Nelson got a call from the Colts but then the Bills got back on the other line so we put Nelson on hold and he's been listening to the elevator tunes ever since.
Fournette is the 5th most paid back currently (at #4 slot) so if the Giants pick Barkley at 2 he'd be #4 or #5. Basically, Barkley needs to be that type of back to be a value for a team.
Gettleman was willing to spend the #8 overall on Christian McCaffrey. I think Saquon is definitely in play at #2.
The difference is #8 slot is paid a lot less then #2 slot. McCaffrey is paid 4.3M on average. Barkley would be around 7.5M.
Which is a valid point. That may have something to do with the rumor that Odell Beckham is being conservatively shopped by the Giants. Also, considering the deal that Jerick McKinnon got in free agency, the amount of money paid to Barkley at that slot would appear to make more sense.
Also another reason for the Colts to laugh if they just pick at #6 and get their guy. They'll save $6.5M over 4 years. Although the best savings for teams are the ones that can move to 11 and still get their guy due to the much cheaper 5th year option after the top 10. I like my pick at #12 taking that into account even if I "only" got 12 and 22 for #6.
This is just my opinion; Don't be shocked IRL if the Browns take Barkley at #1 and then snag a QB at #4. Why a RB when Carlos Hyde and Duke Johnson are already on the roster you ask? Because I believe Duke will be used more as a slot receiver along with Landry this year.
Yeah it's crazy -- honestly it's also why I can't take a guard at #2 overall. Barkley and Nelson have to basically be pro-bowl players as rookies to warrant the contracts they will receive going that high. If you view Barkley as more than a traditional RB I could maybe see making the argument but I just can't justify the people who want a freaking LG as the #2 overall pick. And yet here we are with people speculating the giants take either a RB or a OG at #2 all while "shopping" a top 3 talent at his position whose only 25. The OBJ buzz better just be stupid media looking for something to spout off about. The kid isn't getting arrested, isn't beating women, and his teammates love him. The NYC media can go for a long walk off a short pier -- they make him a "distraction" with their stupid coverage.
I think they just wanted assets. If they wanted anybody that wasn't a QB they don't ever trade down behind the Browns at #4.
I think you can acquire assets and still leverage probability in your favor. You have a player that you would like to take but there are two others that would fit into that potential tier. You know the make up of the rosters in front of you and what the odds are on who they will select so you make a small move down with the strong odds favoring that you will get a targeted player and add a lot more ammunition in the process. Or you double down on the trade down like you did here and stockpile value while looking to fill holes in the middle of the first. I believe you could still charge the Bills an additional future second and get both firsts if their QB were to slide to #6 overall.
IOL are more in line with tackles then it years past. Need a clean pocket to step up to and make a quick throw. Nelson to me makes more sense financially then Barkley does, even if Barkley ends up better at his position. The Giants necessarily had to 'overpay' Solder because there weren't and aren't many tackles in recent drafts. There is a bubble in that market. Take a look at what guards make, then take a look at what RBs make.
I was saying if it was ONE specific player. No way do the Colts trade back to 6 if that was the case. And yes on your last point. The Cowboys learned that the hard way when they dropped their price to trade up for Paxton Lynch and then failed to get him. They admitted that if they liked him at one price the pick shouldn't matter. Then again they got lucky to miss him there (probably).
