Trade Rumors and Specualtion
-
Lol dude, they’re not taking Lamar Jackson. Obviously their #1 guy isn’t Darnold so they’re comfortable moving to 2. They’re picking a QB at 2, and it’s not going to be Lamar. It’s probanly going to be Baker Mayfield.
And check Dorsey’s history, he doesn’t fetch coffee for anyone. He literally wasn’t liked at Kansas City because he didn’t tell anyone who he was going to pick. He does what he wants, he gives no Shmucks
We don't know that- and it will take a hell of a lot more than what's rumored the Bills are currently offering to get it done.
-
Multiple Folks saying
#Bills#Giants#Browns working on 3 Team Trade... Browns would slide to 2nd, Bills would land 1st Overall & Giants would slide to 4th or 12th. Heard it from few people.... Browns would be monetizing taking Josh Allen... Remember, it's silly season...It will only happen if the Browns get screwed, its the way of the world .... I think its cowpoop by the way,
Remember, it's silly season...
No, actually it isn't. The 'Silly Season' is a term from Formula 1 racing. It starts in the latter part of the F1 schedule when drivers are being rumoured for various different rides (teams) for the following F1 season. We're nowhere near the Silly Season.
-
BillsMafia
..can we not post stuff like this right before bedtime? Mafia owes me a nights sleep..Thanks for putting this to rest..am going back to work to sleep 
-
Sometimes I think I missed my calling. If quoting your "manager" who is a part-time D1 ref who happens to ref a preseason Bills game counts as a reliable enough source to catch on, I have no doubt I could "report" as well.
-
Lol dude, they’re not taking Lamar Jackson. Obviously their #1 guy isn’t Darnold so they’re comfortable moving to 2. They’re picking a QB at 2, and it’s not going to be Lamar. It’s probanly going to be Baker Mayfield.
And check Dorsey’s history, he doesn’t fetch coffee for anyone. He literally wasn’t liked at Kansas City because he didn’t tell anyone who he was going to pick. He does what he wants, he gives no Shmucks
He is a coffee fetcher. He had to accept a 1 - 31 head coach and was told by the owner that he is not the HCs boss.
He is a coffee fetcher. He had to accept a 1 - 31 head coach and was told by the owner that he is not the HCs boss.
This is true.....but he still controls the draft.
-
Agree I don't see where this works out in the Browns favor will you get the number to you go down to 12 and 22 and the Shmuck was the number one next year Jesus Christ almightyAgree I don't see where this works out in the Browns favor will you get the number to you go down to 12 and 22 and the Shmuck was the number one next year Jesus Christ almighty
Ah................. they drafted Winslow, Manzeil, Quinn, Coleman, Willie Green, Two_Tackle-Texac and Crisco Hands Coleman......................WTF made sense in any of that?
Ah................. they drafted Winslow, Manzeil, Quinn, Coleman, Willie Green, Two_Tackle-Texac and Crisco Hands Coleman......................WTF made sense in any of that?
Those players basically were rated as being prospects worthy of the position the Browns drafted them. It made all the sense in the world to take them where they took them.....at the time.
Its just that they turned out busts.....along with a few others equally positioned that you did not mention.....Gilbert, Erving, Mingo, Weeden, Quinn etc. If they had not busted for us, they would have busted for the team that picked one pick behind where we took them.
-
-
-
As Hoorta said, looking at the charts we lose a lot of draft value on this trade.
The only way I see it happening is if we got any interesting Bills' players. And I can only think of Tre'Davious, and he's too young and too promising to be involved in a trade, I think.
As Hoorta said, looking at the charts we lose a lot of draft value on this trade.
The only way I see it happening is if we got any interesting Bills' players. And I can only think of Tre'Davious, and he's too young and too promising to be involved in a trade, I think.
I'm trying to figure this one out myself ...
The only scenario that makes sense for me is:
Cleveland moves from #1 and #4 to #2 and #12 and gets #51, 53 and 65 from Buffalo and a 2019 1st (valued as pick #33 this year). That would give Cleveland 8 of the first 65 picks (and their first in the 3rd round back that they gave up for Tyrod) ... and a 2019 1st round pick ... and the new trade-value chart says they give up 1,490 and get back 1,539
NYG give up #2 and get #4 and #22 .... which is giving up 717 in value for 743 back
Buffalo gives up #12, 22, 51, 53, 65 and a 2019 1st round pick to get the #1 pick, which is giving up 1,074 to get back 1,000
It actually, on paper, makes sense for all involved. But with that being said, does the Browns roster really need 2 1st round picks and 5 2nd round picks and the first 3rd round pick in the draft? Or do the Browns then turn around and use all of those 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st at least once, and still come away with a 1st in 2019.
