please note that I have never advocated drafting Chubb simply because the Colts need a pass rusher. We could be two-deep at both end spots and I'd always want more pass rushers.

 

Third, good drafting teams absolutely make draft decisions based on positional value. Practically no one would have argued that Jared Goff and Carson Wentz were the two best players in the 2016 draft (besides Mike Mayock, who was all over Wentz, but cooler on Goff). Yet, the Rams and Eagles both moved up several spots to take the two best QBs on the board, because QB is the single most important position in team sports. Neither team even committed to starting their rookie QB right away (and the Rams benched Goff for two months), so they didn't necessarily expect them to come in and light the world on fire. They gave up a bunch of draft capital because they knew they had to if they wanted their QB.

 

Now, I don't think every team agrees with my thinking on positional value, nor do I think every team feels that longevity is as important as I do, particularly at the top of the draft. Otherwise, Elliott, Gurley, Fournette, etc., wouldn't have been drafted as high as they were. But, five years from now, when Wentz and Goff are making $30m+ a year, and Bosa and Ramsey (and maybe Chubb) are making $20m+, all on long term extensions, but those RBs are in timeshares, or racking up 350 touches a year and frustrated because their teams won't commit to them long term, it will be obvious why I value other positions so much higher than RB.

Yeah when it comes to drafting a QB a lot of teams put Positional Value 1st and they should IMO. That is without a doubt the most important positon on the field. If we didn't have Luck or I didn't think he would come back 100% I would be all in on either Rosen or Darnold. Eventhough I think Barkley is the best player coming out. A lot of different factors go into how one drafts. Goff and Wentz both are Very Good and having a franchise QB is real important.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, life long said:

I knew most would not. Still I stand by my belief. BPA, if you have a guy at a need rated under a guy at less of a need, you take the better player. Just what I believe. Now if you have Chubb rated higher than Barkley feel free but IMO Barkley is better and will be a more productive pro than Chubb. We will just have to wait and see...

 

Let's say you have Barkley and Chubb rated the same. Then what?

[life long]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Would you stil, pick RB if one is added in FA

If it is the best player on my teams board, absolutely. Plus i dont see Dion Lewis or any other FA Rbs having the value Barkley would have. Look at how much Bell is demanding in Pitt and I can see the value in a cheaper version, on a rookie contract. RBs have a shorter shelf life and getting a great one cheaply can buy time while this team rebuilds. Teams that draft well are not handcuffed by 2nd and 3rd contracts, I want the Colts to build through the draft and always looking for young talent. I will take Chubb (even Fitz or Nelson) a few picks back but at #3 I am not sold. This all can change obviously, who knows a pro day injury or awful combine can change everything. Teams will reach on draft day for qbs, they always do. 

[life long]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Let's say you have Barkley and Chubb rated the same. Then what?

Like exactly the same? I am no expert but I would assume one would have to have an edge amongst the staff. If the exact same, I say go with the position less likely to be filled in FA. My personal opinion is linemen on both sides dont mature until their mid to late 20s. While a RB has a much easier transition to the pro game. So i see inherent value in not using a top 3 pick on a guy that will take more time to develop. When the contracts are up the lineman might be just coming into his own while the RB has already used valuable tread. Look at Bells situation in Pitt. So the production early on has more value to me. Look at Clowney in HOU, #1 pick was called a bust for a while. Myles last year... how much value did he bring in the win column? If you guys are concerned about Luck or Jacoby, try to see what a true 3 down back could do to alleviate the pressure we always put on the QB. A rotational edge rusher will be less impactful i believe. Sadly it is my bedtime, thanks all for the replies though.

[Superman]

33 minutes ago, life long said:

Like exactly the same? I am no expert but I would assume one would have to have an edge amongst the staff. If the exact same, I say go with the position less likely to be filled in FA. My personal opinion is linemen on both sides dont mature until their mid to late 20s. While a RB has a much easier transition to the pro game. So i see inherent value in not using a top 3 pick on a guy that will take more time to develop. When the contracts are up the lineman might be just coming into his own while the RB has already used valuable tread. Look at Bells situation in Pitt. So the production early on has more value to me. Look at Clowney in HOU, #1 pick was called a bust for a while. Myles last year... how much value did he bring in the win column? If you guys are concerned about Luck or Jacoby, try to see what a true 3 down back could do to alleviate the pressure we always put on the QB. A rotational edge rusher will be less impactful i believe. Sadly it is my bedtime, thanks all for the replies though.

