Skip to content
The Browns Board
Theme
  • System
  • Light
  • Dark
  • Login
  • Register
  • Forums
  • Recent
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Donate
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Sashi Brown: "We Have Never Engaged In Trade Talks About Kirk Cousins"

Sashi Brown: "We Have Never Engaged In Trade Talks About Kirk Cousins"

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Browns Board
26 Posts 14 Posters 751 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • gumby73G gumby73

    MKC--ok. ok. Yes I Do you have Cousins on speed dial also πŸ˜›

    Canton Mike Canton MikeC
    • 4k Posts
    • 2k Reputation
    Canton MikeC Canton Mike wrote on last edited by
    #7

    @gumby73 said:

    MKC--ok. ok. Yes I Do you have Cousins on speed dial also πŸ˜›

    Yeah...ONEIL Cousins!!! LOL

    Mike

    INΒ DORSEY I TRUST
    1 Reply Last reply
    πŸ‘
    Quote Reply
    • W Westside Steve

      For some reason it's hard to put any stock whatsoever in anything that anybody in the front office says. Call me a cynic.

      ?

      WSS

      Tour2ma Tour2maT In Memoriam Dedicated Conversation Starter Reacting Well Posting Machine Collaborator First Post One Year In One Month Later Week One Done Very Popular
      • 30k Posts
      • 6k Reputation
      Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
      #8

      @westside-steve said:

      For some reason it's hard to put any stock whatsoever in anything that anybody in the front office says. Call me a cynic.

      After disparaging our FO, why would you expect us to be so nice?

      @gumby73 said:

      MKC--ok. ok. Yes I Do you have Cousins on speed dial also πŸ˜›

      Hay... apparently we called NE one last time on Day 2...

      "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
      1 Reply Last reply
      Quote Reply
      • nickers nickersN Conversation Starter Dedicated Posting Machine Collaborator First Post Reacting Well One Year In One Month Later Week One Done Very Popular
        • 14k Posts
        • 5k Reputation
        nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
        #9

        The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

        Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~
        T The GipperT LogicIsForSquaresL 3 Replies Last reply
        Quote Reply
        • nickersN nickers

          The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

          TexasAg1969 T Conversation Starter Dedicated Reacting Well Very Popular Posting Machine Collaborator First Post One Year In One Month Later Week One Done
          • 23k Posts
          • 6k Reputation
          T TexasAg1969 wrote on last edited by TexasAg1969
          #10

          @nickers said:

          The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

          Just more words to eat as he bombs in Chicago and the Browns build a defense to contend with. Chicago screwed the pooch in this draft. I think the Browns played a great smoke game and scared a lot of teams into taking QBs from a mediocre class too early and increasing their own options for great players in the process.

          The GipperT 1 Reply Last reply
          Quote Reply
          • nickersN nickers

            The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

            The Gipper The GipperT In Memoriam Very Popular
            • 57k Posts
            • 4k Reputation
            The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
            #11

            @nickers said:

            The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

            Water over the Bridge now. We gotta roll with what we got.

            1 Reply Last reply
            Quote Reply
            • T TexasAg1969

              @nickers said:

              The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

              Just more words to eat as he bombs in Chicago and the Browns build a defense to contend with. Chicago screwed the pooch in this draft. I think the Browns played a great smoke game and scared a lot of teams into taking QBs from a mediocre class too early and increasing their own options for great players in the process.

              The Gipper The GipperT In Memoriam Very Popular
              • 57k Posts
              • 4k Reputation
              The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
              #12

              @texasag1969 said:

              Just more words to eat as he bombs in Chicago and the Browns build a defense to contend with. Chicago screwed the pooch in this draft. I think the Browns played a great smoke game and scared a lot of teams into taking QBs from a mediocre class too early and increasing their own options for great players in the process.

              No, getting both of them would have been the ideal scenario. Bears got a guy to compete with Aaron Rodgers in that division. (or..to take over from his as the supreme QB there.) Bears made big move to get him. Browns would have made a big move to do so just a bit further down, but were trumped by the Bears.

              T 1 Reply Last reply
              Quote Reply
              • The GipperT The Gipper

                @texasag1969 said:

                Just more words to eat as he bombs in Chicago and the Browns build a defense to contend with. Chicago screwed the pooch in this draft. I think the Browns played a great smoke game and scared a lot of teams into taking QBs from a mediocre class too early and increasing their own options for great players in the process.

                No, getting both of them would have been the ideal scenario. Bears got a guy to compete with Aaron Rodgers in that division. (or..to take over from his as the supreme QB there.) Bears made big move to get him. Browns would have made a big move to do so just a bit further down, but were trumped by the Bears.

