No, the correct comparison is what excess value would you get by taking one of those positions ( K-P-LS ) in the first round versus later in the draft. Obviously, it would not be worthy of the first round draft capital.
The same can be said of running backs.
False, teams routinely overdraft QB's because the payoff, if you hit, it is so dramatic that it quite literally changes the course of the franchise.
No, your totally missing the point. I made no argument about who they should have taken. It is however generally accepted that QB, CB, WR, OT, DE are the optimal higher picks due to the upside if you hit.
Barkley was #2 the next 10 were
#3 Darnold - QB
#4 Ward - CB **
#5 Chubb - DE *
#6 Nelson - OG **
#7 Allen - QB **
#8 Smith - OLB **
#9 McGlinchey - OT *
#10 Rosen - QB
#11 Fitzpatrick - S **
#12 Vea - DT **
I think you need to go back and review the production Barkley gave the Giants during his 6 seasons. Factoring in both his multiple years of crap production along with the higher cost in his 5th and 6th season. It comes nowhere close to the value of the draft capital they used on him.
6 of the 10 ( ** ) above would have been flat out better picks. 2 of the 10 ( * ) would have been essentially a wash, although considering they were at positions of higher value they would have been wiser picks given the possible excess value had they worked out.
Of course Darnold and Rosen didn't work out. Many however would argue that picking a quarterback at #2 would have been wiser. Essentially viewing the 33% chance you end up with Allen as being worth the risk due to the astronomical value if you hit on QB.