This team is the culmination of years of camp trade down
-
For me, having a depleted team and trading down makes a lot of sense.
You have holes everywhere, trading down provides you more picks, more chances to fix holes, so you trade down.
A team is made by A, B, C, D level players. Your best shot is to try to have many Bs, As in key positions and Cs and Ds in less important places, or surrounded by As, so you minimize their negative impact.
The Browns, entering 2016 draft, were full of C and D players. If you trade down and get two B players instead of the A player that your trade partner is doing, it's good business. And remember that sometimes A level players are also found later in the draft. I prefer having 6 Bs and 5 Cs in a unit than 3 As, 5Cs and 3 Ds.
Now, that works when you have Cs and Ds, a depleted team, like I said in my first sentence.
Now, it's up for the FO to try to get A level players, as they should by now consider that they have a decent player core. They might use their draft picks, or even choose some of their 'tradedown' picks in order to trade up. Here is where lists enter to play. If they do a trade down in this draft I will be OK as long as they still can get their next player in the list (whoever it is) in the new draft position.
-
As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.
But there are key elements here: in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely. And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly. Justin Gilbert as just a start.
Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.
Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.
Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA
Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.
How any other examples do we see where this FO created the hole they are trying to fill just because the guy there was not "our guy"...or because he was a little older....or because a guy wanted a bit more money than you were apparently willing to pay?
Sorry.....but to a great extent this FO is just trying to play Whack a Mole....to fill holes that have cropped up due to their ridiculous policies.
-
As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.
But there are key elements here: in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely. And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly. Justin Gilbert as just a start.
Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.
Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.
Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA
Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.
How any other examples do we see where this FO created the hole they are trying to fill just because the guy there was not "our guy"...or because he was a little older....or because a guy wanted a bit more money than you were apparently willing to pay?
Sorry.....but to a great extent this FO is just trying to play Whack a Mole....to fill holes that have cropped up due to their ridiculous policies.
As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.
But there are key elements here: in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely. And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly. Justin Gilbert as just a start.
Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.
Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.
Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA
Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.
How any other examples do we see where this FO created the hole they are trying to fill just because the guy there was not "our guy"...or because he was a little older....or because a guy wanted a bit more money than you were apparently willing to pay?
Sorry.....but to a great extent this FO is just trying to play Whack a Mole....to fill holes that have cropped up due to their ridiculous policies.
Yes, the reason for the team to be depleted was the FO itself.
Only way I can explain this, though I don't comoletely agree with the approach, is to create a group that grew together and lost together, in order to add the FA pieces once the core of the group was settled.
Free Agents coming to losing teams like Browns many times don't contribute a bit, as they take it as an early retirement. It happens or has happened with many teams, rookies are eager to prove themselves and earn a big contract more than veteran players who probably have left their best game days behind.
It's a radical approach but has some sense. Winning teams wouldn't need to do it because they don't have many years of losing in their backs, so it makes sense that the Browns tried this approach.
-
As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.
But there are key elements here: in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely. And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly. Justin Gilbert as just a start.
Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.
Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.
Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA
Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.
How any other examples do we see where this FO created the hole they are trying to fill just because the guy there was not "our guy"...or because he was a little older....or because a guy wanted a bit more money than you were apparently willing to pay?
Sorry.....but to a great extent this FO is just trying to play Whack a Mole....to fill holes that have cropped up due to their ridiculous policies.
Yes, the reason for the team to be depleted was the FO itself.
Only way I can explain this, though I don't comoletely agree with the approach, is to create a group that grew together and lost together, in order to add the FA pieces once the core of the group was settled.
Free Agents coming to losing teams like Browns many times don't contribute a bit, as they take it as an early retirement. It happens or has happened with many teams, rookies are eager to prove themselves and earn a big contract more than veteran players who probably have left their best game days behind.
It's a radical approach but has some sense. Winning teams wouldn't need to do it because they don't have many years of losing in their backs, so it makes sense that the Browns tried this approach.
