Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Trading up ...

Trading up ...

The Browns Board
57 21 2.8k
  • R riverumbbq

    OK, I'll come right out with it, ... i'm a Rams fan. One of the questions on our own forum relates to what it would take to trade down with Cleveland in order to accomplish a fair trade between the overall # 2 pick and the overall # 4 draft pick, or whether you have any interest whatsoever in a trade to ensure your player of choice. Yes, we are all well aware of the draft trade chart, but how far are you as fans willing to go in order to accomplish such a trade ? Many Rams fans want both of your # 1's, others don't go lower than your # 4 overall as well as your 2'nd and 3'rd rounders, so my question to you guys is whether either of these trades are acceptable to you ?

    Thanks for listening,

    River

    @riverumbbq said:

    OK, I'll come right out with it, ... i'm a Rams fan. One of the questions on our own forum relates to what it would take to trade down with Cleveland in order to accomplish a fair trade between the overall # 2 pick and the overall # 4 draft pick, or whether you have any interest whatsoever in a trade to ensure your player of choice. Yes, we are all well aware of the draft trade chart, but how far are you as fans willing to go in order to accomplish such a trade ? Many Rams fans want both of your # 1's, others don't go lower than your # 4 overall as well as your 2'nd and 3'rd rounders, so my question to you guys is whether either of these trades are acceptable to you ?

    Thanks for listening,

    River

    Sorry, you're not puling off another RGIII fleecing, if that's what you have in mind. Lombardi and Banner may be stupid, but I hope to God they're not that stupid. Fair market value is both #1s, but frankly I don't see anyone out there worth both our first round picks.

    First off, there's no Luck or RGIII in this draft. Second- and one of my adopted relatives is a Rams fan- you want Clowney or Watkins- one of which is guaranteed to be there @ #4. So, the zillon dollar question is- assuming Bridgewater goes #1 overall, Anyone there @ #2 the Browns are willing to give up picks for? IMO- nope- we let you sit pat and take one of the two. The Jags take Bortles or hopefully Manziel- and we take the guy you don't.

    Or a more interesting scenario is we let you draft they guy we want (it happened with the Manning- Rivers deal) and we work out a suitable value, hmm like maybe our 2014 #4 overall and a 2015 pick? ( I wouldn't give up our 2015 first, but I would a second in that case.)

  • R RoyceRolls

    If the browns FO feels they need to move up to get their guy then either both of our firsts, or our #4 as well as our second and one of our thirds would work for me. As long as they don't do something stupid like the redskins did (you guys laughed all the way to the bank).

    Personally I don't think the browns should trade up, but this FO keeps doing things I think they shouldn't. All I know is if they trade up to #2 to draft Johnny college football, I'll need a fifth of makers mark and a bottle of delsym to start the recovery process.

    @roycerolls said:

    If the browns FO feels they need to move up to get their guy then either both of our firsts, or our #4 as well as our second and one of our thirds would work for me. As long as they don't do something stupid like the redskins did (you guys laughed all the way to the bank).

    no fucking way.

  • I don't want to trade up either but who knows what the three stooges will opt to do...

  • How about trading Anthony Bennet to the Rams?

    All the way from Torino to Cleveland: GO BROWNS!!!!!!!

  • I'd give both extra picks in the third and fourth to trade up. Thats if the player were targeting could be snatched up.

    miktoxicM 1 Reply
  • R riverumbbq

    OK, I'll come right out with it, ... i'm a Rams fan. One of the questions on our own forum relates to what it would take to trade down with Cleveland in order to accomplish a fair trade between the overall # 2 pick and the overall # 4 draft pick, or whether you have any interest whatsoever in a trade to ensure your player of choice. Yes, we are all well aware of the draft trade chart, but how far are you as fans willing to go in order to accomplish such a trade ? Many Rams fans want both of your # 1's, others don't go lower than your # 4 overall as well as your 2'nd and 3'rd rounders, so my question to you guys is whether either of these trades are acceptable to you ?

    Thanks for listening,

    River

    @riverumbbq said:

    OK, I'll come right out with it, ... i'm a Rams fan. One of the questions on our own forum relates to what it would take to trade down with Cleveland in order to accomplish a fair trade between the overall # 2 pick and the overall # 4 draft pick, or whether you have any interest whatsoever in a trade to ensure your player of choice. Yes, we are all well aware of the draft trade chart, but how far are you as fans willing to go in order to accomplish such a trade ? Many Rams fans want both of your # 1's, others don't go lower than your # 4 overall as well as your 2'nd and 3'rd rounders, so my question to you guys is whether either of these trades are acceptable to you ?