                TexasAg1969 T Conversation Starter Dedicated Reacting Well Very Popular Posting Machine Collaborator First Post One Year In One Month Later Week One Done
                • 23k Posts
                • 6k Reputation
                T TexasAg1969 wrote on last edited by TexasAg1969
                #13

                @the-gipper said:

                No, getting both of them would have been the ideal scenario. Bears got a guy to compete with Aaron Rodgers in that division. (or..to take over from his as the supreme QB there.) Bears made big move to get him. Browns would have made a big move to do so just a bit further down, but were trumped by the Bears.

                Chicago would have taken him for nothing @ #3, so Browns had no move "a bit further down".

                Here is the real question. Had Kizer come out after the 2015 season would he have gone a lot higher than 2nd round?

                The GipperT Tour2maT 2 Replies Last reply
                πŸ‘
                Quote Reply
                • T TexasAg1969

                  @the-gipper said:

                  No, getting both of them would have been the ideal scenario. Bears got a guy to compete with Aaron Rodgers in that division. (or..to take over from his as the supreme QB there.) Bears made big move to get him. Browns would have made a big move to do so just a bit further down, but were trumped by the Bears.

                  Chicago would have taken him for nothing @ #3, so Browns had no move "a bit further down".

                  Here is the real question. Had Kizer come out after the 2015 season would he have gone a lot higher than 2nd round?

                  The Gipper The GipperT In Memoriam Very Popular
                  • 57k Posts
                  • 4k Reputation
                  The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
                  #14

                  @texasag1969 said:

                  Chicago would have taken him for nothing @ #3, so Browns had no move "a bit further down".

                  Right.....but the Browns could have had a move UP to the Niners. That is what the Bears wanted to avoid...ergo their offer.

                  Now, maybe Niners would not have taken a chance on losing Thomas...or maybe they would have taken such a chance if the Browns offer were sweet enough, but Browns apparently did not want to get completely raked...and thus declined what the Niners may have been asking for.

                  We all don't know what was going on in the backrooms. There was clearly some wheeling and dealing....as the pick took right up to the last moment to be made....and the Bears didn't even call MT to let them know they were taking him. He heard it from the podium. It was probably that close of a deal.

                  Here is the real question. Had Kizer come out after the 2015 season would he have gone a lot higher than 2nd round?

                  Its not a real question at all. It didn't happen so the question is completely moot.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  Quote Reply
                  • jiggins7919 jiggins7919J Conversation Starter Dedicated Very Popular Reacting Well Posting Machine Collaborator First Post One Year In One Month Later Week One Done
                    • 5k Posts
                    • 1k Reputation
                    jiggins7919J jiggins7919 wrote on last edited by
                    #15

                    It just goes to show you that the NFL writers literally don't know anything. Reporters can say anything they want and then claim "unnamed sources" or "a person involved with the team" or some crap, and then say, "I would never reveal my sources!" It's crap.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    Quote Reply
                    • nickersN nickers

                      The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

                      LogicIsForSquares LogicIsForSquaresL Dedicated Reacting Well Conversation Starter Very Popular Posting Machine Collaborator First Post One Year In One Month Later Week One Done
                      • 10k Posts
                      • 2k Reputation
                      LogicIsForSquaresL LogicIsForSquares wrote on last edited by
                      #16

                      @nickers said:

                      The Browns could've saved them selves the trouble and just drafted Trubisky.. As usual.. they outsmart themselves..

                      Ghoolie will give you a firm pat on the head for that one. You might even get to sleep at the foot of the bed.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      Quote Reply
                      • T TexasAg1969

                        @the-gipper said:

                        No, getting both of them would have been the ideal scenario. Bears got a guy to compete with Aaron Rodgers in that division. (or..to take over from his as the supreme QB there.) Bears made big move to get him. Browns would have made a big move to do so just a bit further down, but were trumped by the Bears.

                        Chicago would have taken him for nothing @ #3, so Browns had no move "a bit further down".

                        Here is the real question. Had Kizer come out after the 2015 season would he have gone a lot higher than 2nd round?

                        Tour2ma Tour2maT In Memoriam Dedicated Conversation Starter Reacting Well Posting Machine Collaborator First Post One Year In One Month Later Week One Done Very Popular
                        • 30k Posts
                        • 6k Reputation
                        Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
                        #17

                        @texasag1969 said:

                        Here is the real question. Had Kizer come out after the 2015 season would he have gone a lot higher than 2nd round?

                        No... ya know why?

                        Because...

                        Wait for it....

                        ... he would've only had 13 starts...

                        lmao... sometimes I just kill myself...