Yes, the reason for the team to be depleted was the FO itself.
Only way I can explain this, though I don't comoletely agree with the approach, is to create a group that grew together and lost together, in order to add the FA pieces once the core of the group was settled.
Free Agents coming to losing teams like Browns many times don't contribute a bit, as they take it as an early retirement. It happens or has happened with many teams, rookies are eager to prove themselves and earn a big contract more than veteran players who probably have left their best game days behind.
It's a radical approach but has some sense. Winning teams wouldn't need to do it because they don't have many years of losing in their backs, so it makes sense that the Browns tried this approach.
FO works hard to get it right.
-
So.... so long as a trade up doesn't cost us much, it's OK to miss.
And as long as a trade down works out, it's OK to trade down.
Probably why "those guys" are gone.
My point was trade ups are no more assured than trade downs.... and by inference nether is staying put.
I only "entertain" the idea of trading down when the bpa's are at positions we're flush at AND (most importantly) some team is willing to part with major capital. With a team so deficient at so many positions, staying put is the way to.
I know people will say trading down alot gives u future capital to trade up. But all we do with trade downs is draft mediocre talent like nassib and ogbah. I would think this teams track record at passing on immediately productive players by either just passing or passing as the result of a trade down, would be self explanatory
I know people will say trading down alot gives u future capital to trade up. But all we do with trade downs is draft mediocre talent like nassib and ogbah. I would think this teams track record at passing on immediately productive players by either just passing or passing as the result of a trade down, would be self explanatory
Nope..Tried to let it go.. but draft day in Browns football is National Sky is falling Day..but Lets just keep the facts straight..We sat at our pick, top of 2nd rd for #32 took Ogbah. To top of 3rd round #65 we sat & took Nassib..If ya want to 2nd guess? Ogbah....My draft thought was, up to #29 DT-Robert Nkemdiche. Could have also slid down to 34.Jaylon Smith-LB//36.Myles Jack-LB//or 39.Noah Spence...#65 Nassib..I got 1 bitch..DE Yannick Ngakoue went #69..
-
I know people will say trading down alot gives u future capital to trade up. But all we do with trade downs is draft mediocre talent like nassib and ogbah. I would think this teams track record at passing on immediately productive players by either just passing or passing as the result of a trade down, would be self explanatory
Nope..Tried to let it go.. but draft day in Browns football is National Sky is falling Day..but Lets just keep the facts straight..We sat at our pick, top of 2nd rd for #32 took Ogbah. To top of 3rd round #65 we sat & took Nassib..If ya want to 2nd guess? Ogbah....My draft thought was, up to #29 DT-Robert Nkemdiche. Could have also slid down to 34.Jaylon Smith-LB//36.Myles Jack-LB//or 39.Noah Spence...#65 Nassib..I got 1 bitch..DE Yannick Ngakoue went #69..
Nope..Tried to let it go.. but draft day in Browns football is National Sky is falling Day..but Lets just keep the facts straight..We sat at our pick, top of 2nd rd for #32 took Ogbah. To top of 3rd round #65 we sat & took Nassib..If ya want to 2nd guess? Ogbah....My draft thought was, up to #29 DT-Robert Nkemdiche. Could have also slid down to 34.Jaylon Smith-LB//36.Myles Jack-LB//or 39.Noah Spence...#65 Nassib..I got 1 bitch..DE Yannick Ngakoue went #69..
Oh the ogbah pick was our natural 2nd rounder. I thought his pick was from an extra that we got from some previous trade down or deal.
But in any case, if we sat with our natural pick in the 1st round and took bosa, ogbah wouldnt even have been remotely considered. Maybe nassib still who knows
-
Ha. I did a trade-down mock this morning on FanSpeak. I was hard to pull the trigger. It was my "what if Kizer looks the part enough to roll with him" trade-down scenario, which I'm still not crazy about. If done, it probably would be for future draft picks, not 2018 picks, but the simulator keeps the picks in-year.