    Thanks for listening,

    River

    Maybe the Rams should just stick with the #2 pick and take a QB.......because Sam Bradford is bordering on bust status. Another year like the last couple and it will be official.

  • Flyin JF Flyin J

    I'd give both extra picks in the third and fourth to trade up. Thats if the player were targeting could be snatched up.

    XxDaBuckeyexX said:

    I'd give both extra picks in the third and fourth to trade up. Thats if the player were targeting could be snatched up.

    to move up from what spot to where?

    it makes sense with our second first rounder, but within the first 5 picks they are all graded very high. if the FO has to have johnnyfuckinfootball because he has some redneck connection with haslam, then there is a serious problem in brownstown and it will show that it's coming from the top.

    👍
  • miktoxicM miktoxic

    XxDaBuckeyexX said:

    I'd give both extra picks in the third and fourth to trade up. Thats if the player were targeting could be snatched up.

    to move up from what spot to where?

    it makes sense with our second first rounder, but within the first 5 picks they are all graded very high. if the FO has to have johnnyfuckinfootball because he has some redneck connection with haslam, then there is a serious problem in brownstown and it will show that it's coming from the top.

    @miktoxic said:

    to move up from what spot to where?

    it makes sense with our second first rounder, but within the first 5 picks they are all graded very high. if the FO has to have johnnyfuckinfootball because he has some redneck connection with haslam, then there is a serious problem in brownstown and it will show that it's coming from the top.

    from 4. That's a very cheap price to move up those two spots at the top of the draft. And I wasn't really specifying who wed be going after, be it Bortles, Teddy B, or Johnny F'n F.

  • If for whatever reason the Texans don't take Bridgewater, I could see us swapping firsts and add the second to go up from 4 to 2 to take him ahead of Jax. On the other hand, if they feel like they could get a top QB with any one of Bridgewater, Manziel or Bortles then absolutely stand pat and take whichever comes. But I think it's unlikely Lombardi loves any one guy that much.

    👍

  • Your best bet is to talk to QB needy teams that drafts after the browns(raiders/vikings) and hope you either are able to pull another RGIII like trade with one of those 2 teams, or have the threat pressure the browns into pulling the trigger. I just hope we don't, or atleast not at the cost of anything higher than a 3rd round pick.

  • I hope this doesn't happen. I really hope they don't take Manziel at 4. Bridgewater I could see even though I'm not sold on and Bortles I just don't know enough about. I'm pretty firm in the Watkins camp.

    Basically I'll just swap you your pick for ours. Don't like it, then fuck it.

  • i do not want to trade up at all. bridgewater, bortles, and manziel are all pretty much the same player to me and we should get one of them. my ideal draft would be taking watkins at the 4 and grabbing a QB with either the 1b pick or in the second round.

  • S sig570

    i do not want to trade up at all. bridgewater, bortles, and manziel are all pretty much the same player to me and we should get one of them. my ideal draft would be taking watkins at the 4 and grabbing a QB with either the 1b pick or in the second round.

    @sig570 said:

    i do not want to trade up at all. bridgewater, bortles, and manziel are all pretty much the same player to me and we should get one of them. my ideal draft would be taking watkins at the 4 and grabbing a QB with either the 1b pick or in the second round.

    I pretty much agree except I don't like any of the QBs there at 1b or 2nd unless Manziel is there. (I don't like any at 1a much either). Maybe Garoppolo in the 3rd. Hopefully Hoyer comes back at what he showed he could be then Garoppolo would have time to get seasoned and ready to be a QB. Idk but I do know the only QB worth a darn at 1a is Bridgewater. But is he worth trading up? Nah.

    Only way I'm trading up is with the 1b pick.

  • Thanks guys, appreciate your participation in this question.

    To answer some of your thoughts, obviously I can't speak for all Rams fans, but it seems a majority tend to believe the Rams front office will trade down somewhat. Many see us drafting from the 4'th overall down to about the 8'th overall, probably not much beyond. Very few of us expect a repeat of the RG3 bonanza, although we do expect fair value. Most of us also have a better feeling about our front office's ability than what you guys project for your own. It's doubtful the Rams stay at # 2 overall, but should we not find a trading partner, chances are, as a pre-combine guesstimate, that Clowney or Watkins would be taken off the board, and because of Coach Fishers close ties with the Matthews family, a very slight possibility he takes an OT. I certainly wouldn't gamble on the Rams sticking with that #2 though, not with the many needs this (Rams) team has. Multiple trade downs are also an option. Most Rams fans projecting mock drafts with trades at this early stage has Cleveland as our primary trade partner, but several have teams leaping over you guys to acquire their 'guy'. This post was not meant to antagonize, only to gather information about what your fan base is thinking and if there were a consensus player a majority of you might wish to add to your team. I wish you good luck for next season, who knows, maybe we'll get lucky enough to meet in the play-offs.

