Broncos Trade To 4?
-
Denver gives us the 25, 67, and 87 this year, and their 2013 and 2014 first round picks to take Blackmon for Peyton Manning.
With Peyton Possibly having 3 decent/good years left or a little more i heard they might be interested in making the deals they need this year to contend for the superbowl right away for Manning.
As a Browns Fan
Yes or No?
Personally I would say no and take our play maker at 4 but i know some people LOVE the trade down scenerios so whats the answer?
In Cleveland failure is an artform. -
Dear lord baby jesus! The answer is no! We need a playmaker and we have some great options at 4.
-
Denver gives us the 25, 67, and 87 this year, and their 2013 and 2014 first round picks to take Blackmon for Peyton Manning.
With Peyton Possibly having 3 decent/good years left or a little more i heard they might be interested in making the deals they need this year to contend for the superbowl right away for Manning.
As a Browns Fan
Yes or No?
Personally I would say no and take our play maker at 4 but i know some people LOVE the trade down scenerios so whats the answer?
Denver gives us the 25, 67, and 87 this year, and their 2013 and 2014 first round picks to take Blackmon for Peyton Manning.
With Peyton Possibly having 3 decent/good years left or a little more i heard they might be interested in making the deals they need this year to contend for the superbowl right away for Manning.
As a Browns Fan
Yes or No?
Personally I would say no and take our play maker at 4 but i know some people LOVE the trade down scenerios so whats the answer?
I am one of the people that pretty much always says "Hell yes" to trading down with the Browns (unless we trade down while missing a QB we are interested in). We have so many holes and any picks within the first 3 rounds SHOULD provide us with starting caliber players. We need overall talent, not just superstar or Pro-Bowl talent, which as I've mentioned before, does not need to be picked in the top 10 in the NFL. Football, unlike basketball, is really not dependent on one player, unless that player is a QB or just a freak like Calvin Johnson. I would much rather get 4 solid, potentially great starters and give up 1 potentially great player (its not like Blackmon is a lock elite receiver). Plus the future first round picks give us ammunition to trade up and pick that FRANCHISE QB next year. I know a lot of people dont like it, but I would be all for it. Look at where Philly drafted their awesome playmakers: D. Jackson = 2nd round, Maclin + middle 1st round, McCoy = 2nd round. You dont need a top 10 pick for a top 10 player at his position, obviously a higher pick makes it easier, but Id rather get 3 extra starters...
-
I would have to say no for 2 reasons.
1: no team in their right mind would make that trade with us. Even though we fall much farther back than St. Louis did in their trade and this trade is closer to value, it is still incredibly over priced on a talent like Blackmon.
2: Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway. Last year when they were eyeing a trade back to the 25 area they eyes more gusy in that area and the early 2nd. This year even though we already have a pick there, they have literally spent too many visits and private workouts on players to be taken in the top 15. I am certain they have a good enough feeling to get us two players in the late 1st, but I also feel that they will be drafting blind with the 2nd and 3rd round pick we would get.
-
No. Teams picking in the 20s are playoff teams that are pretty good. Last year we moved back into the late 20s. This year we already have a pick in the twenties. Why, why, why? We have 13 freaking picks!!! Why are some of you soo obsessed with more picks. Usually you would have 7 picks, a pick in each round. The browns as of now have multiple picks in rounds 1, 4, 6, and 7 right? We need talent, the earlier the better. We need to keep our pick in the top 5 and take Richardson. We need a RT and a WR with the late first and early second. After that wheel and deal and land a couple other picks around the third round and call it a draft. You can't trade the supplemental draft picks so use them and hope for a late round gem.
-
Denver gives us the 25, 67, and 87 this year, and their 2013 and 2014 first round picks to take Blackmon for Peyton Manning.
With Peyton Possibly having 3 decent/good years left or a little more i heard they might be interested in making the deals they need this year to contend for the superbowl right away for Manning.
As a Browns Fan
Yes or No?
Personally I would say no and take our play maker at 4 but i know some people LOVE the trade down scenerios so whats the answer?
Denver gives us the 25, 67, and 87 this year, and their 2013 and 2014 first round picks to take Blackmon for Peyton Manning.
With Peyton Possibly having 3 decent/good years left or a little more i heard they might be interested in making the deals they need this year to contend for the superbowl right away for Manning.
As a Browns Fan
Yes or No?
Personally I would say no and take our play maker at 4 but i know some people LOVE the trade down scenerios so whats the answer?
Are we just pulling trades out of our asses now? At least when we discussed the Philly trade it was something that had been rumored nationally.
-
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
-
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
Over half of those picks are in the last 3 rounds though. It never hurts to have an extra pick in the 2nd and 3rd round.
