Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Camp Trade Down

Camp Trade Down

The Browns Board
187 41 5.3k

  • Let's say we are opening to trading. You have SF and Chicago at 2 and 3 as QB needy teams. If a guy separates himself at QB that the browns don't believe in then they can try to pull something off. However the problem is, if a guy does separate himself fro. The pack, the Browns better just take him.

    Ruining threads since 1897.
  • Harry BuffaloH Harry Buffalo

    Let's say we are opening to trading. You have SF and Chicago at 2 and 3 as QB needy teams. If a guy separates himself at QB that the browns don't believe in then they can try to pull something off. However the problem is, if a guy does separate himself fro. The pack, the Browns better just take him.

    @harry-buffalo said:

    Let's say we are opening to trading. You have SF and Chicago at 2 and 3 as QB needy teams. If a guy separates himself at QB that the browns don't believe in then they can try to pull something off. However the problem is, if a guy does separate himself fro. The pack, the Browns better just take him.

    Agree completely. For my initial concept though, lets say that MT stays in school.

    The clamor to trade up to #1 to take a QB will always be much, much more than the clamor to trade up to take anyone else.

    Refresh my memory on the big trades that have been made recently: Didn't the Redskins give up like 3 first rounders to take RGknee? Look what the Eagles gave us to get Wentz. Any others?

    When was a blockbuster trade ever made to pick up a defensive end?

  • Sacrosanct? No... never say never, but my trade down price would be extra high this year... and I'm not even taking a QB as of now.

    Of course the other factor is how far down does the 1st rounder I get in return. There are as many impact players on the D-side in this draft as I can remember there ever being.

    But even the top tier of 15 or so have a pecking order, and I want to be sure I get at least one of the best of the best... and with a little luck I might even land two of them.

    "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'd be cool with at least trading down one spot so we still get Garrett or Allen. Past that, not sure. But I'd probably be fine with that too.

  • If we can get SF and Chicago in a bidding war for the QB @ #1 overall, good for us. We still get Garrett or Allen plus at least 1 relatively high extra player. And we can still use #12 (and maybe even #33) for more excellent D players in a very deep defensive class.

  • Just learned that Jack Conklin is a first team All-pro as a rookie. Wouldn't we all love to have an All Pro offensive tackle at the age of 22? Of course, we traded the pick (#8) away.

  • Have to say that I apparently missed Conklin, then. Seemed to me to be overrated coming out of MSU.

    That said... the #8 overall is pricey for a RT, but even that circumstance may be due to Lewan holding down LT that any shortcomings jack may have.

    "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

  • Trading down to 3 and still getting Allen plus another early 2nd round pick and a fourth would be ideal. Trading down any lower than that would piss me off

  • If we trade down to 15-22 and grab another medicore player i'll flip. take the best damn player available. It's not rocket science, maybe the browns are trying to overthink it.

    E 1 Reply

  • Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second.

    WSS

    www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons
    BrownsnMoparB The GipperT 2 Replies
  • W Westside Steve

    Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second.

    WSS

    How about #12 for Garoppalo their #1 #2 & 3 or 4 all their pucks will be late rounders! Definitely not #1 overall that is for ALLEN! ??

    GO BROWNS!!!

  • Give NE garett or allen for jimmy fucking garoppolo? First and foremost, negatory on giving belichick the #1 pick in the draft, oh fuck no. "Maybe" for brady a couple years ago. The league would despise us for that move. Second, garoppolo is not worth that price....not even close.

  • Allen is who I want. No an this year in the first round.

  • W Westside Steve

    Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second.

    WSS

    At best I would give a 3rd rounder for Garropolo. Colt McCoy and Charlie Frye were 3rd round picks....and I see him as nothing more than a Colt McCoy or Charlie Frye.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @cvcanedy said:

    If a team like Houston or something wanted to go after Trubisky I could see it, but I would never want to trade back that far for any reason

    Sure, the question is.....is there any player that someone would be desperate to trade up to #1 to take. Other than a QB...that is almost never done. And the Browns have a dire a need for a QB as anyone.