    Thanks again,

    River

    The GipperT 1 Reply

  • We have 10 picks and can't possibly use all of them, as that would be the biggest waste imaginable. We have to make a trade somewhere, so here's what I have in mind...

    1) IF the Texans don't take Bridgewater - trade our extra 3rd & 4th to swap with the Rams - Draft Bridgewater

    2) Draft Watkins/Clowney/Bridgewater/Bortles with #1a. Trade our #2 and/or an extra 3 or 4 - to move up our 1b to find a compliment (Ie, 1a)Watkins 1b) Carr, or 1a)Bortles 1b) Lee/Evans)

    3) Draft 1a & 1b as they stand, and attempt to get rid of some picks for better picks next year (just like we did last year)

    4) Trade later round picks to get more 2nd-3rd round talent

    We don't have room for 10 rookies on our 53-man roster, IF you want to see any improvement next year. We should only draft 7 guys, and really should only be counting on at most 2 of them to be in the starting lineup... We can't just draft 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and 2 3rds and hope to add 3-5 new starters to our lineup... that would be dumb drafting... Any time you add rookies, you add growing pains, so expecting 1 or 2 to start is enough...

    #Justsayin'
    The GipperT hoortaH miktoxicM 3 Replies
  • R riverumbbq

    Thanks guys, appreciate your participation in this question.

    To answer some of your thoughts, obviously I can't speak for all Rams fans, but it seems a majority tend to believe the Rams front office will trade down somewhat. Many see us drafting from the 4'th overall down to about the 8'th overall, probably not much beyond. Very few of us expect a repeat of the RG3 bonanza, although we do expect fair value. Most of us also have a better feeling about our front office's ability than what you guys project for your own. It's doubtful the Rams stay at # 2 overall, but should we not find a trading partner, chances are, as a pre-combine guesstimate, that Clowney or Watkins would be taken off the board, and because of Coach Fishers close ties with the Matthews family, a very slight possibility he takes an OT. I certainly wouldn't gamble on the Rams sticking with that #2 though, not with the many needs this (Rams) team has. Multiple trade downs are also an option. Most Rams fans projecting mock drafts with trades at this early stage has Cleveland as our primary trade partner, but several have teams leaping over you guys to acquire their 'guy'. This post was not meant to antagonize, only to gather information about what your fan base is thinking and if there were a consensus player a majority of you might wish to add to your team. I wish you good luck for next season, who knows, maybe we'll get lucky enough to meet in the play-offs.

    Thanks again,

    River

    @riverumbbq said:

    Thanks guys, appreciate your participation in this question.

    To answer some of your thoughts, obviously I can't speak for all Rams fans, but it seems a majority tend to believe the Rams front office will trade down somewhat. Many see us drafting from the 4'th overall down to about the 8'th overall, probably not much beyond. Very few of us expect a repeat of the RG3 bonanza, although we do expect fair value. Most of us also have a better feeling about our front office's ability than what you guys project for your own. It's doubtful the Rams stay at # 2 overall, but should we not find a trading partner, chances are, as a pre-combine guesstimate, that Clowney or Watkins would be taken off the board, and because of Coach Fishers close ties with the Matthews family, a very slight possibility he takes an OT. I certainly wouldn't gamble on the Rams sticking with that #2 though, not with the many needs this (Rams) team has. Multiple trade downs are also an option. Most Rams fans projecting mock drafts with trades at this early stage has Cleveland as our primary trade partner, but several have teams leaping over you guys to acquire their 'guy'. This post was not meant to antagonize, only to gather information about what your fan base is thinking and if there were a consensus player a majority of you might wish to add to your team. I wish you good luck for next season, who knows, maybe we'll get lucky enough to meet in the play-offs.

    Thanks again,

    River

    There is no consensus on what the Browns should take other than "probably a QB"......but there are a vast amount of options out there even if that is a consensus. Three or 4 guys to choose from....trade up, trade down...or even forget about it til next year when the QB crop might be better and go with Hoyer this year.

    So, no, nobody knows what they want to do......including particularly the Browns FO.