 

You're Ballard. Your top two deputies are Ed Dodds and Rex Hogan, but one is adamant it's Chubb but the other is adamant it's Barkley. You have four scouts who have done extensive work on both players, and they are split down the middle also, two for Chubb, two for Barkley.

 

Who do you choose? How do you choose? 

 

Using your process above, it seems like you'd choose Barkley because you think he'd have a more immediate impact. 

[jshipp23]

5 hours ago, life long said:

Like exactly the same? I am no expert but I would assume one would have to have an edge amongst the staff. If the exact same, I say go with the position less likely to be filled in FA. My personal opinion is linemen on both sides dont mature until their mid to late 20s. While a RB has a much easier transition to the pro game. So i see inherent value in not using a top 3 pick on a guy that will take more time to develop. When the contracts are up the lineman might be just coming into his own while the RB has already used valuable tread. Look at Bells situation in Pitt. So the production early on has more value to me. Look at Clowney in HOU, #1 pick was called a bust for a while. Myles last year... how much value did he bring in the win column? If you guys are concerned about Luck or Jacoby, try to see what a true 3 down back could do to alleviate the pressure we always put on the QB. A rotational edge rusher will be less impactful i believe. Sadly it is my bedtime, thanks all for the replies though.

Good perspective ...I haven't thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense..

[life long]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

You're Ballard. Your top two deputies are Ed Dodds and Rex Hogan, but one is adamant it's Chubb but the other is adamant it's Barkley. You have four scouts who have done extensive work on both players, and they are split down the middle also, two for Chubb, two for Barkley.

 

Who do you choose? How do you choose? 

 

Using your process above, it seems like you'd choose Barkley because you think he'd have a more immediate impact. 

Well lets hope we have an odd amount of scouts in Ballards ear. If they are exactly split I would then ask what those same scouts to project their production for their first 3 years. Lets say they both produce similarly to their college careers. In that case I definetly take Barkley. Obviously in most scenarios I take Barkley. 2006CBE touched on this earlier but QBs go top 5  because of their impact for the team. I also remember you saying Chubb likely does not start his rookie year just like D. Barnett, he would be a rotational guy. Does Chubb avg 10 sacks a year his first three seasons? Do you think Saquon could break 1k each of his first three seasons? Give me the guy with the most production. If there was not a football player of Barkleys caliber it would be easy for me to pass, especially because there are other good RBs to draft. That said out of nearly every position, there is more debate about who is the top prospect at that position. Barkley IMO is the clear, top RB. Idk if I can say the same about Chubb or even one of the Qbs. Draft the best football players,  that is a strategy I can live with.

[life long]

4 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Good perspective ...I haven't thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense..

To us it does. For others apparently even a Jim Brown reincarnation should not go early in a draft because of positional value. I am just a fan but the simple answer is usually the correct one in life. Why not here? The simple answer is BPA. If the colts believe Chubb or any other player is a better player than Saquon we should draft them, I will be happy with whoever we get. If we pass on Barkley simply due to his position I will be a tad disappointed but I will live. Just get me our next franchise RB in RD1 or 2,  I more see Mack as a perfect #2 than a premier feature back.

[Cynjin]

12 hours ago, life long said:

Like exactly the same? I am no expert but I would assume one would have to have an edge amongst the staff. If the exact same, I say go with the position less likely to be filled in FA. My personal opinion is linemen on both sides dont mature until their mid to late 20s. While a RB has a much easier transition to the pro game. So i see inherent value in not using a top 3 pick on a guy that will take more time to develop. When the contracts are up the lineman might be just coming into his own while the RB has already used valuable tread. Look at Bells situation in Pitt. So the production early on has more value to me. Look at Clowney in HOU, #1 pick was called a bust for a while. Myles last year... how much value did he bring in the win column? If you guys are concerned about Luck or Jacoby, try to see what a true 3 down back could do to alleviate the pressure we always put on the QB. A rotational edge rusher will be less impactful i believe. Sadly it is my bedtime, thanks all for the replies though.

