Declined Overpays...

[Bot101]

Barkley Hype is worse than Zeke hype and Zeke was a better prospect.

Get out. No. Before Zeke was drafted the consensus among almost everyone was “he can do everything well but nothing great” type of back. Matter of fact there was quite a few who still had Treadwell as the 1.01. It wasn’t till after the cowboys drafted him did the hype train start really moving. So get that lie outta here and wash your mouth with soap.

Edit: above is only addressing the Zeke is a better prospect than Barkley nonsense. The part about the Barkley hype out of control is factual.

I could be wrong, but I interpreted that as his personal opinion is that Zeke was the better prospect than Barkley. Which can't be a lie or false, he's stating his personal belief.

The general consensus is that Barkley is the better prospect, in that he is more athletic and whatnot, but I can see why an individual would prefer Zeke's overall body of work and talent to Barkley.

Either way, even if Barkley is the better prospect, the hype is out of control. I have the 1.02 in three leagues and don't think I'll be able to justify the expense of trading up to 1.01 in any of them


EDIT: Just noticed the mention of Treadwell as a contender for 1.01. It is interesting how someone who was valued that highly has almost no value just a few years later. I know there were red flags about Treadwell even then, which are absent for Barkley, but that is one reason why I'm hesitant to anoint Barkley or any other rookie before they prove themselves in the NFL. Or to put a different spin on it, it is one example of why someone may be really smart to value prospects different from the consensus. Hambone may end up looking silly for valuing Zeke over Barkley, but sometimes the consensus isn't correct. I'd rather base my FF decisions on a strong personal conviction rather than general ADP/consensus.

Well it seemed to me he was stating his opinion as more matter of fact. And yes your personal belief can be wrong. Sorry. But as simply prospects, Barkley is better. You cannot take what Zeke has done in the NFL and add that to him before he stepped foot on an NFL field. From top to bottom, everywhere you looked, Barkley has been graded much higher coming into the NFL than Zeke (except maybe by JTLoh).

Again, so no one misinterprets what I am saying:

1) I am only comparing player to player as prospects coming into the NFL.
2) I agree the Barkley hype is out of control.
3) If we are talking start up draft, I would probably take Zeke over Barkley because of what Zeke has done since being in the NFL.

[Cy23]

Well it seemed to me he was stating his opinion as more matter of fact. And yes your personal belief can be wrong. Sorry. But as simply prospects, Barkley is better. You cannot take what Zeke has done in the NFL and add that to him before he stepped foot on an NFL field. From top to bottom, everywhere you looked, Barkley has been graded much higher coming into the NFL than Zeke (except maybe by JTLoh).

Again, so no one misinterprets what I am saying:

1) I am only comparing player to player as prospects coming into the NFL.
2) I agree the Barkley hype is out of control.
3) If we are talking start up draft, I would probably take Zeke over Barkley because of what Zeke has done since being in the NFL.

I can't speak for him, so I don't know. And if he was stating it as fact, then he would be wrong due to Barkley having elite athleticism that Elliott lacked. If he was sharing his personal belief, I think he should have made that explicit.


One thing I'll point out, however, is the overreliance on metrics to designate a player as a "better prospect" than another player. Cook was undervalued last year because of his poor metrics, despite his college production.

Elliott was extremely successful in college and I think that some people/scouts may actually consider him the better prospect (their personal opinion), even when comparing him as he was headed into the NFL to Barkley heading into the NFL.

Barkley has the sexy elite measurables that people love in prospects, combined with the elite college production. Since even unproductive NFL prospects are regularly overrated due to elite measurables, it isn't a surprise that a productive one would make people crazy.

But if you ignore the combine numbers and look at game tape, I think some scouts may actually prefer Elliott. I personally don't scout based on game tape and have no experience with that, but I'm trying to broaden my draft prep beyond just metrics as there are so many unmeasurable aspects to being good at football. How hard you work, whether you understand the play book, whether you can learn pass protection, what you glean from watching game film, how easily you are coached, whether your instinct gets you through the hole or running into your lineman; there are a lot of things that can't be taught or measured, IMO.