Ruining threads since 1897. -
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
While I agree that we do need some elite talent, I think elite or great talent can be found anywhere within the first 2 rounds. I hate hearing the 13 picks argument for why we shouldnt trade down. I dont expect an immediate starter for any draft pick outside the first 3 rounds. 9 of our 13 picks are in the 4th round or later!! To use that as a reason not to pile up more 2nd and 3rd round picks is idiotic. I personally feel that we are so far behind in talent level in so many areas that we need a lot of late 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks in order just to catch up. If you believe Richardson or Blackmon can come in here and make us a playoff contender you are delusional. So many really good players come from late 1st and second rounders, I think ignoring that because we have a top 10 pick is short-sighted. We arent getting our "elite franchise" QB this year top 10, we have a #1 CB and a LT already, there are no great DEs this year; THOSE are the positions I'd be clamoring for in the top 10. We can get very good RBs, LBs, WRs, linemen, and DBs in the late first round and second rounds.
That being said, I would have to be semi overwhelmed with a lot of top picks to move back again this year. But I would definitely do it, if it was a great offer.
-
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
Over half of those picks are in the last 3 rounds though. It never hurts to have an extra pick in the 2nd and 3rd round.
Over half of those picks are in the last 3 rounds though. It never hurts to have an extra pick in the 2nd and 3rd round.
Agreed, we can't be assuming that we are going to find a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston or anyone like that with those picks. Do we have better odds with all those picks? Sure, but I would rather have an extra 2/3 round pick or so than 8 picks in round 5-7.
I don't want to trade down this far as I would rather still be in position to get Richardson, Blackmon, or Floyd
-
Over half of those picks are in the last 3 rounds though. It never hurts to have an extra pick in the 2nd and 3rd round.
Agreed, we can't be assuming that we are going to find a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston or anyone like that with those picks. Do we have better odds with all those picks? Sure, but I would rather have an extra 2/3 round pick or so than 8 picks in round 5-7.
I don't want to trade down this far as I would rather still be in position to get Richardson, Blackmon, or Floyd
Agreed, we can't be assuming that we are going to find a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston or anyone like that with those picks. Do we have better odds with all those picks? Sure, but I would rather have an extra 2/3 round pick or so than 8 picks in round 5-7.
I don't want to trade down this far as I would rather still be in position to get Richardson, Blackmon, or Floyd
I look at it as: would you rather have T. Richardson or Doug Martin plus 3 more starters (2 1st round picks and a 2nd). For me, that is a no brainer. Richardson might be great, but is he THAT much better than the next tier that you would turn that down?? For me he is not. If he was a QB I would look at this differently.
-
Agreed, we can't be assuming that we are going to find a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston or anyone like that with those picks. Do we have better odds with all those picks? Sure, but I would rather have an extra 2/3 round pick or so than 8 picks in round 5-7.
I don't want to trade down this far as I would rather still be in position to get Richardson, Blackmon, or Floyd
I look at it as: would you rather have T. Richardson or Doug Martin plus 3 more starters (2 1st round picks and a 2nd). For me, that is a no brainer. Richardson might be great, but is he THAT much better than the next tier that you would turn that down?? For me he is not. If he was a QB I would look at this differently.
I look at it as: would you rather have T. Richardson or Doug Martin plus 3 more starters (2 1st round picks and a 2nd). For me, that is a no brainer. Richardson might be great, but is he THAT much better than the next tier that you would turn that down?? For me he is not. If he was a QB I would look at this differently.
agree 100%. and if we did get such an offer, who says we couldn't package some of our then massive amounts of picks to trade back up somewhere in the mix?
-
If the Broncos want to make that trade - Then Vikings are a safer bet right? I mean - They make the trade with Browns and then Vikings take Blacmon. Now what?
-
If the Broncos want to make that trade - Then Vikings are a safer bet right? I mean - They make the trade with Browns and then Vikings take Blacmon. Now what?
If the Broncos want to make that trade - Then Vikings are a safer bet right? I mean - They make the trade with Browns and then Vikings take Blacmon. Now what?
That's why it would be a draft day trade as most trades are for draft picks.
-
Agreed, we can't be assuming that we are going to find a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston or anyone like that with those picks. Do we have better odds with all those picks? Sure, but I would rather have an extra 2/3 round pick or so than 8 picks in round 5-7.
I don't want to trade down this far as I would rather still be in position to get Richardson, Blackmon, or Floyd
I look at it as: would you rather have T. Richardson or Doug Martin plus 3 more starters (2 1st round picks and a 2nd). For me, that is a no brainer. Richardson might be great, but is he THAT much better than the next tier that you would turn that down?? For me he is not. If he was a QB I would look at this differently.
I look at it as: would you rather have T. Richardson or Doug Martin plus 3 more starters (2 1st round picks and a 2nd). For me, that is a no brainer. Richardson might be great, but is he THAT much better than the next tier that you would turn that down?? For me he is not. If he was a QB I would look at this differently.
At the same time Doug Martin plus 3 starters could turn into: William Green, Jeff Faine, Brady Quinn, and David Vaikune. And Trent could be as good or better than AP.
I know there are a lot of if's and's or but's, but it's not a guarantee, either way as Trent could be the next... Ronnie Brown/Cadillac etc..
-
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
Over half of those picks are in the last 3 rounds though. It never hurts to have an extra pick in the 2nd and 3rd round.
Over half of those picks are in the last 3 rounds though. It never hurts to have an extra pick in the 2nd and 3rd round.
