#4 #22

[BrownIndian]

@bringbackbrownie2 said:

This seems very possible. Heckert will want a WR and DE early in the draft. The only reason I don't think Heckert will draft a LB that high is I'm not convinced Brown will still be on the board for our #22 pick. Also if Hillis isn't resigned, we will need a RB at some point. But maybe we can wait until the 3rd or 4th round for that..

Do we know for sure that Trent Richardson is not going to declare for the draft ?

[jparsh]

@vizion said:

I am not too fond of drafting RB's high, but I really think there is a very small chance that Hillis will still be here. If he isn't, and after reading Holmgren's interview, I think he views the key to any QB (specifically Colt's) success as a team having a strong running game so I can see him drafting Richardson. I think Hightower is a stud, I just don't know if he'll be around at #22. The Eagles really really need linebackers.

I know that most people here are very pro-Blackmon, but what would people think of trading down and maybe getting Floyd and an extra offensive lineman with the pick we get from whoever we trade with? If we don't take Richardson but trade down with a team that really needs an RB, we could further build through the draft. I think we should use this draft to fill as many holes possible but still getting quality players who can be productive at skill positions.

You are 110% correct in your feeling about drafting RB's high. They are a dime a dozen. This year there were 14 RB's with over 1,000 and there would have been more if it weren't for injuries to guys like McFadden and Peterson.

If you go down the list of top rated RB's you don't see a high drafted RB there. Look at the Browns roster, there isn't a high rounder in the bunch and if it weren't for injuries and drama, we could have easily had a 1,000 yard rusher on our team.

[jparsh]

@brownindian said:

Do we know for sure that Trent Richardson is not going to declare for the draft ?

If I were Richardson I'd stay back to try to make people forget about that crap ass performance last night.

[jparsh]

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Luck goes to Indy, Blackmon to Rams, Kalil to Vikings

#4- trade back with Seattle, of all teams, at #12 so they can surprisngly grab RG3. Acquire their 2nd round pick plus 1st or 2nd round pick in 2013.

#12- Alshon Jeffery WR- USC, assuming he has a bad combine and is available. If not, Floyd will suffice.

#22-Zach Brown OLB- UNC.

#36-Vinny Curry DE- Marshall. Perfect rush end opposite Sheard.

#44- Andrew Datko OT-FSU

Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.

[bringbackbrownie2]

@brownindian said:

Do we know for sure that Trent Richardson is not going to declare for the draft ?

He still could but Heckert won't use a 1st rounder on a runningback. So unless Richardson lasts until the 2nd round (unlikely), he won't be on the Browns next year..

[ballpeen]

Zombo said:

Ryan Tannehill?

What time did you start drinking the 'shine this morning?

Zombo

Man , I am from Tennessee. We do that all the time. Right??

I like him.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

jparsh said:

Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.

It would warrant a #1 if Pete Carroll believes RG3 to be their franchise QB.

If they were moving up for, say, a WR or a defensive player, then by no means would I expect a #1 in return. But franchise QB's are different. If RG3 is a QB that Carroll believes will be the face of the franchise for the next 10 years, and knowing full well that Washington will grab him at 5, Heckert holds all the chips. And you can be sure he'll get a future first for that pick.

I don't believe our FA is sold on RG3, or any of the QB's in this draft. I feel they will either make a play for Flynn or draft Landry Jones next year. Assuming, of course, Washington doesn't sell the farm to move up to 2 and take RG3, I honestly believe we'll be in a perfect position to acquire more picks without having to move back 20 spaces.

[beefjerky]

@poeticg said:

RG3 and Colt McCoy are the same. Colt is IMO better than RG3... why would you want to spend the number 4 overall pick of the Draft to draft a guy you already have on the team? In fact, it may even be a downgrade to what you already have... but seems as how this FO released Vickers and signed Marecic, I see how you'd come to the conclusion we take RG3

They're nothing alike. I like Colt but there's only so many excuses he can get for having a slow release, and a low velocity throw.

that being said I'm not 100% sold on RGIII, his pocket awareness seems to be lacking(a rusher will be right next to him and he won't even sense it)

[choco]

jparsh said:

Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

pick #4 - 1800

pick #12 - 1200

pick #44 - 460

pick #76 - 210

seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.