 

You seem to be advocating for Barkley, but your bolded statement seems to indicated Chubb, since a good pass rusher is much less likely to be a position filled in FA.

[Superman]

5 hours ago, life long said:

Well lets hope we have an odd amount of scouts in Ballards ear. If they are exactly split I would then ask what those same scouts to project their production for their first 3 years. Lets say they both produce similarly to their college careers. In that case I definetly take Barkley. Obviously in most scenarios I take Barkley. 2006CBE touched on this earlier but QBs go top 5  because of their impact for the team. I also remember you saying Chubb likely does not start his rookie year just like D. Barnett, he would be a rotational guy. Does Chubb avg 10 sacks a year his first three seasons? Do you think Saquon could break 1k each of his first three seasons? Give me the guy with the most production. If there was not a football player of Barkleys caliber it would be easy for me to pass, especially because there are other good RBs to draft. That said out of nearly every position, there is more debate about who is the top prospect at that position. Barkley IMO is the clear, top RB. Idk if I can say the same about Chubb or even one of the Qbs. Draft the best football players,  that is a strategy I can live with.

 

I didn't say Chubb likely doesn't start as a rookie. I said it's not the end of the world if he doesn't start, and judging a draft pick on the basis of whether the player blows up as a rookie is a mistake.

 

And that's a big part of why we see this differently. You're far more concerned about production in the first three years than I am. Not that production in that time frame doesn't matter, but if I'm picking at the top of the first round, I'm thinking about a lot more than just three years. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, life long said:

To us it does. For others apparently even a Jim Brown reincarnation should not go early in a draft because of positional value. I am just a fan but the simple answer is usually the correct one in life. Why not here? The simple answer is BPA. If the colts believe Chubb or any other player is a better player than Saquon we should draft them, I will be happy with whoever we get. If we pass on Barkley simply due to his position I will be a tad disappointed but I will live. Just get me our next franchise RB in RD1 or 2,  I more see Mack as a perfect #2 than a premier feature back.

 

I asked a different poster earlier in this thread, let me ask you: Do you think these old, great RBs are relevant to today's NFL? Jim Brown played in the NFL when the forward pass was still a novelty. QBs were completing 50% of their passes. Do you not agree that the increased productivity and efficiency in the passing game has reduced the value of RBs?

 

In principle, I disagree with the idea that "BPA" isn't simple if you adjust for positional value. You just have to determine how to account for projected longevity and impact on the game. I don't think it's arguable that RBs have a shorter shelf life than other positions. The conversation around the impact of a RB is much more nuanced.

[life long]

1 hour ago, Cynjin said:

 

You seem to be advocating for Barkley, but your bolded statement seems to indicated Chubb, since a good pass rusher is much less likely to be a position filled in FA.

I never said that spot had to be filled with an elite player. The 4-3 has more of a rotation on the d line. It is built for speed and athletes. There are plenty of pass rushers available in the draft or free agency. Just because we wont be excited when they are signed means nothing to me. Melvin was arguably our best defender last year. I doubt anyone thought he would produce as well as he did. Simon and Sheard are decent fits in this new scheme. I think we should use a top pick for a top player. With me sticking by BPA I have to find pass rush any other way (draft, FA, heck even make a trade idc) There are diamonds in that rough I bet.

[life long]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I asked a different poster earlier in this thread, let me ask you: Do you think these old, great RBs are relevant to today's NFL? Jim Brown played in the NFL when the forward pass was still a novelty. QBs were completing 50% of their passes. Do you not agree that the increased productivity and efficiency in the passing game has reduced the value of RBs?

