any possible chance this happens

[danlhart87]

Browns Darnold

Giants Chubb

Jets Rosen

Bills Allen (Trade up with Browns)

Broncos Mayfield 

Colts Barkley 

 

If Browns trade down I'm thinking they select Denzel Ward at 12 or best available DB.

[danlhart87]

Bills obviously would want to leapfrog the Broncos and get their 3rd QB on board 

[twfish]

This has pretty much been my thinking the past week. No way Brown's stay at #4

[BOTT]

The part where the colts take Barkley isnt realistic.

[danlhart87]

They have obviously shown interest so ya I'm sure there is a chance Colts take Barkley if there

[twfish]

2 minutes ago, BOTT said:

The part where the colts take Barkley isnt realistic.

Okay humor me this, I very well know your against a RB in the first going back to at least zeke and I see and for the most part agree with your reasoning. You have also made it clear your not up for taking a OG this early, so who are you taking here? Ward fitz edmunds?

[DownHillRunner]

I just don’t see how the Broncos don’t consider drafting a Quarterback because in my opinion, Case Keenum was a flash in the pan last year. So it’s possible that they would look at a Quarterback at 5. Barkley could slide down to 6. 

[Trueman]

I mean, is it possible? Sure. 

 

But if Nelson and Barkley are on the board, I’ve got think think Ballard takes Nelson. At the very least , I hope he does.

[Trueman]

I actually think there’s a higher chance that the Giants trade out of #2 than Cleveland at #4.

 

I’m pretty sure the Browns walk away with Darnold and Barkley.

[Reboot]

3 minutes ago, DownHillRunner said:

I just don’t see how the Broncos don’t consider drafting a Quarterback because in my opinion, Case Keenum was a flash in the pan last year. So it’s possible that they would look at a Quarterback at 5. Barkley could slide down to 6. 

Keenum played so well for the Vikes last year.  And, the Broncos also have Chad Kelly, who Bill Polian last season said was the best QB on the Broncos roster.   It’s also why I don’t think they’ll draft Mayfield.  He is Kelly, they are functionally the same player.  Allen I could see.  Obviously Rosen or Darnold too.  I for one don’t think the Giants, Browns at 4, or Broncos take QBs.  Now they may trade out and QBs get taken there.  But not by those teams.  

 

So to the OP, no, I don’t think Barkley can fall to 6.  

[superrep1967]

28 minutes ago, twfish said:

This has pretty much been my thinking the past week. No way Brown's stay at #4

But what a draft it would be for them Darnold at 1 and Barkley at 4. There offense would be awesome in a few years. 

[RealityIsLuck]

Very possible. Colts are at 6, so this all boils down to Josh Allen. If teams think highly enough of him and 3 top QBs are taken before us (minimum) that leaves min. one of Nelson, Barkley, Chubb. If Allen slides it automatically raises the interest level from the standpoint of Buffalo or Arizona or Miami to move up. So either way it's really not that bad. 

[horseshoecrabs]

47 minutes ago, twfish said:

Okay humor me this, I very well know your against a RB in the first going back to at least zeke and I see and for the most part agree with your reasoning. You have also made it clear your not up for taking a OG this early, so who are you taking here? Ward fitz edmunds?

Barkley will not be available at the  6 pick or the 12 pick if trade down

 

[horseshoecrabs]

Draft if you will the best available at the #6 spot BPA ,only if you don't trade down from there. 

[horseshoecrabs]

If you have that high of draft choose you have to go BPA ,Draft for  BPA not needs, You have to Break out of the needs quagmire, Even if it doesn't meet your needs it better to have positions  filled for the future than over extending  for needs that will not  for fill  for existing needs if not rated high enough,

[scooter4910]

2 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

If you have that high of draft choose you have to go BPA ,Draft for  BPA not needs, You have to Break out of the needs quagmire, Even if it doesn't meet your needs it better to have positions  filled for the future than over extending  for needs that will not  for fill  for existing needs if not rated high enough,

Exactly....who needs a QB when they can get 4 RB's.

[HectorRoberts]

Nelson I definitely who I want but if the best player in the draft is available when we pick it would be just stupid to pass him up

[HectorRoberts]

19 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Barkley will not be available at the  6 pick or the 12 pick if trade down

 

I don’t think he will either but it seems like he’s talking about a what if kind of thing

[Carlos Danger]

Pass on Barkley... Like I've said in other threads, he's overvalued by draft media guys... He's not a "perfect" prospect like people have been saying. 

 

He does have protypical size and burst, but he doesn't run with enough strength. He bounces everything outside (like Mack) and wastes all of that power by not finishing runs... He was shut down in multiple games this season. He's not worth a top 10 pick, even in this draft. 