[jparsh]

@choco said:

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

pick #4 - 1800

pick #12 - 1200

pick #44 - 460

pick #76 - 210

seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.

Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)

[Dirty Hands]

My new interesting theory on the picks kind of a lion's move....seems to be a lot of nay sayers for richardson at the 4th interesting thought what about blackmon 4th and wright 22nd? gives us 2 good receivers on the outsides with little and blackmon and wright fills the slot let's cribbs focus on what he does best special teams and would make him a match-up issue with 4 WR sets

[Dirty Hands]

Then we would really be able to evaluate colt as well... If he couldn't succeed with those receivers pull the plug

[Kosar_For_President]

@choco said:

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

pick #4 - 1800

pick #12 - 1200

pick #44 - 460

pick #76 - 210

seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.

Nice post, I had no clue.

[BrownsKidd]

@dirty-hands said:

My new interesting theory on the picks kind of a lion's move....seems to be a lot of nay sayers for richardson at the 4th interesting thought what about blackmon 4th and wright 22nd? gives us 2 good receivers on the outsides with little and blackmon and wright fills the slot let's cribbs focus on what he does best special teams and would make him a match-up issue with 4 WR sets

I've thought about that. What if they take Blackmon and Wright. Doubt that it will happen, but it sure would give us the chance to see how good our QB's are. But a WCO needs WR's. Could you imagine Blackmon, Wright, Little & Cribs... That could be very interesting. However, you wonder what kind of ego's would be coming to camp.

Right now I'm leaning to grab RG3 and Wright, I hope that can happen. But we will see.

[jparsh]

I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined. We will wind up with either RG3, Flynn or Tananhall (sp?) and one of those 3 will be the starting QB next year. The only option there that allows for two wide outs in the first round is if GB doesn't franchise Flynn and we get him free and clear through free agency. But I'm leaning towards thinking GB will franchise him, the only issue is the fact that his salary would be so large it may scare teams away. Then there's the issue on whether or not he'll resign long term with the team he's being traded to. There's a lot to be determined in that area, except for the fact that Colt will not be the guy. If anyone is taking the whole "we love him and he has a shot to be our franchise guy" BS then you need to learn what it means when a GM/coach/president says the right thing.

I said before, you don't give your future guy competition and leave things in limbo. Name one other starting QB this year that's secure in their job who had their gm and president say that they're not willing to name him the starter for next year.

[Kosar_For_President]

jparsh said:

I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined.

This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

jparsh said:

Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

jparsh said:

Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)

The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.

[jparsh]

@kosar_for_president said:

This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.

He went on to say a list of players that are safe. Haden, Thomas, Sheard(sp?) Taylor, Little, Cribs....

Our team sucked, so he was just putting people on notice for the most part. But he has stated in the past that the number one spot on the team is quarterback and he related super bowls to the QB position. Holmgren said that he'd change QB's every single year til he gets it right. Heckert drafted TJ in the second round and played well when not hurt, so that's not likely to be a spot in jeopardy. Basically he left the QB, right side of the line, one CB spot, one LB spot and WR position open.

With the first three picks you can address QB, WR and LB or DE. Then you have free agency and trades to address other issues. I predicted around week 10 that we'll have about 6 new starters by next year. QB, WR, DE, RT, CB, OLB. With all our available resources I can't see why this isn't completely feasible.

[jparsh]

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.

Jets look like they made a mistake on that one. But Mangini let them off easy. He got old players instead of draft picks. My one friend asks why we were able to win games last year and stay in many others while this year we looked horrible. That's easy to answer. Mangini filled the team with vets that would never win in the long run. Vets make less mistakes but have little future value. This year we're young and we have a bright future but those kids make mistakes and don't look that good at times.