#4 #22
-
Luck goes to Indy, Blackmon to Rams, Kalil to Vikings
#4- trade back with Seattle, of all teams, at #12 so they can surprisngly grab RG3. Acquire their 2nd round pick plus 1st or 2nd round pick in 2013.
#12- Alshon Jeffery WR- USC, assuming he has a bad combine and is available. If not, Floyd will suffice.
#22-Zach Brown OLB- UNC.
#36-Vinny Curry DE- Marshall. Perfect rush end opposite Sheard.
#44- Andrew Datko OT-FSU
Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.
jparsh said:
Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.
http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php
pick #4 - 1800
pick #12 - 1200
pick #44 - 460
pick #76 - 210
seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.
-
jparsh said:
Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.
http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php
pick #4 - 1800
pick #12 - 1200
pick #44 - 460
pick #76 - 210
seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.
http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php
pick #4 - 1800
pick #12 - 1200
pick #44 - 460
pick #76 - 210
seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.
Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)
-
My new interesting theory on the picks kind of a lion's move....seems to be a lot of nay sayers for richardson at the 4th interesting thought what about blackmon 4th and wright 22nd? gives us 2 good receivers on the outsides with little and blackmon and wright fills the slot let's cribbs focus on what he does best special teams and would make him a match-up issue with 4 WR sets
-
Then we would really be able to evaluate colt as well... If he couldn't succeed with those receivers pull the plug
-
jparsh said:
Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.
http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php
pick #4 - 1800
pick #12 - 1200
pick #44 - 460
pick #76 - 210
seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.
http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php
pick #4 - 1800
pick #12 - 1200
pick #44 - 460
pick #76 - 210
seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.
Nice post, I had no clue.
-
My new interesting theory on the picks kind of a lion's move....seems to be a lot of nay sayers for richardson at the 4th interesting thought what about blackmon 4th and wright 22nd? gives us 2 good receivers on the outsides with little and blackmon and wright fills the slot let's cribbs focus on what he does best special teams and would make him a match-up issue with 4 WR sets
My new interesting theory on the picks kind of a lion's move....seems to be a lot of nay sayers for richardson at the 4th interesting thought what about blackmon 4th and wright 22nd? gives us 2 good receivers on the outsides with little and blackmon and wright fills the slot let's cribbs focus on what he does best special teams and would make him a match-up issue with 4 WR sets
I've thought about that. What if they take Blackmon and Wright. Doubt that it will happen, but it sure would give us the chance to see how good our QB's are. But a WCO needs WR's. Could you imagine Blackmon, Wright, Little & Cribs... That could be very interesting. However, you wonder what kind of ego's would be coming to camp.
Right now I'm leaning to grab RG3 and Wright, I hope that can happen. But we will see.
-
I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined. We will wind up with either RG3, Flynn or Tananhall (sp?) and one of those 3 will be the starting QB next year. The only option there that allows for two wide outs in the first round is if GB doesn't franchise Flynn and we get him free and clear through free agency. But I'm leaning towards thinking GB will franchise him, the only issue is the fact that his salary would be so large it may scare teams away. Then there's the issue on whether or not he'll resign long term with the team he's being traded to. There's a lot to be determined in that area, except for the fact that Colt will not be the guy. If anyone is taking the whole "we love him and he has a shot to be our franchise guy" BS then you need to learn what it means when a GM/coach/president says the right thing.
I said before, you don't give your future guy competition and leave things in limbo. Name one other starting QB this year that's secure in their job who had their gm and president say that they're not willing to name him the starter for next year.
-
I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined. We will wind up with either RG3, Flynn or Tananhall (sp?) and one of those 3 will be the starting QB next year. The only option there that allows for two wide outs in the first round is if GB doesn't franchise Flynn and we get him free and clear through free agency. But I'm leaning towards thinking GB will franchise him, the only issue is the fact that his salary would be so large it may scare teams away. Then there's the issue on whether or not he'll resign long term with the team he's being traded to. There's a lot to be determined in that area, except for the fact that Colt will not be the guy. If anyone is taking the whole "we love him and he has a shot to be our franchise guy" BS then you need to learn what it means when a GM/coach/president says the right thing.
I said before, you don't give your future guy competition and leave things in limbo. Name one other starting QB this year that's secure in their job who had their gm and president say that they're not willing to name him the starter for next year.
jparsh said:
I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined.
This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.
-
http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php
pick #4 - 1800
pick #12 - 1200
pick #44 - 460
pick #76 - 210
seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.
Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)
jparsh said:
Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)
-
http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php
pick #4 - 1800
pick #12 - 1200
pick #44 - 460
pick #76 - 210
seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.
Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)
jparsh said:
Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)
The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
jparsh said:
I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined.