    But, lets say MT stays in school. Would teams be clamoring to make DeShaun Watson the #1 pick? SF? Jets, Bills, Bears?

    If MT is not in this draft....I am about 75% willing to consider a trade of #1.

    Who would salivate over one of the high ranked defenders?

    @the-gipper said:

    Sure, the question is.....is there any player that someone would be desperate to trade up to #1 to take. Other than a QB...that is almost never done. And the Browns have a dire a need for a QB as anyone.

    But, lets say MT stays in school. Would teams be clamoring to make DeShaun Watson the #1 pick? SF? Jets, Bills, Bears?

    If MT is not in this draft....I am about 75% willing to consider a trade of #1.

    Who would salivate over one of the high ranked defenders?

    I think one of the reasons why the Browns have had drafting issues is the trades made on draft day,or prior to the draft.

    It hasn't worked, period. I will say it until I'm blue in the face....the draft is designed to help the weaker teams get better, by drafting earlier than the better teams. Of course, you have to draft smart ( the major problem the Browns have had). Pittsburgh, Denver, New England, etc. draft in the 20s to 32, and never seem to have a problem reloading.

    You, as other fans know the dismal history.They had, for example, picks #4, 17, & 35 just two drafts ago and traded down....made the team worse IMHO with the JM pick alone.

    So, the FO made a bunch of deals last year. They are in a great position currently, with 5 of the first 65 picks. Trading away any of these 5 picks is the STUPIDEST thing they can do, they can get better in a hurry (by drafting smartly)....hopefully, the analytics did a proper analysis of the dismal trading history of this franchise starting with the stupid-ass flip flop of draft position with the Lions in 2004.

    Karlis Missed

  • At this point...no, I would not be in favor of the trade down. You know why.

    But, these Harvard boys could care less what an Akron U/Cleveland State grad has to say.

    They are smarter than the rest of us. Just ask them.

    So, if their analytics says trade down, they will do so.

    Someone mentioned that all they are doing is following an example of Bill Belichick. OK, sure...but BB lucked into his 15+ year franchise QB early on. The Browns haven't gotten that lucky, yet.

  • Just spitballing here: What if you Luddites are right and the Browns decide they do not want to go after the QB with #1.....but, suppose that they are aware that both the 49ers and the Bears both actually lust after the same QB.

    How about then we trade #1 overall to the Bears, getting back their #3...and their first pick in the second round, which would be like #36. That way the Bears can jump the Niners to get the QB they want. The Browns get #3 ....and one of the troglodytes you guys want would still be there (Allen/Garret).

    So,the Browns would have:

    #3

    #12

    #33

    #36

    #52

    #65

    What say you?

    (No, the one thing I did not do is to check this vs. the draft trade value chart...we can see what that says in a bit)

    BrownsnMoparB 1 Reply

  • Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after.

    WSS

    www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons
    The GipperT 1 Reply

  • On the above , after checking, I note that under the "Old" system #1 is 3000 pts. #3 is 2200 pts. #35 is 550 points (so in theory under that chart, getting back #35 is actually NOT sufficient compensation....falling 250 points short)

    However, under the Harvard Chart #1 is 494.6 pts. #3 is 401.3 pts, for a difference of 93.3 pts. The #35 pick is worth 171.4 pts. So there, getting back #35 is far too much compensation.

    Under that chart all it would take is for the Bears to give back their 4th round pick, which would be like #99 to adequately compensate us.

    What about that deal?

    Edit: actually the figures would be off a few points from these as the Bears have pick #36, not #35.

  • W Westside Steve

    Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after.

    WSS

    Perhaps....though it is more the case that the Bears would have to believe that the 49ers want the QB they want. But, of course you know that these teams do blow smoke up each others asses.

Log in to reply