Anywho:
-
For me, having a depleted team and trading down makes a lot of sense.
You have holes everywhere, trading down provides you more picks, more chances to fix holes, so you trade down.
A team is made by A, B, C, D level players. Your best shot is to try to have many Bs, As in key positions and Cs and Ds in less important places, or surrounded by As, so you minimize their negative impact.
The Browns, entering 2016 draft, were full of C and D players. If you trade down and get two B players instead of the A player that your trade partner is doing, it's good business. And remember that sometimes A level players are also found later in the draft. I prefer having 6 Bs and 5 Cs in a unit than 3 As, 5Cs and 3 Ds.
Now, that works when you have Cs and Ds, a depleted team, like I said in my first sentence.
Now, it's up for the FO to try to get A level players, as they should by now consider that they have a decent player core. They might use their draft picks, or even choose some of their 'tradedown' picks in order to trade up. Here is where lists enter to play. If they do a trade down in this draft I will be OK as long as they still can get their next player in the list (whoever it is) in the new draft position.
For me, having a depleted team and trading down makes a lot of sense.
You have holes everywhere, trading down provides you more picks, more chances to fix holes, so you trade down.
A team is made by A, B, C, D level players. Your best shot is to try to have many Bs, As in key positions and Cs and Ds in less important places, or surrounded by As, so you minimize their negative impact.
The Browns, entering 2016 draft, were full of C and D players. If you trade down and get two B players instead of the A player that your trade partner is doing, it's good business. And remember that sometimes A level players are also found later in the draft. I prefer having 6 Bs and 5 Cs in a unit than 3 As, 5Cs and 3 Ds.
Now, that works when you have Cs and Ds, a depleted team, like I said in my first sentence.
Now, it's up for the FO to try to get A level players, as they should by now consider that they have a decent player core. They might use their draft picks, or even choose some of their 'tradedown' picks in order to trade up. Here is where lists enter to play. If they do a trade down in this draft I will be OK as long as they still can get their next player in the list (whoever it is) in the new draft position.
Pretty sure that in 2017 we went the "A" route... to the tune of three 1st round, "A" prospects. As of Week 12 have they all proven to be A's? Debatable, but the jury is not, or at least should not be, in yet as all the evidence is not yet in.
But here's the thing... a good FO does not go into its draft process, i.e., setting its draft board, with trading up, down or staying put locked into their mindset. Any trade temptations are an outgrowth of the Board, due diligence conversations with 31 other FOs, and ultimately the phone calls exchanged just before and on Draft Day. It's all about player evaluation and valuation.
We are months away from assembling our big board in full. Our "A list"? I'm sure it's already taking some form... at least in individuals' minds. But identifying the later alternatives to the A listers is both more important and more difficult than ID'ing the A list prospects.
If you play FirstPick enough there will come a time when:
- it's your pick and there's not a player in the game's generated "Best Available" list whose value you like. That's when you trade down.
- a player you like a lot appears on the BA list, but looks to be "protected" by other prospects at the same position... then a run starts on that position and you start making trade-up offers.
- a prospect falls into your lap at a pick to which you'd never thought he'd fall and you cannot resist taking him, even though the positional need is low.
- two prospects you like are there, but for one there is an alternative you like a bit further down your board.
As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.
But there are key elements here: in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely. And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly. Justin Gilbert as just a start.
Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.
Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.
Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA
Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.
Barnidge... a piss-poor blocking TE... a one-season wonder... a guy who can't now get a job in the NFL... is now a "hole filler"? Correction... a "huge hole" filler?
And of course all we had to do to sign the others was overpay them.
Regardless of where you pick... your natural slot, after a trade up, after a trade down... it's nice to nail the pick. In large part, aside from the 2016 WR net they cast, I think we have... or at least this FO has... especially since they did not pick Gilbert, but managed to get something for him in a trade... an intradivisional trade to boot.
"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 -
For me, having a depleted team and trading down makes a lot of sense.
