Likely trade down?
-
i understand the concept of trading down to get more picks but sooner or later don't you think you have to step up to the plate and pull the trigger on a blue-chip prospect?
i understand the concept of trading down to get more picks but sooner or later don't you think you have to step up to the plate and pull the trigger on a blue-chip prospect?
I agree with you but at the same time, the mid first round has less hype than the top. There are frequently misses at the top and those involve much more financial risk. The drop off in talent is minimal IMO.
-
What I would love to see happen is for the Browns to trade down in the first round and still grab someone like an Earl Thomas and then have the stones to trade back up into the late first or early, early second and grab Golden Tate. That is a pipe dream of course, but that would be a haul for the first two picks and we probably wouldn't lose too much in the way of our original 12 picks.
-
What I would love to see happen is for the Browns to trade down in the first round and still grab someone like an Earl Thomas and then have the stones to trade back up into the late first or early, early second and grab Golden Tate. That is a pipe dream of course, but that would be a haul for the first two picks and we probably wouldn't lose too much in the way of our original 12 picks.
What I would love to see happen is for the Browns to trade down in the first round and still grab someone like an Earl Thomas and then have the stones to trade back up into the late first or early, early second and grab Golden Tate. That is a pipe dream of course, but that would be a haul for the first two picks and we probably wouldn't lose too much in the way of our original 12 picks.
It is hard to say if we will look to trade down out of #7, but with all the picks we have, I would fully anticipate seeing us trade up....maybe back up in the first round or up to gain another 2nd rounder.
We have a lot of flexibility to move some of our picks for better selections or players.
Our 2nd and one of the 3rd's as an example would be enough to get back in to the mid 20's of the first round. Another 3rd and a 4th would get us back in the the same range of the 2nd round.
I don't think it is out of the realm to think we could end up with 3 picks in the top 70. Trade down out of #7 and we could possibly end up with 5 of the top 70 players.
When I look at that, 5 of 70 sounds pretty good to me.
-
i understand the concept of trading down to get more picks but sooner or later don't you think you have to step up to the plate and pull the trigger on a blue-chip prospect?
i understand the concept of trading down to get more picks but sooner or later don't you think you have to step up to the plate and pull the trigger on a blue-chip prospect?
My belief is that this team build itself up the way our closest rival did it (yes, I mean the Steelers).
They built up a monster defense, and a monster running game, and a monster offensive line, and got some good receivers. Then and only then did they fill in final piece of the jigsaw puzzle: a reasonably competent Quarterback.
This is what the Browns should do. Draft their QB in the next year or two. For now, build up the rest of the team. Let Delhomme be the caretaker QB he was brought in to be until we are in a super solid enough position to have an investment in a QB worthwhile.
-
In many ways I agree Gipper....in some not...there is a fine balance between draft position and being able to land the qb you want.
If you aren't in the top 15 picks, it's almost impossible to land that franchise guy....the type of guy everybody labels as such....you are just too far back to land the guy unless you are going to give away a few years worth of 1st rounders and more.
The ideal is you get lucky with a lower pick, but that doesn't happen very often.
I am not saying we should do this, but if the powers that be deem Bradford as the guy, we are in range to move all the way to the top and maybe not have to give any future picks.
Next year, one would assume we will improve....my guess is about 10-12 draft slots...if we are sitting at 17 or so, it becomes much harder to make a deal for the guy you want.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
In many ways I agree Gipper....in some not...there is a fine balance between draft position and being able to land the qb you want.
If you aren't in the top 15 picks, it's almost impossible to land that franchise guy....the type of guy everybody labels as such....you are just too far back to land the guy unless you are going to give away a few years worth of 1st rounders and more.
The ideal is you get lucky with a lower pick, but that doesn't happen very often.
I am not saying we should do this, but if the powers that be deem Bradford as the guy, we are in range to move all the way to the top and maybe not have to give any future picks.
Next year, one would assume we will improve....my guess is about 10-12 draft slots...if we are sitting at 17 or so, it becomes much harder to make a deal for the guy you want.
In many ways I agree Gipper....in some not...there is a fine balance between draft position and being able to land the qb you want.