Browns could trade #33, #51 and #65 to move up to #11
Browns could trade #35, #53 to move up to #19So in theory, Browns could convert #1, #4, #33, #35, #64 into #2, #11, #12, #19 and #65 and a 2019 1st
I don't follow the team as much as you guys obviously, but if this trade were to go down, I don't see the Browns sitting around with 6 picks between 33 and 65 and not moving back into the 1st at least once.
-
As Hoorta said, looking at the charts we lose a lot of draft value on this trade.
The only way I see it happening is if we got any interesting Bills' players. And I can only think of Tre'Davious, and he's too young and too promising to be involved in a trade, I think.
I'm trying to figure this one out myself ...
The only scenario that makes sense for me is:
Cleveland moves from #1 and #4 to #2 and #12 and gets #51, 53 and 65 from Buffalo and a 2019 1st (valued as pick #33 this year). That would give Cleveland 8 of the first 65 picks (and their first in the 3rd round back that they gave up for Tyrod) ... and a 2019 1st round pick ... and the new trade-value chart says they give up 1,490 and get back 1,539
NYG give up #2 and get #4 and #22 .... which is giving up 717 in value for 743 back
Buffalo gives up #12, 22, 51, 53, 65 and a 2019 1st round pick to get the #1 pick, which is giving up 1,074 to get back 1,000
It actually, on paper, makes sense for all involved. But with that being said, does the Browns roster really need 2 1st round picks and 5 2nd round picks and the first 3rd round pick in the draft? Or do the Browns then turn around and use all of those 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st at least once, and still come away with a 1st in 2019.
Browns could trade #33, #51 and #65 to move up to #11
Browns could trade #35, #53 to move up to #19So in theory, Browns could convert #1, #4, #33, #35, #64 into #2, #11, #12, #19 and #65 and a 2019 1st
I don't follow the team as much as you guys obviously, but if this trade were to go down, I don't see the Browns sitting around with 6 picks between 33 and 65 and not moving back into the 1st at least once.
I'm trying to figure this one out myself ...
The only scenario that makes sense for me is:
Cleveland moves from #1 and #4 to #2 and #12 and gets #51, 53 and 65 from Buffalo and a 2019 1st (valued as pick #33 this year). That would give Cleveland 8 of the first 65 picks (and their first in the 3rd round back that they gave up for Tyrod) ... and a 2019 1st round pick ... and the new trade-value chart says they give up 1,490 and get back 1,539
NYG give up #2 and get #4 and #22 .... which is giving up 717 in value for 743 back
Buffalo gives up #12, 22, 51, 53, 65 and a 2019 1st round pick to get the #1 pick, which is giving up 1,074 to get back 1,000
It actually, on paper, makes sense for all involved. But with that being said, does the Browns roster really need 2 1st round picks and 5 2nd round picks and the first 3rd round pick in the draft? Or do the Browns then turn around and use all of those 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st at least once, and still come away with a 1st in 2019.
Browns could trade #33, #51 and #65 to move up to #11
Browns could trade #35, #53 to move up to #19So in theory, Browns could convert #1, #4, #33, #35, #64 into #2, #11, #12, #19 and #65 and a 2019 1st
I don't follow the team as much as you guys obviously, but if this trade were to go down, I don't see the Browns sitting around with 6 picks between 33 and 65 and not moving back into the 1st at least once.
Well done. I can see where that is plausible. They would get a QB they want....likely...for as I said...to me all the QBs are about of equal ....unknown....value. A guy I may like as well may actually not go until round 2. Plus they could get a defender for sure either DB or DL...plus an OT.
I am willing to convert 5 draft picks into 4....and get two more first rounders who could hopefully fill our needs at a quality level.
-
As Hoorta said, looking at the charts we lose a lot of draft value on this trade.
The only way I see it happening is if we got any interesting Bills' players. And I can only think of Tre'Davious, and he's too young and too promising to be involved in a trade, I think.