You have holes everywhere, trading down provides you more picks, more chances to fix holes, so you trade down.
A team is made by A, B, C, D level players. Your best shot is to try to have many Bs, As in key positions and Cs and Ds in less important places, or surrounded by As, so you minimize their negative impact.
The Browns, entering 2016 draft, were full of C and D players. If you trade down and get two B players instead of the A player that your trade partner is doing, it's good business. And remember that sometimes A level players are also found later in the draft. I prefer having 6 Bs and 5 Cs in a unit than 3 As, 5Cs and 3 Ds.
Now, that works when you have Cs and Ds, a depleted team, like I said in my first sentence.
Now, it's up for the FO to try to get A level players, as they should by now consider that they have a decent player core. They might use their draft picks, or even choose some of their 'tradedown' picks in order to trade up. Here is where lists enter to play. If they do a trade down in this draft I will be OK as long as they still can get their next player in the list (whoever it is) in the new draft position.
Pretty sure that in 2017 we went the "A" route... to the tune of three 1st round, "A" prospects. As of Week 12 have they all proven to be A's? Debatable, but the jury is not, or at least should not be, in yet as all the evidence is not yet in.
But here's the thing... a good FO does not go into its draft process, i.e., setting its draft board, with trading up, down or staying put locked into their mindset. Any trade temptations are an outgrowth of the Board, due diligence conversations with 31 other FOs, and ultimately the phone calls exchanged just before and on Draft Day. It's all about player evaluation and valuation.
We are months away from assembling our big board in full. Our "A list"? I'm sure it's already taking some form... at least in individuals' minds. But identifying the later alternatives to the A listers is both more important and more difficult than ID'ing the A list prospects.
If you play FirstPick enough there will come a time when:
- it's your pick and there's not a player in the game's generated "Best Available" list whose value you like. That's when you trade down.
- a player you like a lot appears on the BA list, but looks to be "protected" by other prospects at the same position... then a run starts on that position and you start making trade-up offers.
- a prospect falls into your lap at a pick to which you'd never thought he'd fall and you cannot resist taking him, even though the positional need is low.
- two prospects you like are there, but for one there is an alternative you like a bit further down your board.
As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.
But there are key elements here: in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely. And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly. Justin Gilbert as just a start.
Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.
Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.
Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA
Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.
Barnidge... a piss-poor blocking TE... a one-season wonder... a guy who can't now get a job in the NFL... is now a "hole filler"? Correction... a "huge hole" filler?
And of course all we had to do to sign the others was overpay them.
Regardless of where you pick... your natural slot, after a trade up, after a trade down... it's nice to nail the pick. In large part, aside from the 2016 WR net they cast, I think we have... or at least this FO has... especially since they did not pick Gilbert, but managed to get something for him in a trade... an intradivisional trade to boot.
blocking TE
Speaking of which, maybe Njoku is settling in (at the ripe old age of 21). Lots of posts and short-vids on his blocking in the last 2 days.
-
For me, having a depleted team and trading down makes a lot of sense.
You have holes everywhere, trading down provides you more picks, more chances to fix holes, so you trade down.
A team is made by A, B, C, D level players. Your best shot is to try to have many Bs, As in key positions and Cs and Ds in less important places, or surrounded by As, so you minimize their negative impact.
The Browns, entering 2016 draft, were full of C and D players. If you trade down and get two B players instead of the A player that your trade partner is doing, it's good business. And remember that sometimes A level players are also found later in the draft. I prefer having 6 Bs and 5 Cs in a unit than 3 As, 5Cs and 3 Ds.
Now, that works when you have Cs and Ds, a depleted team, like I said in my first sentence.
Now, it's up for the FO to try to get A level players, as they should by now consider that they have a decent player core. They might use their draft picks, or even choose some of their 'tradedown' picks in order to trade up. Here is where lists enter to play. If they do a trade down in this draft I will be OK as long as they still can get their next player in the list (whoever it is) in the new draft position.