                        "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
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        πŸ‘
                        Quote Reply
                        • The Gipper The GipperT In Memoriam Very Popular
                          • 57k Posts
                          • 4k Reputation
                          The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
                          #18

                          4799636-352-k486705.jpg

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          Quote Reply
                          • The Gipper The GipperT In Memoriam Very Popular
                            • 57k Posts
                            • 4k Reputation
                            The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
                            #19

                            yo-mamma-joke.jpg

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            Quote Reply
                            • RoyceRolls R
                              • 1k Posts
                              • 345 Reputation
                              R RoyceRolls wrote on last edited by
                              #20

                              I think the whole "trade up for Trubisky" was just smoke the whole time. If they thought he was worth an early 1st plus extra picks, they would've taken him at 1. If Trubisky was there at 52, they would've taken him there.

                              The GipperT 1 Reply Last reply
                              Quote Reply
                              • R RoyceRolls

                                I think the whole "trade up for Trubisky" was just smoke the whole time. If they thought he was worth an early 1st plus extra picks, they would've taken him at 1. If Trubisky was there at 52, they would've taken him there.

                                The Gipper The GipperT In Memoriam Very Popular
                                • 57k Posts
                                • 4k Reputation
                                The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
                                #21

                                @roycerolls said:

                                I think the whole "trade up for Trubisky" was just smoke the whole time. If they thought he was worth an early 1st plus extra picks, they would've taken him at 1. If Trubisky was there at 52, they would've taken him there.

                                Not necessarily. I do believe they settled on Garrett at #1 and did not want to miss out on taking him. But I also think if it were possible they would have if they could have moved up to #2 to take MT. But clearly the Browns may have been in a bidding match with the Bears for him....and the Bears had something the Browns could not give: the #3 pick. The Niners did NOT want to lose out on Solomon Thomas...assuming Garrett was gone, and they would have lost out on him by trading with the Browns. Only an incredible haul of draft picks would have likely gotten them to drop from #2 to #12 and the likelihood of losing Thomas....a price the Browns did not want to pay.

                                Bottom line though is this: those of you who pooh poohed my belief that MT was perceived as a franchise type player can go suck it. Clearly a few teams saw that potential as well.....enough for one of them to give away some substantial assets to move up one slot.

                                TopDawg31T Tour2maT 2 Replies Last reply
                                Quote Reply
                                • RoyceRolls R
                                  • 1k Posts
                                  • 345 Reputation
                                  R RoyceRolls wrote on last edited by
                                  #22

                                  Let's thank god it wasn't the Browns that made that mistake

                                  The GipperT 1 Reply Last reply
                                  Quote Reply
                                  • R RoyceRolls

                                    Let's thank god it wasn't the Browns that made that mistake

                                    The Gipper The GipperT In Memoriam Very Popular
                                    • 57k Posts
                                    • 4k Reputation
                                    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
                                    #23

                                    @roycerolls said:

                                    Let's thank god it wasn't the Browns that made that mistake

                                    Of course, we won't know if it is a mistake for some time. Even a great QB can't save a bad team. I for one DO believe that Andrew Luck can be a great QB, but, even he can't save the bad team around him. Bad defense, bad OL....limited weapons.

                                    It won't help MT if the Bears are of the same mold. And right now I think they are of the same mold.

                                    R 1 Reply Last reply
                                    Quote Reply
                                    • The GipperT The Gipper

                                      @roycerolls said:

                                      I think the whole "trade up for Trubisky" was just smoke the whole time. If they thought he was worth an early 1st plus extra picks, they would've taken him at 1. If Trubisky was there at 52, they would've taken him there.

                                      Not necessarily. I do believe they settled on Garrett at #1 and did not want to miss out on taking him. But I also think if it were possible they would have if they could have moved up to #2 to take MT. But clearly the Browns may have been in a bidding match with the Bears for him....and the Bears had something the Browns could not give: the #3 pick. The Niners did NOT want to lose out on Solomon Thomas...assuming Garrett was gone, and they would have lost out on him by trading with the Browns. Only an incredible haul of draft picks would have likely gotten them to drop from #2 to #12 and the likelihood of losing Thomas....a price the Browns did not want to pay.

                                      Bottom line though is this: those of you who pooh poohed my belief that MT was perceived as a franchise type player can go suck it. Clearly a few teams saw that potential as well.....enough for one of them to give away some substantial assets to move up one slot.