If you aren't in the top 15 picks, it's almost impossible to land that franchise guy....the type of guy everybody labels as such....you are just too far back to land the guy unless you are going to give away a few years worth of 1st rounders and more.
The ideal is you get lucky with a lower pick, but that doesn't happen very often.
Hell it rarely happens with a high one.
WSS
-
i understand the concept of trading down to get more picks but sooner or later don't you think you have to step up to the plate and pull the trigger on a blue-chip prospect?
My belief is that this team build itself up the way our closest rival did it (yes, I mean the Steelers).
They built up a monster defense, and a monster running game, and a monster offensive line, and got some good receivers. Then and only then did they fill in final piece of the jigsaw puzzle: a reasonably competent Quarterback.
This is what the Browns should do. Draft their QB in the next year or two. For now, build up the rest of the team. Let Delhomme be the caretaker QB he was brought in to be until we are in a super solid enough position to have an investment in a QB worthwhile.
My belief is that this team build itself up the way our closest rival did it (yes, I mean the Steelers).
They built up a monster defense, and a monster running game, and a monster offensive line, and got some good receivers. Then and only then did they fill in final piece of the jigsaw puzzle: a reasonably competent Quarterback.
This is what the Browns should do. Draft their QB in the next year or two. For now, build up the rest of the team. Let Delhomme be the caretaker QB he was brought in to be until we are in a super solid enough position to have an investment in a QB worthwhile
.hey i agree 100%, BUT if building up the defense means taking haden or berry at pick #7 why not do it? we haven't had a smack-you-in-the-mouth safety since turner. someone that puts fear in the receivers' hearts. build the defense get more help on the O line, AND if you can get a guy like lefevour pike or even tebow (for all you tebow fans) in the 3rd round, why not? i'm not a draft guru by any means and there are risks all over the place but if the fall off in talent is that much from prospect one to prospect two: use the pick.
-
In many ways I agree Gipper....in some not...there is a fine balance between draft position and being able to land the qb you want.
If you aren't in the top 15 picks, it's almost impossible to land that franchise guy....the type of guy everybody labels as such....you are just too far back to land the guy unless you are going to give away a few years worth of 1st rounders and more.
The ideal is you get lucky with a lower pick, but that doesn't happen very often.
I am not saying we should do this, but if the powers that be deem Bradford as the guy, we are in range to move all the way to the top and maybe not have to give any future picks.
Next year, one would assume we will improve....my guess is about 10-12 draft slots...if we are sitting at 17 or so, it becomes much harder to make a deal for the guy you want.
In many ways I agree Gipper....in some not...there is a fine balance between draft position and being able to land the qb you want.
If you aren't in the top 15 picks, it's almost impossible to land that franchise guy....the type of guy everybody labels as such....you are just too far back to land the guy unless you are going to give away a few years worth of 1st rounders and more.
The ideal is you get lucky with a lower pick, but that doesn't happen very often.
I am not saying we should do this, but if the powers that be deem Bradford as the guy, we are in range to move all the way to the top and maybe not have to give any future picks.
Next year, one would assume we will improve....my guess is about 10-12 draft slots...if we are sitting at 17 or so, it becomes much harder to make a deal for the guy you want.
Well, if you recall a stat that I posted a few weeks backs, of the 32 NFL teams, 18 of them start Quarterbacks that that team drafted in the First Round. (this was pre-Brady Quinn trade, so the figures may have changed a bit since then) So, obviously these QBs are coming anywhere in the first round, not necessarily just Top 10, though I am sure there are a fair amount that high. (Some of these may be "busts" including JaMarcus Russell, Matt Leinert, and the aforementioned BQ.)
-
My belief is that this team build itself up the way our closest rival did it (yes, I mean the Steelers).
They built up a monster defense, and a monster running game, and a monster offensive line, and got some good receivers. Then and only then did they fill in final piece of the jigsaw puzzle: a reasonably competent Quarterback.
