Drafting a RB in the Top 10 is...

MLD Woody

What say you?

Orion

@mld-woody said:

What say you?

Depends on the hype.

.....has to be quite special to warrant a very high pick in today's NFL.

PoeticG

@mld-woody said:

What say you?

Say-what?

@orion said:

Depends on the hype.

.....has to be quite special to warrant a very high pick in today's NFL.

Saquon!

I think your poll is missing a couple of options. You have to look at the PLAYER, not the POSITION.

TexasAg1969

Depends on whether:

a. A couple of teams need him worse just below you

b. You have someone else in mind as BPA that will still be there if you trade down

c. RB isn't a strong need

mjp28

Depends if he's a top 3 or 4 or maybe a true once in a decade or generation talent in the often injured and short career running back position.

If that is true AND you have multiple top first round picks then YES, still a gut-check move but on Barkley I'd say go.

The real question is if you have all of the above who do you pick with your second top pick? A QB or other position?

......... oh I'm abstaining to vote as written, it's not always/good/never here.

jcam222

If he's a game changing talent and a need you do it. The "you can find one later in the draft thing" is way overused hindsight logic.

mjp28

@jcam222 said:

If he's a game changing talent and a need you do it. The "you can find one later in the draft thing" is way overused hindsight logic.

A game changing talent AT RB would qualify.

Elliott (currently) Sweetness, J. Brown, E.Smith, Sanders, LT, Dickerson, OJ...... for example.

BrownsnMopar

I would like to move back into the 1st rd and take Darrius Guice from LSU! It would be better if he slipped to us at rd 2.1

tiamat63

@brownsnmopar said:

I would like to move back into the 1st rd and take Darrius Guice from LSU! It would be better if he slipped to us at rd 2.1

Even with my slightly positive review on him, unless this team is prepared to shift it's style of running attack a bit - I still wouldn't take him in the 1st.

Louisville Slugger

You should always draft top 10 talent with a top 10 pick. Best player available

mjp28

@louisville-slugger said:

You should always draft top 10 talent with a top 10 pick. Best player available

So with #1 and 4 scrap the quarterbacks and go other talent? (my choice here) Remember that they still have 10 Picks left.

Westside Steve

@mld-woody said:

What say you?

I might have added another option Woodrow. A good idea if the back in question is a generational Talent.

A great one could certainly take a lot of pressure off whoever the retread or rookie quarterback is.

WSS

wargograw

@westside-steve said:

I might have added another option Woodrow. A good idea if the back in question is a generational Talent.

A great one could certainly take a lot of pressure off whoever the retread or rookie quarterback is.

WSS

By generational you mean "comes along every 1-2 years," right?

Richiswhere

A whole slew of running back that were drafted in the top 10 in this years AFC and NFC games

Westside Steve

@wargograw said:

By generational you mean "comes along every 1-2 years," right?

I guess if you think there's a great one every year worthy of the first pick in the draft.

WSS

sdballis

Like many others, I think this question is lacking some plausible answers. I think that if you scout Saquon and he is CLEARLY the best player in the draft, you have to take him #1. RBs can certainly change the game enough to still be considered with that high a pick. Granted, I agree that production can be found later (mostly due to the O-line's impact on RB success), but if you have the next big thing waiting for you, you pull the trigger.

A related question I would pose is this:

If a player was a guaranteed perennial Pro Bowler/HoFer, what position WOULDN'T be worthy of (insert pick here)? (#1, top 5, etc.)

Would you look back and take a Urlacher #1 even though "MLBers aren't worthy of a top 10 pick?" A Deion Sanders? A Gronkowski?

I find it hard to say no to those impact guys regardless of the perception of where they "should" be picked. Obviously K/P aren't justified, and maybe not C/G, but given the hit rate on draft picks, I'd love to take a guaranteed guy at any position.

SD_Tom

Saquon is not even worth a top 10 pick.

Drafting him #1 is RetardED

mjp28

@sdballis said:

Like many others, I think this question is lacking some plausible answers. I think that if you scout Saquon and he is CLEARLY the best player in the draft, you have to take him #1. RBs can certainly change the game enough to still be considered with that high a pick. Granted, I agree that production can be found later (mostly due to the O-line's impact on RB success), but if you have the next big thing waiting for you, you pull the trigger.

A related question I would pose is this:

If a player was a guaranteed perennial Pro Bowler/HoFer, what position WOULDN'T be worthy of (insert pick here)? (#1, top 5, etc.) <---- ???

Would you look back and take a Urlacher #1 even though "MLBers aren't worthy of a top 10 pick?" A Deion Sanders? A Gronkowski?

I find it hard to say no to those impact guys regardless of the perception of where they "should" be picked. Obviously K/P aren't justified, and maybe not C/G, but given the hit rate on draft picks, I'd love to take a guaranteed guy at any position.

I don't think any college player Heisman or not is a guaranteed pro bowl or definitely not a HOF winner, the game is too tough and unpredictable.

Maybe a guaranteed starter, top 5 at his position or something like that would be more suitable for a rookie UNLESS he was a unanimous (by the experts?) once in a generation player.....you know one of those about once every 25 years guys, very rare. Plus those guys generally go to bad teams, stat killers, unless they luck out and they're pick is traded or they hold out and play chicken with potential teams.

Ghoolie

Barkley, this year, it is a good idea.

nickers

Is there a Jim Brown clone in the draft?.. Okay , never mind then...