                                      TopDawg31 TopDawg31T Very Popular
                                      • 2k Posts
                                      • 167 Reputation
                                      TopDawg31T TopDawg31 wrote on last edited by
                                      #24

                                      @the-gipper said:

                                      Not necessarily. I do believe they settled on Garrett at #1 and did not want to miss out on taking him. But I also think if it were possible they would have if they could have moved up to #2 to take MT. But clearly the Browns may have been in a bidding match with the Bears for him....and the Bears had something the Browns could not give: the #3 pick. The Niners did NOT want to lose out on Solomon Thomas...assuming Garrett was gone, and they would have lost out on him by trading with the Browns. Only an incredible haul of draft picks would have likely gotten them to drop from #2 to #12 and the likelihood of losing Thomas....a price the Browns did not want to pay.

                                      Bottom line though is this: those of you who pooh poohed my belief that MT was perceived as a franchise type player can go suck it. Clearly a few teams saw that potential as well.....enough for one of them to give away some substantial assets to move up one slot.

                                      I was right there with you, I expect that in the near future we will be having the conversation that we had the chance to take him at 1 and we blew it. For all of us in Mentor we won't have to drive far to see him get his gold jacket. Watching him grow up, his talents always seemed as if he was 3 years older than the rest around him. I expect that will continue at the NFL level. I now have to hope that Kizer is just as good and missing on MT won't sting as much.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      Quote Reply
                                      • The GipperT The Gipper

                                        @roycerolls said:

                                        I think the whole "trade up for Trubisky" was just smoke the whole time. If they thought he was worth an early 1st plus extra picks, they would've taken him at 1. If Trubisky was there at 52, they would've taken him there.

                                        Not necessarily. I do believe they settled on Garrett at #1 and did not want to miss out on taking him. But I also think if it were possible they would have if they could have moved up to #2 to take MT. But clearly the Browns may have been in a bidding match with the Bears for him....and the Bears had something the Browns could not give: the #3 pick. The Niners did NOT want to lose out on Solomon Thomas...assuming Garrett was gone, and they would have lost out on him by trading with the Browns. Only an incredible haul of draft picks would have likely gotten them to drop from #2 to #12 and the likelihood of losing Thomas....a price the Browns did not want to pay.

                                        Bottom line though is this: those of you who pooh poohed my belief that MT was perceived as a franchise type player can go suck it. Clearly a few teams saw that potential as well.....enough for one of them to give away some substantial assets to move up one slot.

                                        Tour2ma Tour2maT In Memoriam Dedicated Conversation Starter Reacting Well Posting Machine Collaborator First Post One Year In One Month Later Week One Done Very Popular
                                        • 30k Posts
                                        • 6k Reputation
                                        Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by Tour2ma
                                        #25

                                        @the-gipper said:

                                        Bottom line though is this: those of you who pooh poohed my belief that MT was perceived as a franchise type player can go suck it. Clearly a few teams saw that potential as well.....enough for one of them to give away some substantial assets to move up one slot.

                                        Such a grand display of self-serving illogic and supposition must be saluted...

                                        "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
                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        Quote Reply
                                        • The GipperT The Gipper

                                          @roycerolls said:

                                          Let's thank god it wasn't the Browns that made that mistake

                                          Of course, we won't know if it is a mistake for some time. Even a great QB can't save a bad team. I for one DO believe that Andrew Luck can be a great QB, but, even he can't save the bad team around him. Bad defense, bad OL....limited weapons.

                                          It won't help MT if the Bears are of the same mold. And right now I think they are of the same mold.

                                          RoyceRolls R
                                          • 1k Posts
                                          • 345 Reputation
                                          R RoyceRolls wrote on last edited by
                                          #26

                                          @the-gipper said:

                                          Of course, we won't know if it is a mistake for some time. Even a great QB can't save a bad team. I for one DO believe that Andrew Luck can be a great QB, but, even he can't save the bad team around him. Bad defense, bad OL....limited weapons.

                                          It won't help MT if the Bears are of the same mold. And right now I think they are of the same mold.

                                          agreed: the Bears are a shit roster that lost their best receiver in the offseason. Mitch has a long row to hoe, which is why I'm in favor of how the Browns went about it. The Bears panicked and surrendered a lot of assets that could've been used to help build the team around their rookie QB. The Browns were patient and picked a high upside guy at a great value and still added a lot of talent to the roster.

                                          My prediction: the Bears will be drafting ahead of the Browns in 2018.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          πŸ‘
                                          Quote Reply

                                          Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                                          Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                                          With your input, this post could be even better πŸ’—

                                          Register Login
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          Theme
                                          • System
                                          • Light
                                          • Dark
                                          The Browns Board Terms Privacy

                                          The Browns Board is an independent fan community. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the Cleveland Browns, Cleveland Cavaliers, Cleveland Guardians, the NFL, NBA, MLB, or any of their affiliates. Team names, logos, and other marks are the property of their respective owners.

                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Forums
                                          • Recent
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Donate