keggerz

Fwiw, a source of mine (same one I broke KFuller as the player to be named later from) says that at the combine Hue said they are taking Barkley. People said I was crazy when I said Fulle was the PTBNL, even as he said he wasn't traded and while I have a hard time believing it I have to report what I find out, no matter if I agree with it or not. But I am skeptical to an extent since it was said at the combine in a passing convo which is why I'm a bit skeptical, but it is what it is.

Why wouldn't I be?

Brings back some of what they missed from DJax.

Because they are basically apples and oranges. If you or anyone else doesn't get that teams will reach and overpay much more often than not for QBs dues to their overall importance to a team's success than a RB then I can't help ya.

Other factors that I figured would have been assumed when it comes to taking a RB that high... The NFL is a QB driven league and as I stated earlier, it's all about supply and demand and there's never enough of a supply of QBs. Teams can always cobble together a running attack but they're less likely to do so at QB. Look at Dallas and GB as two examples. Alf & Rod stepped in and did a decent job while Zeke was out. That wasn't the case for GB when Rodgers went down. I'm sure there are other similar situations that could be pointed to, too. I know that things are looking up for the Browns but there is still no denying that over the past X number of seasons that they've been one of the worst teams in the league. I can't speak to all of those HOFers I referenced but I feel safe saying that most if not all probably didn't go into situations as bad as where the Browns are coming from. As for the Browns, I'm not a homer, but my wife is a Browns fan so I have a rooting interest in them succeeding. No matter what route they take, I hope it works out for them.

That feeling was pre-combine but I still think he'll fall farther than people think. Why? Because I don't buy that the Giants are going to forsake taking a QB when Eli isn't very good and they need an heir. That leaves Indy at 3. The only way I can see Indy taking Barkley is if Cleveland takes Chubb at 1.1 but even then they probably still go D. As for a trade up to get Barkley, the draft cost to take him that early is way high as it is, let alone someone ponying up more to trade up into the top 4 to get him. Could it happen? Sure, I just don't think it will.

Been too swamped to reply and still am but it all comes down to supply & demand as well as positional importance. I’ll come back later to expound, once I get a chance. Also, nothing was cherry picked. There was a genuine interest in something so I started to mine the data. Nothing more, nothing less. Fwiw, my initial gut was QB at 1.1 & Barkley at 1.4.

This should be all the explanation you'll need for why I feel that way: https://twitter.com/i/moments/972697630060015616

Barkley, for as tempting as he may be, wouldn't be a wise pick at 1 or 4.

Greedy is a word that my source used when describing Cousins. FWIW, the Skins feel that Kirk is a system QB. As for Fuller, when I broke that he was the player to be named later Skins fans were seriously hating on me on twitter. Some were even saying I was a fake account.

Twitter: @SteveGalloNFL

For those of you that remember steeltowndre, that's Warren.

Never can tell when you are being tongue in cheek