This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.
This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.
He went on to say a list of players that are safe. Haden, Thomas, Sheard(sp?) Taylor, Little, Cribs....
Our team sucked, so he was just putting people on notice for the most part. But he has stated in the past that the number one spot on the team is quarterback and he related super bowls to the QB position. Holmgren said that he'd change QB's every single year til he gets it right. Heckert drafted TJ in the second round and played well when not hurt, so that's not likely to be a spot in jeopardy. Basically he left the QB, right side of the line, one CB spot, one LB spot and WR position open.
With the first three picks you can address QB, WR and LB or DE. Then you have free agency and trades to address other issues. I predicted around week 10 that we'll have about 6 new starters by next year. QB, WR, DE, RT, CB, OLB. With all our available resources I can't see why this isn't completely feasible.
-
jparsh said:
Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)
The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.
The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.
Jets look like they made a mistake on that one. But Mangini let them off easy. He got old players instead of draft picks. My one friend asks why we were able to win games last year and stay in many others while this year we looked horrible. That's easy to answer. Mangini filled the team with vets that would never win in the long run. Vets make less mistakes but have little future value. This year we're young and we have a bright future but those kids make mistakes and don't look that good at times.
-
This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.
He went on to say a list of players that are safe. Haden, Thomas, Sheard(sp?) Taylor, Little, Cribs....
Our team sucked, so he was just putting people on notice for the most part. But he has stated in the past that the number one spot on the team is quarterback and he related super bowls to the QB position. Holmgren said that he'd change QB's every single year til he gets it right. Heckert drafted TJ in the second round and played well when not hurt, so that's not likely to be a spot in jeopardy. Basically he left the QB, right side of the line, one CB spot, one LB spot and WR position open.
With the first three picks you can address QB, WR and LB or DE. Then you have free agency and trades to address other issues. I predicted around week 10 that we'll have about 6 new starters by next year. QB, WR, DE, RT, CB, OLB. With all our available resources I can't see why this isn't completely feasible.
jparsh said:
With all our available resources I can't see why this isn't completely feasible.
In the article The Walrus states the Browns are not going to dive into the free agent market. Which I think is correct, look at the Jets and Philly.
-
jparsh said:
Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)
The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.
The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.
Dirty is WAY worse than McCoy. Terrible. With a line like that he should be more consistent.
-
The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.
Jets look like they made a mistake on that one. But Mangini let them off easy. He got old players instead of draft picks. My one friend asks why we were able to win games last year and stay in many others while this year we looked horrible. That's easy to answer. Mangini filled the team with vets that would never win in the long run. Vets make less mistakes but have little future value. This year we're young and we have a bright future but those kids make mistakes and don't look that good at times.
jparsh said:
Jets look like they made a mistake on that one. But Mangini let them off easy. He got old players instead of draft picks. My one friend asks why we were able to win games last year and stay in many others while this year we looked horrible. That's easy to answer. Mangini filled the team with vets that would never win in the long run. Vets make less mistakes but have little future value. This year we're young and we have a bright future but those kids make mistakes and don't look that good at times.
Abe Elam was in his third year. Coleman in his seventh.
Not exactly the oldest of players.
Either way, it only shows that emotion and brashness are just as big of factors in drafting as an arbitrary set of numbers assinged to each pick.
-
jparsh said:
With all our available resources I can't see why this isn't completely feasible.
In the article The Walrus states the Browns are not going to dive into the free agent market. Which I think is correct, look at the Jets and Philly.
In the article The Walrus states the Browns are not going to dive into the free agent market. Which I think is correct, look at the Jets and Philly.
No, Holmgren and Heckert said that free agency isn't a way to build a team, they never said they wouldn't grab a player that worked for them. Or trade for one for that matter. I have no doubt that they won't overspend for a "top" guy that happens to be the popular fan pick. But I could easily see 2 starters, maybe even 3 brought in via free agency. Their first year they were fairly active, Gocong, Fujita, Williams, Hillis...all starters that they got via trade or free agency.
I see their style as, get your superstars via the draft, and fill in the gaps through trades and free agency. Which is alright with me.
-
jparsh said:
Jets look like they made a mistake on that one. But Mangini let them off easy. He got old players instead of draft picks. My one friend asks why we were able to win games last year and stay in many others while this year we looked horrible. That's easy to answer. Mangini filled the team with vets that would never win in the long run. Vets make less mistakes but have little future value. This year we're young and we have a bright future but those kids make mistakes and don't look that good at times.
Abe Elam was in his third year. Coleman in his seventh.
Not exactly the oldest of players.
Either way, it only shows that emotion and brashness are just as big of factors in drafting as an arbitrary set of numbers assinged to each pick.