And a lot of those cannot be traded because they are compensation picks. If the Browns could use a few of their tradeable low round picks to move up, that would be fine, but I don't think I want to bundle a bunch of our valuable higher round picks....or high picks in future years to move up.
-
Short and simple here, It worked last year. Its not something you do every year. If we had 5 or 6 picks sure- we have 13 picks for crying out loud. You want 13 drafted rookies on our roster- far too many IMO.
Find a face for the organization. Instead of trading back for NFL starters.
"Our Front Office is not prepared to pick that far back anyway."
Sadly, Yes they are- we have the #22 pick and the #37 pick- we've brought in guys like Weeden, Wilson and Martin- all guys you would see in that range.
While I agree that we do need some elite talent, I think elite or great talent can be found anywhere within the first 2 rounds. I hate hearing the 13 picks argument for why we shouldnt trade down. I dont expect an immediate starter for any draft pick outside the first 3 rounds. 9 of our 13 picks are in the 4th round or later!! To use that as a reason not to pile up more 2nd and 3rd round picks is idiotic. I personally feel that we are so far behind in talent level in so many areas that we need a lot of late 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks in order just to catch up. If you believe Richardson or Blackmon can come in here and make us a playoff contender you are delusional. So many really good players come from late 1st and second rounders, I think ignoring that because we have a top 10 pick is short-sighted. We arent getting our "elite franchise" QB this year top 10, we have a #1 CB and a LT already, there are no great DEs this year; THOSE are the positions I'd be clamoring for in the top 10. We can get very good RBs, LBs, WRs, linemen, and DBs in the late first round and second rounds.
That being said, I would have to be semi overwhelmed with a lot of top picks to move back again this year. But I would definitely do it, if it was a great offer.
We can get very good RBs, LBs, WRs, linemen, and DBs in the late first round and second rounds.
Like MoMass, Robiske, Hardesty, Kameron Wimbley, William Green, etc.
Browns suck at picking late 1st/early 2nd. Well, Browns suck in general at drafting. Just saying...
-
I look at it as: would you rather have T. Richardson or Doug Martin plus 3 more starters (2 1st round picks and a 2nd). For me, that is a no brainer. Richardson might be great, but is he THAT much better than the next tier that you would turn that down?? For me he is not. If he was a QB I would look at this differently.
At the same time Doug Martin plus 3 starters could turn into: William Green, Jeff Faine, Brady Quinn, and David Vaikune. And Trent could be as good or better than AP.
I know there are a lot of if's and's or but's, but it's not a guarantee, either way as Trent could be the next... Ronnie Brown/Cadillac etc..
At the same time Doug Martin plus 3 starters could turn into: William Green, Jeff Faine, Brady Quinn, and David Vaikune. And Trent could be as good or better than AP.
I know there are a lot of if's and's or but's, but it's not a guarantee, either way as Trent could be the next... Ronnie Brown/Cadillac etc..
Faine was not bad. It was the trading of him for a guy that played one day for the Browns that was bad.
The others were products of poor talent evaluation, and some bad luck, for sure. I have more confidence now in the eye of Tom Heckert than that of any of the guys that made those picks. Oh, he can miss, like perhaps with Montario....but I will put better odds on him than on others we have had.
-
We can get very good RBs, LBs, WRs, linemen, and DBs in the late first round and second rounds.
Like MoMass, Robiske, Hardesty, Kameron Wimbley, William Green, etc.
Browns suck at picking late 1st/early 2nd. Well, Browns suck in general at drafting. Just saying...
Like MoMass, Robiske, Hardesty, Kameron Wimbley, William Green, etc.
Browns suck at picking late 1st/early 2nd. Well, Browns suck in general at drafting. Just saying...
Only Hardesty of those was a Heckert selection, and the book is actually still out on Hardesty.
But your point is well taken...and perhaps does not go far enough. Think of the very high 1st round picks Browns have had: Couch, Courtney Brown, Warren, Edwards, Winslow.
Other than JT the Browns have been even worse at picking talent when they have had the premium picks.
-
I look at it as: would you rather have T. Richardson or Doug Martin plus 3 more starters (2 1st round picks and a 2nd). For me, that is a no brainer. Richardson might be great, but is he THAT much better than the next tier that you would turn that down?? For me he is not. If he was a QB I would look at this differently.
At the same time Doug Martin plus 3 starters could turn into: William Green, Jeff Faine, Brady Quinn, and David Vaikune. And Trent could be as good or better than AP.
I know there are a lot of if's and's or but's, but it's not a guarantee, either way as Trent could be the next... Ronnie Brown/Cadillac etc..
At the same time Doug Martin plus 3 starters could turn into: William Green, Jeff Faine, Brady Quinn, and David Vaikune. And Trent could be as good or better than AP.
I know there are a lot of if's and's or but's, but it's not a guarantee, either way as Trent could be the next... Ronnie Brown/Cadillac etc..
Yea I think that speaks to my point even more. High picks do bust or get injured. So putting all your eggs in one basket in Trent Richardson is much riskier than having four picks... And we have a different GM than when those picks were taken. I trust Heckerts track record more than Savage and MUCHHH more than Mangini who was horrendous at drafting.
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