This is what the Browns should do. Draft their QB in the next year or two. For now, build up the rest of the team. Let Delhomme be the caretaker QB he was brought in to be until we are in a super solid enough position to have an investment in a QB worthwhile
.hey i agree 100%, BUT if building up the defense means taking haden or berry at pick #7 why not do it? we haven't had a smack-you-in-the-mouth safety since turner. someone that puts fear in the receivers' hearts. build the defense get more help on the O line, AND if you can get a guy like lefevour pike or even tebow (for all you tebow fans) in the 3rd round, why not? i'm not a draft guru by any means and there are risks all over the place but if the fall off in talent is that much from prospect one to prospect two: use the pick.
hey i agree 100%, BUT if building up the defense means taking haden or berry at pick #7 why not do it? we haven't had a smack-you-in-the-mouth safety since turner. someone that puts fear in the receivers' hearts. build the defense get more help on the O line, AND if you can get a guy like lefevour pike or even tebow (for all you tebow fans) in the 3rd round, why not? i'm not a draft guru by any means and there are risks all over the place but if the fall off in talent is that much from prospect one to prospect two: use the pick.
I agree. Get us our Ed Reed, or Troy Polamalu, or Ronnie Lott etc.
-
In many ways I agree Gipper....in some not...there is a fine balance between draft position and being able to land the qb you want.
If you aren't in the top 15 picks, it's almost impossible to land that franchise guy....the type of guy everybody labels as such....you are just too far back to land the guy unless you are going to give away a few years worth of 1st rounders and more.
The ideal is you get lucky with a lower pick, but that doesn't happen very often.
I am not saying we should do this, but if the powers that be deem Bradford as the guy, we are in range to move all the way to the top and maybe not have to give any future picks.
Next year, one would assume we will improve....my guess is about 10-12 draft slots...if we are sitting at 17 or so, it becomes much harder to make a deal for the guy you want.
Well, if you recall a stat that I posted a few weeks backs, of the 32 NFL teams, 18 of them start Quarterbacks that that team drafted in the First Round. (this was pre-Brady Quinn trade, so the figures may have changed a bit since then) So, obviously these QBs are coming anywhere in the first round, not necessarily just Top 10, though I am sure there are a fair amount that high. (Some of these may be "busts" including JaMarcus Russell, Matt Leinert, and the aforementioned BQ.)
Well, if you recall a stat that I posted a few weeks backs, of the 32 NFL teams, 18 of them start Quarterbacks that that team drafted in the First Round. (this was pre-Brady Quinn trade, so the figures may have changed a bit since then) So, obviously these QBs are coming anywhere in the first round, not necessarily just Top 10, though I am sure there are a fair amount that high. (Some of these may be "busts" including JaMarcus Russell, Matt Leinert, and the aforementioned BQ.)
No doubt QB is the toughest position to draft. With the 'bust", or not live up to expectations as high as it is it is clearly magnified when a top guy falls in to that category.
I just think conventional wisdom shows the top picks typically do better than the lower picks purely from a odds basis.
I guess what I am saying is if you could select a qb three years in a row inside the top 10 picks and a QB three years in a row as a 4th round pick, I would take my chances with the 1st round guys.
I do agree, you don't have to get a qb with a top 10 pick....plenty come from the 20's range.
The great QB paradox....if you take one early and he busts, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out. If you pass on one seeking to avoid the bust factor and he pans out, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out.
-
Well, if you recall a stat that I posted a few weeks backs, of the 32 NFL teams, 18 of them start Quarterbacks that that team drafted in the First Round. (this was pre-Brady Quinn trade, so the figures may have changed a bit since then) So, obviously these QBs are coming anywhere in the first round, not necessarily just Top 10, though I am sure there are a fair amount that high. (Some of these may be "busts" including JaMarcus Russell, Matt Leinert, and the aforementioned BQ.)
No doubt QB is the toughest position to draft. With the 'bust", or not live up to expectations as high as it is it is clearly magnified when a top guy falls in to that category.
I just think conventional wisdom shows the top picks typically do better than the lower picks purely from a odds basis.
I guess what I am saying is if you could select a qb three years in a row inside the top 10 picks and a QB three years in a row as a 4th round pick, I would take my chances with the 1st round guys.
I do agree, you don't have to get a qb with a top 10 pick....plenty come from the 20's range.
The great QB paradox....if you take one early and he busts, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out. If you pass on one seeking to avoid the bust factor and he pans out, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out.