 

In principle, I disagree with the idea that "BPA" isn't simple if you adjust for positional value. You just have to determine how to account for projected longevity and impact on the game. I don't think it's arguable that RBs have a shorter shelf life than other positions. The conversation around the impact of a RB is much more nuanced.

You want a guy for the next 10 years. I want us to always build through the draft. Which I believe forces teams to let older players walk if they want the Brinks truck. Always get the younger cheaper option (if he is better/as good as what you have). And while I agree the game has changed a lot for passing teams. Still I think Barkley would be a huge threat receiving as well so I dont see that being a huge reason not to take a RB. I think if we have a chance to draft the best player in the draft, I say do it. Especially considering he immediately would upgrade the position IMO. I am not changing my opinion, and i dont expect anyone else too either. I think many people over complicate things, I am a minimalist. I'll stick with my gut, and it says Barkley>Chubb. Take the better players when you get a chance. We hopefully won't draft this high again for awhile. I am a fan, with a fans mentality.... Either way.... GO COLTS!

[Four2itus]

Again.....if this team is built correctly from the ground up, has been assembled with contractual responsibility, and has the right mix of youth & veterans....it will be made up of players from all rounds of the draft. I get the picture that some fans see a clear, linear big board that has each single player in a numerical order. I picture groups. I see likely a grouping 6/7 ish players that Ballard would be ok drafting with the third pick. It will take a handsome offer to move down from that. Is Barkley in that group. Probably. But within that group, all things are considered. 

 

But I highly doubt that immediate impact is swaying their decision. Ballard has repeatedly alluded to building this thing, not buying it. And he has spoken of being patient because it will take some time. When I look at those two aspects, I see several players who aren't RB's that are more likely. That statement has nothing to do with Barkley's abilities, real or implied. 

[Four2itus]

21 minutes ago, life long said:

There are plenty of pass rushers available in the draft or free agency. 

Really?

[Cynjin]

23 minutes ago, life long said:

I never said that spot had to be filled with an elite player. The 4-3 has more of a rotation on the d line. It is built for speed and athletes. There are plenty of pass rushers available in the draft or free agency. Just because we wont be excited when they are signed means nothing to me. Melvin was arguably our best defender last year. I doubt anyone thought he would produce as well as he did. Simon and Sheard are decent fits in this new scheme. I think we should use a top pick for a top player. With me sticking by BPA I have to find pass rush any other way (draft, FA, heck even make a trade idc) There are diamonds in that rough I bet.

 

I agree with BPA in the draft, whoever Ballard has graded as BPA.  I disagree that there are plenty of pass rushers available in FA.  Good pass rushers rarely make it to FA and most of the better pass rushers are picked early in the draft, there are outliers, but in general, a team has to get a good pass rusher early in the draft.

[life long]

21 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I agree with BPA in the draft, whoever Ballard has graded as BPA.  I disagree that there are plenty of pass rushers available in FA.  Good pass rushers rarely make it to FA and most of the better pass rushers are picked early in the draft, there are outliers, but in general, a team has to get a good pass rusher early in the draft.

I never said good PRs. We will likely use a lot of rotations. Keep guys fresh for the 4th Quarter. Either way we will end up with a committee on DL or RB. I'd prefer a committee of pass rushers clearly. 

[life long]

37 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Really?

Yes just not big named ones. Ballard signs back up players that he believes can be starters. Look at last years haul in FA.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, life long said:

Yes just not big named ones. Ballard signs back up players who he feels can be starters. Look at last years haul in FA.

That and drafted BPA at times is why RG is not in Indy

[life long]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

That and drafted BPA at times is why RG is not in Indy

Agreed. To attempt team building this way means you better be a good/great drafter and team builder. RG failed. Hopefully CB doesn't.

[Cynjin]

4 minutes ago, life long said:

I never said good PRs. We will likely use a lot of rotations. Keep guys fresh for the 4th Quarter. Either way we will end up with a committee on DL or RB. I'd prefer a committee of pass rushers clearly. 

 

There isn't much of a point to signing below average pass rushers, which is what they would end up with.  That is essentially what the Colts have now.  A committee of average to below average pass rushers is not going to get it done.

