Soda
Listen To The Kids!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 15,068
- Reaction score
- 13,197
- Points
- 123
That's not why. Barkley was a sure thing. Lindsay was undrafted for a reason. No one knew if he'd pan out or not.
That said, the reason you don't draft a RB that high is because it's a terrible use of a great asset for a position that is easy to fill with quality players. Almost every team in the league has at least one good RB, and you can find guys who are almost as guaranteed to pan out as Barkley (Guice, Chubb, and Michel were three of those guys this year, with Michel's only real question mark being the knee) at the end of the first, in the second, and often even later. Drafting a RB in the top ten instantly makes them a top ten RB in salary, which is the issue here. You're not saving any money by drafting a RB high, and thus it's a waste of a draft pick because the best part about draft picks is that you get them on cheap deals for four to five years, which helps the team plug holes without paying a premium to do it. You're much better off drafting a more valuable position that high so you actually save some money on an elite player for his first several years.
You're basically re-wrapping what I said.
"It's a terrible use of a great asset for a position that is easy to fill"
That's precisely the point. How often do you find QBs that are UDFA and producing in year one?