No doubt QB is the toughest position to draft. With the 'bust", or not live up to expectations as high as it is it is clearly magnified when a top guy falls in to that category.
I just think conventional wisdom shows the top picks typically do better than the lower picks purely from a odds basis.
....
The great QB paradox....if you take one early and he busts, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out. If you pass on one seeking to avoid the bust factor and he pans out, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out.
Agree completely.
On thing to add, people forget that other positions taken with high picks bust almost as often. Hell, in recent Browns history alone we've taken three defensive linemen (Warren, Brown, Wimbley) and they all have been merely adequate, if not outright busts when you consider how much they were paid. We've also had a first rounder tank at RB (Green), supposedly the easiest position to transition into from college. These were are supposed to be relatively safe picks, too. "Can't miss" prospects flop all the time - busts happen at every position (Robert Gallery, Charles Rogers, Pac Man, etc.). For some reason, however, everyone bitches about the QBs.
-
For some reason, however, everyone bitches about the QBs.
Probably because expectation levels run higher. You also have the factor that when other guys....take Gerrard Warren as an example don't meet expectation, they still usually end up at least serviceable players.
While Warren was far from the incarnate of LeRoy Selmon, he did manage to be a starter for quite a few number of years after leaving Browns town.
Qbs usually either have it or they don't...or maybe that :"it" factor...the factor that is hard to scout.
-
No doubt QB is the toughest position to draft. With the 'bust", or not live up to expectations as high as it is it is clearly magnified when a top guy falls in to that category.
I just think conventional wisdom shows the top picks typically do better than the lower picks purely from a odds basis.
....
The great QB paradox....if you take one early and he busts, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out. If you pass on one seeking to avoid the bust factor and he pans out, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out.
Agree completely.
On thing to add, people forget that other positions taken with high picks bust almost as often. Hell, in recent Browns history alone we've taken three defensive linemen (Warren, Brown, Wimbley) and they all have been merely adequate, if not outright busts when you consider how much they were paid. We've also had a first rounder tank at RB (Green), supposedly the easiest position to transition into from college. These were are supposed to be relatively safe picks, too. "Can't miss" prospects flop all the time - busts happen at every position (Robert Gallery, Charles Rogers, Pac Man, etc.). For some reason, however, everyone bitches about the QBs.
For some reason, however, everyone bitches about the QBs.
I would add to ballpeen's comment that the QBs do command the most money so it will be a more expensive failure not to mention that a bust at QB can't help you in other ways (playing special teams or third down packages) and thus they're generally going to hold a clipboard hoping no one notices they're stealing millions from the club.
I think the point about where do the good QB's (or other players for that matter) come from in the draft is a good one. I would point out the example of Hall of Fame RBs. While you can certainly find good RBs in the fourth or fifth round, 21 out of 27 HOF RBs (modern era) were drafted in the first round. Three more were second round picks (Thurman Thomas, Jim Taylor...15th overall, John Henry Johnson); One (Leroy Kelly) was an 8th rounder and two (Marion Motley and Joe Perry) were undrafted. If you just look at the first round, that's 78%. 89% were taken in the first two.
At first glance, QBs seem like they are a little bit of a different story but I would argue that they really aren't.
There are 23 modern era QB's in the HOF.
12 (52%) were first round draft picks. None were second round picks. Three were third round picks (Montana, Tarkenton, Fouts). Van Brocklin and Jurgensen were 4th rounders. Bob Waterfield was a fifth rounder. Staubach, a 10th. Blanda, a 12th. Bart Starr, a 17th. Two (Warren Moon and Johnny Unitas) were undrafted.
At first blush, this seems to be less compelling for QBs. When you look deeper though, there were fewer teams in the old days. Van Brocklin (37th overall), Waterfield (42nd overall) and Jurgensen (43rd overall) would be second round picks today. Roger Staubach was a 10th round pick. How much did that have to do with his 4 year military commitment to the Navy?
If you fudge the numbers accounting for the above (and for this exercise I will exclude Staubach) then 15/22 QBs (68%) were taken in the first 43 players in the draft which suggests that you're more likely to find a HOFer in the first round and a half rather than thereafter. Since 1970, only one HOFer was lower than a 3rd round pick and he was undrafted (Moon).
