Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. 2016 #1 DRAFT PICK ?

2016 #1 DRAFT PICK ?

The Browns Board
25 18 896

  • At 4 they would still get a impact player that is if farmer is fired if farmer is here he prob will trade the pick for bowes cousin or something.

  • I don't like drafting for need, QB aside. The whole thing is a crapshoot so if you're taking someone in a position of need and he sucks, the need doesn't go away. Then there's injuries etc in other positions you supposedly don't need, Take your top talent on the board every time.

  • Way too early for draft debates.... but....

    "The list" is not a rigid, in-this-order thing. They're groups of objectively similarly talented prospects. It's OK to order a given group based upon need.

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196

  • I agree London which is why Cam was picked way too high last year.

    Loyaultie me Lie. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor!

  • If you're drafting top 5, you have so many holes that you should just add good football players, so BPA.

    If you're already stacked like the bengals/panthers, you don't have needs, so you should just add good football players.

    If you believe you're one guy away, then maybe you can draft for need. But there aren't too many teams in that position.

  • Tour2maT Tour2ma

    But is the Best Player at every position "elite"?

    @tour2ma said:

    But is the Best Player at every position "elite"?

    Who knows? Generally in any given year, you only have a few elite players.

    If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

  • Jaylon Smith, OLB.

    I hate draft talk, but we need a LB who can make a difference. Get this guy.

    No O- linemen until round 4 or 5.

    Karlis Missed

  • we have to start looking at drafting BPA's and signing FA's for need. It just so happens that this year a lot of the BPA's are defensive players which is also our most pressing need. I don't know anymore who we go with since Bosa has kind of made it clear he thinks Cleveland is a shithole. I don't want a player on the team that thinks Cleveland is Shiite. He's gonna be just another dick collecting a check from jimmy. On the other hand, lets be honest...probably all of them to some extent feel that way about Cleveland. Sucks cause I do like the city. But young cunts want that south beach atmosphere to play in. So there's an argument to just take Bosa, let him play up for his 2nd contract and if he's really that miserable ship him off.

  • It's a good question, and the short answer is "no", I don't think it matters. In fact, I could argue that NOT having the #1 pick is actually somewhat better in some cases. Not as much pressure, and no need to jam a square peg in a round hole. Of course, it always depends on WHO is available in the draft, and if someone like Winston is available, then you take a guy like that instantly. This draft, however, has NOTHING like that. There is no Clowney, no Winston, or no Luck.

    Bosa fits a pretty big need, but I'm not so sure he's the best all around fit for us. Doesn't he prefer to play with a hand in the dirt? Isn't he more of a 4-3 DE? I'm sure he could LEARN to be an OLB, but the last thing we need is some kind of project. If we can't trade down a bit, I say we take Laquon Treadwill.

    T 1 Reply

  • Treadwell is a reach and a half at #1, and drafting for need. Unfortunately, there's nobody at the top that fills a position of need for us. Bosa is close, as is ramsay and maybe hargreaves, but are they worthy of a #1 pick (in our system)?

  • jiggins7919J jiggins7919

    It's a good question, and the short answer is "no", I don't think it matters. In fact, I could argue that NOT having the #1 pick is actually somewhat better in some cases. Not as much pressure, and no need to jam a square peg in a round hole. Of course, it always depends on WHO is available in the draft, and if someone like Winston is available, then you take a guy like that instantly. This draft, however, has NOTHING like that. There is no Clowney, no Winston, or no Luck.

    Bosa fits a pretty big need, but I'm not so sure he's the best all around fit for us. Doesn't he prefer to play with a hand in the dirt? Isn't he more of a 4-3 DE? I'm sure he could LEARN to be an OLB, but the last thing we need is some kind of project. If we can't trade down a bit, I say we take Laquon Treadwill.

    @jiggins7919 said:

    It's a good question, and the short answer is "no", I don't think it matters. In fact, I could argue that NOT having the #1 pick is actually somewhat better in some cases. Not as much pressure, and no need to jam a square peg in a round hole. Of course, it always depends on WHO is available in the draft, and if someone like Winston is available, then you take a guy like that instantly. This draft, however, has NOTHING like that. There is no Clowney, no Winston, or no Luck.

    Bosa fits a pretty big need, but I'm not so sure he's the best all around fit for us. Doesn't he prefer to play with a hand in the dirt? Isn't he more of a 4-3 DE? I'm sure he could LEARN to be an OLB, but the last thing we need is some kind of project. If we can't trade down a bit, I say we take Laquon Treadwill.

    I'd love to get Treadwell in a trade down. I'd also like to get Elliot or Henry in a similar fashion. But then how do we fill our defensive needs? So many holes so few high draft choices.

  • I agree that we can probably do as well(this year) with the #3 as we would with the #1....cause there is no monster talent just sitting there as the obvious guy.....

    Though....in a trade down situation.....#1 will get you more......

    Personally.....Id like to trade down from #1 to bout #4-5....and still get another pick......

  • Trouble is, who's going to trade up? Who has the 'ammunition' to trade up to #1? From #6, say, it'll cost probably another first rounder, and which team will give that up for Laremy Tunsil? From #3 to #6, we can probably get a high second rounder this year, which is basically another first round pick.

  • gftChrisG gftChris

    Trouble is, who's going to trade up? Who has the 'ammunition' to trade up to #1? From #6, say, it'll cost probably another first rounder, and which team will give that up for Laremy Tunsil? From #3 to #6, we can probably get a high second rounder this year, which is basically another first round pick.

    @gftchris said:

    Trouble is, who's going to trade up? Who has the 'ammunition' to trade up to #1? From #6, say, it'll cost probably another first rounder, and which team will give that up for Laremy Tunsil? From #3 to #6, we can probably get a high second rounder this year, which is basically another first round pick.

    Yeah....I dont know....

    But, Im guessing the media will build up a few guys to "god status" by draft time and someone will want one of em.....maybe Bosa? or whatever QB becomes all the rage?..

    Then we gotta just hope that some GM is dumb enough to mortgage it all.....they do it all the time.....names like RGIII, Watkins, Richardson and Williams have all drawn some pretty ridiculous prices from desperate teams....

    So.....fingers crossed that Farmer(or whomever) can make lemonade in a questionable draft year....

Log in to reply