Pretty sure that in 2017 we went the "A" route... to the tune of three 1st round, "A" prospects. As of Week 12 have they all proven to be A's? Debatable, but the jury is not, or at least should not be, in yet as all the evidence is not yet in.
But here's the thing... a good FO does not go into its draft process, i.e., setting its draft board, with trading up, down or staying put locked into their mindset. Any trade temptations are an outgrowth of the Board, due diligence conversations with 31 other FOs, and ultimately the phone calls exchanged just before and on Draft Day. It's all about player evaluation and valuation.
We are months away from assembling our big board in full. Our "A list"? I'm sure it's already taking some form... at least in individuals' minds. But identifying the later alternatives to the A listers is both more important and more difficult than ID'ing the A list prospects.
If you play FirstPick enough there will come a time when:
- it's your pick and there's not a player in the game's generated "Best Available" list whose value you like. That's when you trade down.
- a player you like a lot appears on the BA list, but looks to be "protected" by other prospects at the same position... then a run starts on that position and you start making trade-up offers.
- a prospect falls into your lap at a pick to which you'd never thought he'd fall and you cannot resist taking him, even though the positional need is low.
- two prospects you like are there, but for one there is an alternative you like a bit further down your board.
As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.
But there are key elements here: in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely. And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly. Justin Gilbert as just a start.
Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.
Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.
Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA
Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.
Barnidge... a piss-poor blocking TE... a one-season wonder... a guy who can't now get a job in the NFL... is now a "hole filler"? Correction... a "huge hole" filler?
And of course all we had to do to sign the others was overpay them.
Regardless of where you pick... your natural slot, after a trade up, after a trade down... it's nice to nail the pick. In large part, aside from the 2016 WR net they cast, I think we have... or at least this FO has... especially since they did not pick Gilbert, but managed to get something for him in a trade... an intradivisional trade to boot.
Barnidge... a piss-poor blocking TE... a one-season wonder... a guy who can't now get a job in the NFL... is now a "hole filler"? Correction... a "huge hole" filler?
But who may yet be still better than any TE we have.
And of course all we had to do to sign the others was overpay them.
Maybe, maybe not. We just had to pay them a bit more than someone else was offering. And its not like the Browns didn't have the cap space to pay a bit extra.
Regardless of where you pick... your natural slot, after a trade up, after a trade down... it's nice to nail the pick. In large part, aside from the 2016 WR net they cast, I think we have... or at least this FO has... especially since they did not pick Gilbert, but managed to get something for him in a trade... an intradivisional trade to boot.
Yes.....getting a draft pick right is always best....whether you trade up, trade down, or stay put. The Browns have faltered in all those instances.
-
Ha. I did a trade-down mock this morning on FanSpeak. I was hard to pull the trigger. It was my "what if Kizer looks the part enough to roll with him" trade-down scenario, which I'm still not crazy about. If done, it probably would be for future draft picks, not 2018 picks, but the simulator keeps the picks in-year.
Anywho:
Ha. I did a trade-down mock this morning on FanSpeak. I was hard to pull the trigger. It was my "what if Kizer looks the part enough to roll with him" trade-down scenario, which I'm still not crazy about. If done, it probably would be for future draft picks, not 2018 picks, but the simulator keeps the picks in-year.
Anywho:
You only got two 2nd rounder for dropping from 1 to 9?
Speaking of which, maybe Njoku is settling in (at the ripe old age of 21). Lots of posts and short-vids on his blocking in the last 2 days.
Good stuff! I didn't see any other videos on his timeline of Njoku though. Would be interested to see how he's been as a blocker.
-
war-the funny (not really) thing is I can see us taking McCarron and doing exactly that. Those are good picks IF they do what I think they will do IF McCarron wins his UFA case. Falk is a very good pick if there in Rd 4. and Tony Brown was considered the best overall player in Texas the year he went to Bama if I recall correctly. Serious speed there. I'd love to have Guice on the Browns--an immediate improvement in that position. Better than Barkley IMO.
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 💗
Register Login