Just playing with the numbers. If you get too nervous in the first round, you might find a starter but you're unlikely to find a legend.
-
For some reason, however, everyone bitches about the QBs.
Probably because expectation levels run higher. You also have the factor that when other guys....take Gerrard Warren as an example don't meet expectation, they still usually end up at least serviceable players.
While Warren was far from the incarnate of LeRoy Selmon, he did manage to be a starter for quite a few number of years after leaving Browns town.
Qbs usually either have it or they don't...or maybe that :"it" factor...the factor that is hard to scout.
Qbs usually either have it or they don't...or maybe that :"it" factor...the factor that is hard to scout.
You're right about the "it" factor. In this era of 24/7 analysis and overanalysis, we know all of the measurements. We argue over whether the college stats of one guy mean as much as another's because we do or don't believe the competition to have been as good. The bottom line is that the QB position has so much that goes into playing it that is not measurable that it's nearly impossible to scout it the same way that you would a defensive back for instance. You will find so many people on this board and others who will tell you why THEIR guy has the "intangibles". Ultimately, it's up to Holmgren to decide.
You can sit here and say that Clausen, McCoy, Tebow, Pike or any other QB is your favorite but the skill sets are so varied that they don't all succeed the same way. I love McCoy's intangibles and his big game leadership. That doesn't mean he has the skills to start in the NFL. On the other hand, you could look at any one of these guys and convince yourselves that in the right environment any of them could be "serviceable". Teams win in many different ways. If you can put a good team around an average QB and win, then who cares about the rest of it? Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring. I repeat. TRENT. DILFER. HAS. A. SUPER. BOWL. RING. If Holmgren decides that Mike Kafka is his QB and he puts forward a pedestrian season and the Browns win a Super Bowl behind the legs of the RBs and the hammer of a good defense, then do we really care how the QB ranks against the league?
-
I like Tebow for the same reasons you mentioned, but I agree, if Kafka is the guy....it doesn't matter where they are drafted, went to school or how they compare to other qbs....winning takes care of all.
Joe Montana compared to some of the qbs who never won much isn't all that impressive....except that he was the right guy for the Niners.
Take away the winning part(lol) and Montana was a pretty average looking qb.
-
I like Tebow for the same reasons you mentioned, but I agree, if Kafka is the guy....it doesn't matter where they are drafted, went to school or how they compare to other qbs....winning takes care of all.
Joe Montana compared to some of the qbs who never won much isn't all that impressive....except that he was the right guy for the Niners.
Take away the winning part(lol) and Montana was a pretty average looking qb.
I like Tebow for the same reasons you mentioned, but I agree, if Kafka is the guy....it doesn't matter where they are drafted, went to school or how they compare to other qbs....winning takes care of all.
Funny, Tebow has kind of grown on me. I think he's a hard enough worker to want to become an NFL QB (unlike JaBustus Russell). I find it somewhat ironic that the one nitpick people seem to have with Bradford is that he isn't that vocal leader that guys will sacrifice for. (I don't know if that's true or not).
-
I like Tebow for the same reasons you mentioned, but I agree, if Kafka is the guy....it doesn't matter where they are drafted, went to school or how they compare to other qbs....winning takes care of all.
Funny, Tebow has kind of grown on me. I think he's a hard enough worker to want to become an NFL QB (unlike JaBustus Russell). I find it somewhat ironic that the one nitpick people seem to have with Bradford is that he isn't that vocal leader that guys will sacrifice for. (I don't know if that's true or not).
Funny, Tebow has kind of grown on me. I think he's a hard enough worker to want to become an NFL QB (unlike JaBustus Russell).
Like Quinn.....
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Bottom line: I want the guy who is right for this team. I don't care who it is as long as he can run this offense (whether it's west coast or something else). I just want the right man for the job.
-
Like Quinn.....
WSS
He's not anything like Quinn.
Quinn was a "Me" player. There isn't any of that in Tebow.
I keep saying it and will say it again....Tebow is going to be a darn good NFL QB.
He is the kind of guy teams will look back in 2-3 years and wonder what they were thinking when they passed on him.
The only QB in this draft who has a legit shot of being better is Bradford.
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