I think what may end up helping this draft class look better after a few years from now, more than anything, is that teams won't be reaching for QBs like a few teams did in the first round of 2011, but instead look for value in the late first, 2nd/3rd round where those picks have had the same success rate the last two drafts as early Day 1 picks (and less a gamble)
Take 2011, again. You have to imagine that in hindsight the Titans, Vikings, and Jags would have rather waited till the 2nd round pick and gotten first stab at either Dalton or Kaep than drafted who they drafted. Teams this year seemed to have taken notice of that and treated this off-season free agency, accordingly, adding veterans who make there team at least semi-competitive, allowing them to skip over quarterbacks in the top-10 if they want.
Edit: I'm still pulling for Locker at Tennessee. He's got some time still to prove himself.
That in turn allows these rooks to either sit for a year or compete and win/earn the starting job, early. It's the Cincinnati/Seattle/San Fransisco approach to drafting QBs; add a vet to the roster, draft other positions early that can make an immediate impact, and if the rookie is NFL ready enough, he starts, or else he sits another year. And if he busts, the costs is much more manageable than a top-12 pick.
Barkley.
To me, he's the Andy Dalton of this draft class; a great leader at the position with a ton of experience (both 4-year starters, IIRC), fundamentally and mentally sound, yet both have physical limitations which require both the right offensive scheme and player personnel to put them in the best position to succeed. Without the offense and players around them, I think they both struggle. Could Barkley go as high as top-10? It's possible, but if I was a team (Buffalo, NY Jets, Arizona, etc.), I think I'd be better off, for example, drafting either Tavon Austin/Cordarrelle Patterson (or whoever) early first and then make a push for Barkley late-first, early-2nd.
And if that team misses out on Barkley, oh well. It didn't matter for Cincinnati or San Fransisco to miss out on the "top" 4 QBs (or Seattle and the "top" 3), and I don't think it'll matter this year. IMO, the gap between these QBs are not large enough to justify passing on Pro Bowl talent in the top 10 when you can get an equivalent QB at less the cost Day 2 of the draft.
Ultimately, I could see this 2013 QB class having a few franchise QBs, but it might take a couple years to see that as these guys step into the starting role after sitting for a year or two.