Abe Elam was in his third year. Coleman in his seventh.
Not exactly the oldest of players.
Either way, it only shows that emotion and brashness are just as big of factors in drafting as an arbitrary set of numbers assinged to each pick.
Not totally, there is an assigned value to picks, that's what I was trying to explain to people before someone posted the actual chart. I'm not sure how it works with current roster players, not sure how many points Elam was worth, IMO he'd be worth 1 point in my trade value chart. And our defense was OLD that year. Our linebackers were slow and a step behind all year. Except for Rubin our D line was older. Haden and Ward were the most youthful players we had.
-
In the article The Walrus states the Browns are not going to dive into the free agent market. Which I think is correct, look at the Jets and Philly.
No, Holmgren and Heckert said that free agency isn't a way to build a team, they never said they wouldn't grab a player that worked for them. Or trade for one for that matter. I have no doubt that they won't overspend for a "top" guy that happens to be the popular fan pick. But I could easily see 2 starters, maybe even 3 brought in via free agency. Their first year they were fairly active, Gocong, Fujita, Williams, Hillis...all starters that they got via trade or free agency.
I see their style as, get your superstars via the draft, and fill in the gaps through trades and free agency. Which is alright with me.
jparsh said:
No, Holmgren and Heckert said that free agency isn't a way to build a team, they never said they wouldn't grab a player that worked for them. Or trade for one for that matter. I have no doubt that they won't overspend for a "top" guy that happens to be the popular fan pick. But I could easily see 2 starters, maybe even 3 brought in via free agency. Their first year they were fairly active, Gocong, Fujita, Williams, Hillis...all starters that they got via trade or free agency.
I see their style as, get your superstars via the draft, and fill in the gaps through trades and free agency. Which is alright with me.
Correct, you had mentioned they need to fill 6 spots, which I don't see via free agency.
-
jparsh said:
No, Holmgren and Heckert said that free agency isn't a way to build a team, they never said they wouldn't grab a player that worked for them. Or trade for one for that matter. I have no doubt that they won't overspend for a "top" guy that happens to be the popular fan pick. But I could easily see 2 starters, maybe even 3 brought in via free agency. Their first year they were fairly active, Gocong, Fujita, Williams, Hillis...all starters that they got via trade or free agency.
I see their style as, get your superstars via the draft, and fill in the gaps through trades and free agency. Which is alright with me.
Correct, you had mentioned they need to fill 6 spots, which I don't see via free agency.
Correct, you had mentioned they need to fill 6 spots, which I don't see via free agency.
Of course not all through free agency. They have 3 picks in the top 37 picks. All of those players will be starters (at least I would sure as hell hope so). Then you have your 3rd rounder who could easily be an OL starter. There are 3 to 4 starters through the draft, that leaves a couple starters needed to be filled via free agency and or trades.
-
Abe Elam was in his third year. Coleman in his seventh.
Not exactly the oldest of players.
Either way, it only shows that emotion and brashness are just as big of factors in drafting as an arbitrary set of numbers assinged to each pick.
Not totally, there is an assigned value to picks, that's what I was trying to explain to people before someone posted the actual chart. I'm not sure how it works with current roster players, not sure how many points Elam was worth, IMO he'd be worth 1 point in my trade value chart. And our defense was OLD that year. Our linebackers were slow and a step behind all year. Except for Rubin our D line was older. Haden and Ward were the most youthful players we had.
jparsh said:
Not totally, there is an assigned value to picks, that's what I was trying to explain to people before someone posted the actual chart. I'm not sure how it works with current roster players, not sure how many points Elam was worth, IMO he'd be worth 1 point in my trade value chart. And our defense was OLD that year. Our linebackers were slow and a step behind all year. Except for Rubin our D line was older. Haden and Ward were the most youthful players we had.
I understand that there's an assigned value, but that's more of a reference material than anything else. It's not the end all way of determining how a draft day trade works. You can't assign a value to a possible franchise QB, with trades involving QB's there's less math and more gut.
I agree that our defense was old, but that wasn't due to the trade. Mangini's brought in several vets to help instill values for the younger draft picks and to show that his system actually works. Had he been given a full 4-5 season, we would have seen a drastic improvement in the talent level and culture.
His system isn't one I normally agree with, but it does make sense if the coach is an experienced HC. Bring in older vets from your last system to act as examples, load the team through free agency with guys who know how to win, and then build through the draft so the draft picks are coming into a winning culture.
It makes sense.
Unfortunately, Shurmur had no experience, no guys to bring in, and doesn't know what a winning culture is. But I agree with the system in place. Build through the draft, don't overpay for over rated "playmakers" via FA, and build the defense.
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