Skip to content
The Browns Board
  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"

The Browns Board
26 14 751
  • 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?

    @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.

  • 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.

  • nickersN nickers

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

    @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.

  • 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?

    @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
    👍

  • 4799636-352-k486705.jpg

  • yo-mamma-joke.jpg

  • 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.

  • 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.

    @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

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

  • R RoyceRolls

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

    @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
  • 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.

    @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.

  • 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.

    @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
  • 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.

    @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.

    👍
Log in to reply