I'm trying to figure this one out myself ...
The only scenario that makes sense for me is:
Cleveland moves from #1 and #4 to #2 and #12 and gets #51, 53 and 65 from Buffalo and a 2019 1st (valued as pick #33 this year). That would give Cleveland 8 of the first 65 picks (and their first in the 3rd round back that they gave up for Tyrod) ... and a 2019 1st round pick ... and the new trade-value chart says they give up 1,490 and get back 1,539
NYG give up #2 and get #4 and #22 .... which is giving up 717 in value for 743 back
Buffalo gives up #12, 22, 51, 53, 65 and a 2019 1st round pick to get the #1 pick, which is giving up 1,074 to get back 1,000
It actually, on paper, makes sense for all involved. But with that being said, does the Browns roster really need 2 1st round picks and 5 2nd round picks and the first 3rd round pick in the draft? Or do the Browns then turn around and use all of those 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st at least once, and still come away with a 1st in 2019.
Browns could trade #33, #51 and #65 to move up to #11
Browns could trade #35, #53 to move up to #19So in theory, Browns could convert #1, #4, #33, #35, #64 into #2, #11, #12, #19 and #65 and a 2019 1st
I don't follow the team as much as you guys obviously, but if this trade were to go down, I don't see the Browns sitting around with 6 picks between 33 and 65 and not moving back into the 1st at least once.
The only scenario that makes sense for me is:
That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".
I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.
"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 only scenario that makes sense for me is:
That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".
I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.
That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".
I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.
I'll help you out- since that was my math. Using the old draft value chart going #1 to #2. and moving #4 to #12. roughly equals 1,000. I'll posit losing the #4, getting #12 and a first round pick from the Bills in 2019 isn't nearly enough.
Even if the Bills offered us the #12, and both second rounders- don't think I'm interested. What would we do with five second round picks? I'm on a Quality kick this year Tour- heck with Quantity. We already have 5 in the first 64.
-
The only scenario that makes sense for me is:
That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".
I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.
That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".
I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.
It's apparently the new and accepted trade-value chart.
-
That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".
I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.
It's apparently the new and accepted trade-value chart.
It's apparently the new and accepted trade-value chart.
I see where you got that- but the results are still the same... The #12 and both the Bills second round picks don't get it done, not even close...
-
It's apparently the new and accepted trade-value chart.
I see where you got that- but the results are still the same... The #12 and both the Bills second round picks don't get it done, not even close...
I see where you got that- but the results are still the same... The #12 and both the Bills second round picks don't get it done, not even close...
#1 = 1,000
#4 = 490#2 = 717
#12 = 346
Swapping 1/4 for 2/12 is -427 n pick value, which is roughly equivalent to pick #7.But if you add up the values of #51, 53 and 65 ... you get 296 back ... so now you're -131 with the trade
I used the value for pick #33 to represent a 2019 1st round pick value for Buffalo ... which is worth 180 ... bringing the trade to a +49 value for Cleveland, which is the value of a mid-3rd rounder.
But I do understand the argument being made that breaking even or slightly winning isn't the goal, killing it should be. And the truth is that I would expect Cleveland to be able to get #12, 22 and #51 from Buffalo for pick #4 alone ... so if they were to trade #1 I would think it would be for #12, 22, 51 and probably next year's 1st ... but then you're not picking until #4 and you're getting the 4th QB in all likelihood. Hence why in this scenario, the Browns are swapping with the Giants so Cleveland has #2 to still get "their QB" presumably knowing that whoever Buffalo is going to #1 for is not "their" guy (or they wouldn't make the trade).
-
Nice maths there, James! Even though I'm against this kind of trade (I'm up for #4 in exchange of 12-22-65, though) I have to say that how could these trades work always intrigues me.
As others said, we seek quality not quantity in this draft, but this kind of stuff entertains us till Draft Day
-
Thanks for the chart... I'll add it to my collection.
Bottom line here is this depends upon us not being set on a top six position player and believing our guy falls to 12. If we're good with our guy at 12, then it's a win all the way around. But....
I just can't see the Giants trading out of #2 when they have a chance of getting their QB of the future.
"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 -
It's apparently the new and accepted trade-value chart.
I see where you got that- but the results are still the same... The #12 and both the Bills second round picks don't get it done, not even close...
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