 

I'm not saying he isn't a 1st round talent or that he won't be a good NFL running back... Just that he's not "the best player in this draft" or any type of "generational" talent. He's not as good as Zeke or Gurley were coming out. He's only marginally better (as a prospect) than Guice, Michel, Jones, or Chubb, to name a few. 

 

Of course, that's just my opinion... This draft season seems like it has been so long and I've seen so much of the top 5 guys that all I can see are their flaws now... Barkley stands out to me as the most overrated prospect in the entire class, even more than Davenport and Edmunds. 

[richard pallo]

Bills would have to give up a huge amount of draft capital to get Allen at 4.  They may as well trade with us at 6 and get him and pay less and let the Browns pick a player at 4.  The two best; Darnold and Rosen will be gone.  The remaining QB's are not top 10 picks.  Elway has his QB. Only a QB needy team will try to move up and hope one of the others works out.  Elway won't over reach and take one.  He will take BPA or hope to trade back.  Why trade with him when you can get the same player at 6?  It's more likely a Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson will fall to him depending on what the Giants and Browns do and his board might have someone else rated higher.   The Colts trade at 6 makes more sense and will get the Bills the QB they want and will cost them less than the Browns pick.  I think that's the one that is going to happen. 

[ColtsBlitz]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

The part where the colts take Barkley isnt realistic.

I know you’re one for strong opinions, but taking Barkley over Nelson makes sense to me. Ballard did say he likes the OG possibilities in later rounds. 

[TomDiggs]

Is this scenario possible? Sure.

 

The concept of 4 QBs going in the top-5 is a possibility. It is more likely that 3 go. But 4 is possible. And if 4 do go it is possible the 5th player is Chubb and both Barkley and Nelson are there due to simply their positions not being as highly valued on some teams' draft boards.

 

The players will likely be highly rated. Just their positional value could make them slip to 6.

 

Still not likely. But possible.

 

All of that being said, should we take Barkley over Nelson? Tough call.

 

Both are going to be good players who could be All-Pros early in their career.

 

When folks have criticized Barkley(Colin Cowherd comes to mind), they have talked about him being poor after contact behind the line of scrimmage (a definite concern w our line as it is today). Cowherd (and a handful of others) have also questioned Barkley's best workload usage and that he should be more of a 15-18 carry a game guy and not that grind you down 25+ carry guy. So he isn't without at least some concern.
 

For me it all comes down to how we evaluate Nelson. If we would draft Nelson and just put him at LG where he's been a stud then I would understand the logic. But if so, I wouldn't draft him at that spot over Barkley.

 

If, however, we decided that Nelson's tape, skills, etc etc translates to him being able to be equally as effective as the RG and we drafted him to play RG, then I would take him over Barkley here.

 

RG is typically the more difficult and more valuable interior OL spot and if we thought he could be an All-Pro there, then he helps sure up that weak right side of the line and helps cover some for whoever plays RT for us.

 

It also lets Slauson and Mewhort duke it out for the starting LG w the competition hopefully making the cream rise to the top.

 

So for me, if Nelson is drafted as a RG and evaluated similarly at RG as LG then I would go him over Barkley in this scenario.

 

If we thought we would just simply keep him at LG then I'd take Barkley and be happy w that.

 

In the end, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see us take Fitzpatrick in this scenario. The board would melt down over people complaining about passing on two generational type guys in Barkley and Nelson. "How did we pass on the highest rated guy in the whole draft?" "How did we pass on the safest prospect?" "How do we continue to pass up chances to protect Luck?"....etc etc

 

But I could easily see that being the move as well.

[BOTT]

21 hours ago, twfish said:

Okay humor me this, I very well know your against a RB in the first going back to at least zeke and I see and for the most part agree with your reasoning. You have also made it clear your not up for taking a OG this early, so who are you taking here? Ward fitz edmunds?

Yes

[BOTT]

19 hours ago, ColtsBlitz said:

I know you’re one for strong opinions, but taking Barkley over Nelson makes sense to me. Ballard did say he likes the OG possibilities in later rounds. 

I wouldn't take either.

[ColtsBlitz]

10 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I wouldn't take either.

I would probably take Edmunds if not Barkley. I like Penny better in the 2nd or 3rd. 

[BOTT]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlitz said:

I would probably take Edmunds if not Barkley. I like Penny better in the 2nd or 3rd. 

I would be fine with Edmunds and would love to get Penny in the 3rd.

[twfish]

2 hours ago, BOTT said:

Yes

Yes? I'm not criticizing you or your view here I'm curious who you would take

[BOTT]

39 minutes ago, twfish said:

Yes? I'm not criticizing you or your view here I'm curious who you would take

Understood. I would probably take one of the three you named...not positive at this point. Probably Edwards or Fitzpatrick