[PrincetonTiger]

Friendly Reminder from TigerTown    

   To have a successful draft a team must use both Need based and BPA

 

 

    If you go into FA and Draft with the mentality of one  contract for a player, FO personnel will be job hunting because people will not come to a franchise 

[life long]

38 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

There isn't much of a point to signing below average pass rushers, which is what they would end up with.  That is essentially what the Colts have now.  A committee of average to below average pass rushers is not going to get it done.

You assume back up players are below avg always, but is it not possible the previous team had an embarrassment of riches at that position. Or just under utilized a player. Maybe scheme fit issues... Players can improve right? Sometimes a change of scenery is just as important.

 

At least i am popular on this thread... Even if my opinions aren't.

LOL 

[life long]

46 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Friendly Reminder from TigerTown    

   To have a successful draft a team must use both Need based and BPA

 

 

    If you go into FA and Draft with the mentality of one  contract for a player, FO personnel will be job hunting because people will not come to a franchise 

Just curious because I have asked several people on your side but rarely get a clear answer. Is Chubb better than Barkley? And/or will he be eventually? If you say yes to either then okay but if it is no, why not take the better player? 

 

And who are you reminding? No one here has any say who or how we draft, luckily.

 

   Positional needs are always a factor but I believe BPA comes first. Teams reach when they worry about positional needs. That is why the Browns have never had a QB, even though they draft one every year. 

[Cynjin]

44 minutes ago, life long said:

You assume back up players are below avg always, but is it not possible the previous team had an embarrassment of riches at that position. Or just under utilized a player. Maybe scheme fit issues... Players can improve right? Sometimes a change of scenery is just as important.

 

At least i am popular on this thread... Even if my opinions aren't.

LOL 

 

Your opinions are fine.  I am only saying that it is very unlikely for a good pass rusher to hit the FA market, is it possible yes, but very unlikely.  Good pass rushers tend to be good pass rushers no matter where they are.  Average pass rushers tend to look better than they are when put on a team that has an already good pass rush.  When average pass rushers are on a team without a good pass rusher, they stay average.  The Colts are in desperate need of difference makers on defense, whether Chubb is that difference maker I will leave up to Ballard.

[life long]

40 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Your opinions are fine.  I am only saying that it is very unlikely for a good pass rusher to hit the FA market, is it possible yes, but very unlikely.  Good pass rushers tend to be good pass rushers no matter where they are.  Average pass rushers tend to look better than they are when put on a team that has an already good pass rush.  When average pass rushers are on a team without a good pass rusher, they stay average.  The Colts are in desperate need of difference makers on defense, whether Chubb is that difference maker I will leave up to Ballard.

Agreed successful pass rusher often dont hit FA. Which is why we must turn over every stone in our search. Our franchise leader in sacks was not likely to achieve what he has done in his career. I also recall we had guys who constantly got pressure (Sheard), a lot of those pressures would be sacks if our coverage was less atrocious IMO. Hopefully all our guys get healthy (too many to list lol). If we can figure out how to cover better, pass rush may look a lot better for all we know. That to me is possible without any noteworthy additions at DE. I believe that is why we switched back to a 4-3. Easier to plug and play defenders. Coverage will be key in that defense.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 hours ago, life long said:

Just curious because I have asked several people on your side but rarely get a clear answer. Is Chubb better than Barkley? And/or will he be eventually? If you say yes to either then okay but if it is no, why not take the better player? 

 

And who are you reminding? No one here has any say who or how we draft, luckily.

 

   Positional needs are always a factor but I believe BPA comes first. Teams reach when they worry about positional needs. That is why the Browns have never had a QB, even though they draft one every year. 

I am the Hit the Brake Camp and the FRFTTs are for anyone who will listen

[life long]

8 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

I am the Hit the Brake Camp and the FRFTTs are for anyone who will listen

Chubb or Barkley? Who is better in your own opinion?

[PrincetonTiger]

8 minutes ago, life long said:

Chubb or Barkley? Who is better in your own opinion?

Apples to Oranges