Trade Rumors and Specualtion
-
-
-
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...
-
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.
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.
Think I heard on a podcast that Gettleman has never traded down from his position in the first round as well
-
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.
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.
Well....maybe the guy they want at #12 would be Ward, or Josh Jackson or Guice or somebody.
-
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.
Well....maybe the guy they want at #12 would be Ward, or Josh Jackson or Guice or somebody.
Well....maybe the guy they want at #12 would be Ward, or Josh Jackson or Guice or somebody.
I don’t see the Browns drafting Ward, he doesn’t have the takeaway ability that Greg Williams craves or at least hasn’t shown it yet.
Josh Jackson on the other hand sure does.
-
Zombo said:
Sorry had to change the thread title ....
Zombo
So where is the evidence it’s a wacky trade that’s not likely to go down?
-
Zombo said:
Sorry had to change the thread title ....
Zombo
So where is the evidence it’s a wacky trade that’s not likely to go down?
So where is the evidence it’s a wacky trade that’s not likely to go down?
Logic and reason. I mean I give it high marks for creativity but of the 3 teams in this trade, its the Browns that come out on the short end. I would rather have my choice of QB and one of the top players in the draft then #2 and #12 plus some phantom other stuff.
-
I am looking forward to lauging at how Hue fuhks up yet another draft.
The Cleveland Browns have the hardest hit players in the NFL
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