I expect Barkley to be a stud, just like I expected Elliott to be a stud. But I'm curious whether we'll get better at predicting that someone without the measurables will succeed, or that someone with seemingly all the elite measurables will fail due to innate deficiencies.

[Aldonall]

The other day I floated Howard + Diggs + ARob for Zeke just to see what would he'd say, hard decline with no counter

[Bot101]

Well it seemed to me he was stating his opinion as more matter of fact. And yes your personal belief can be wrong. Sorry. But as simply prospects, Barkley is better. You cannot take what Zeke has done in the NFL and add that to him before he stepped foot on an NFL field. From top to bottom, everywhere you looked, Barkley has been graded much higher coming into the NFL than Zeke (except maybe by JTLoh).

Again, so no one misinterprets what I am saying:

1) I am only comparing player to player as prospects coming into the NFL.
2) I agree the Barkley hype is out of control.
3) If we are talking start up draft, I would probably take Zeke over Barkley because of what Zeke has done since being in the NFL.

I can't speak for him, so I don't know. And if he was stating it as fact, then he would be wrong due to Barkley having elite athleticism that Elliott lacked. If he was sharing his personal belief, I think he should have made that explicit.


One thing I'll point out, however, is the overreliance on metrics to designate a player as a "better prospect" than another player. Cook was undervalued last year because of his poor metrics, despite his college production.

Elliott was extremely successful in college and I think that some people/scouts may actually consider him the better prospect (their personal opinion), even when comparing him as he was headed into the NFL to Barkley heading into the NFL.

Barkley has the sexy elite measurables that people love in prospects, combined with the elite college production. Since even unproductive NFL prospects are regularly overrated due to elite measurables, it isn't a surprise that a productive one would make people crazy.

But if you ignore the combine numbers and look at game tape, I think some scouts may actually prefer Elliott. I personally don't scout based on game tape and have no experience with that, but I'm trying to broaden my draft prep beyond just metrics as there are so many unmeasurable aspects to being good at football. How hard you work, whether you understand the play book, whether you can learn pass protection, what you glean from watching game film, how easily you are coached, whether your instinct gets you through the hole or running into your lineman; there are a lot of things that can't be taught or measured, IMO.

I expect Barkley to be a stud, just like I expected Elliott to be a stud. But I'm curious whether we'll get better at predicting that someone without the measurables will succeed, or that someone with seemingly all the elite measurables will fail due to innate deficiencies.

I certainly look at the combine, but merely as a piece to the puzzle. Yes his work out metrics are phenomenal, but so was Ben Tate's. I value game tape just as much. What do you think would happen if you switched Elliott's and Barkley's places? Elliott ran behind one of the best lines in college, and Barkley had one of the worst. Barkley's yards created pretty much broke that metric. Meaning he had to deal with defenders in his face before he even got to the line while Elliott ran through holes you could drive a Lincoln Continental through. How many of the linemen blocking for Zeke were drafted in the NFL compared to Barkley?

As for work ethic I am giving the edge to Barkley here as well. Its easy to see which dedicate their off the field time to being better.

Pass protection is in favor of Elliott. He might be one of the best in pass pro coming out of college that I have ever seen. And I think this is one of the primary reasons the Cowboys took him so high, to protect Romo while also taking the pressure off Romo.

[maxhyde]

In every scoring system. Unless there is some crazy scoring out there doubling points for risking starting an RB from the Giants.

Disagree

I agree with your disagree.

I disagree with y'all disagreeing. Guess it really depends where you rank Thomas and how many RB's you would rank over him in a startup. I think for me it will be 0 because team WR

[Never Veto1]

My logic for this offer was that I own zero starting rbs but lots of decent wr talent. This deal would give me picks 1 , 2 and 3 and is could still compete with those three rookie rbs. Why he declined? I’ve got no idea...the guy is from Denver.

Why don't you trade all those picks for established RB's and just win