  • thenew23T thenew23

    We have 10 picks and can't possibly use all of them, as that would be the biggest waste imaginable. We have to make a trade somewhere, so here's what I have in mind...

    1) IF the Texans don't take Bridgewater - trade our extra 3rd & 4th to swap with the Rams - Draft Bridgewater

    2) Draft Watkins/Clowney/Bridgewater/Bortles with #1a. Trade our #2 and/or an extra 3 or 4 - to move up our 1b to find a compliment (Ie, 1a)Watkins 1b) Carr, or 1a)Bortles 1b) Lee/Evans)

    3) Draft 1a & 1b as they stand, and attempt to get rid of some picks for better picks next year (just like we did last year)

    4) Trade later round picks to get more 2nd-3rd round talent

    We don't have room for 10 rookies on our 53-man roster, IF you want to see any improvement next year. We should only draft 7 guys, and really should only be counting on at most 2 of them to be in the starting lineup... We can't just draft 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and 2 3rds and hope to add 3-5 new starters to our lineup... that would be dumb drafting... Any time you add rookies, you add growing pains, so expecting 1 or 2 to start is enough...

    @thenew23 said:

    We have 10 picks and can't possibly use all of them, as that would be the biggest waste imaginable.

    I disagree. They could possibly use all of them. You know the Browns need starters at: QB/RB/WR/OG/MLBs plus they can certainly use depth at TE?DB and any number of other places......and what if they lose Mack or Ward or both to FA....then there are those holes to fill.

    We have to make a trade somewhere, so here's what I have in mind...

    1) IF the Texans don't take Bridgewater - trade our extra 3rd & 4th to swap with the Rams - Draft Bridgewater

    2) Draft Watkins/Clowney/Bridgewater/Bortles with #1a. Trade our #2 and/or an extra 3 or 4 - to move up our 1b to find a compliment (Ie, 1a)Watkins 1b) Carr, or 1a)Bortles 1b) Lee/Evans)

    3) Draft 1a & 1b as they stand, and attempt to get rid of some picks for better picks next year (just like we did last year)

    4) Trade later round picks to get more 2nd-3rd round talent

    We don't have room for 10 rookies on our 53-man roster, IF you want to see any improvement next year. We should only draft 7 guys, and really should only be counting on at most 2 of them to be in the starting lineup... We can't just draft 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and 2 3rds and hope to add 3-5 new starters to our lineup... that would be dumb drafting... Any time you add rookies, you add growing pains, so expecting 1 or 2 to start is enough...

    They could use 10 rookies...look at our roster now. Lombardi has been playing musical chairs with those last 10 slots. If those could be solidified and stabilized, our special teams would be a lot better. And also, at least 2-3 of those rookie could be put on the PS. No, I see lots of places where additional talent should be added. If bringing in 10 rookies then pushes the backups we have on this team to do better, then I am all for it.

  • thenew23T thenew23

    We have 10 picks and can't possibly use all of them, as that would be the biggest waste imaginable. We have to make a trade somewhere, so here's what I have in mind...

    1) IF the Texans don't take Bridgewater - trade our extra 3rd & 4th to swap with the Rams - Draft Bridgewater

    2) Draft Watkins/Clowney/Bridgewater/Bortles with #1a. Trade our #2 and/or an extra 3 or 4 - to move up our 1b to find a compliment (Ie, 1a)Watkins 1b) Carr, or 1a)Bortles 1b) Lee/Evans)

    3) Draft 1a & 1b as they stand, and attempt to get rid of some picks for better picks next year (just like we did last year)

    4) Trade later round picks to get more 2nd-3rd round talent

    We don't have room for 10 rookies on our 53-man roster, IF you want to see any improvement next year. We should only draft 7 guys, and really should only be counting on at most 2 of them to be in the starting lineup... We can't just draft 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and 2 3rds and hope to add 3-5 new starters to our lineup... that would be dumb drafting... Any time you add rookies, you add growing pains, so expecting 1 or 2 to start is enough...

    @thenew23 said:

    We have 10 picks and can't possibly use all of them, as that would be the biggest waste imaginable. We have to make a trade somewhere, so here's what I have in mind...

    1) IF the Texans don't take Bridgewater - trade our extra 3rd & 4th to swap with the Rams - Draft Bridgewater

    2) Draft Watkins/Clowney/Bridgewater/Bortles with #1a. Trade our #2 and/or an extra 3 or 4 - to move up our 1b to find a compliment (Ie, 1a)Watkins 1b) Carr, or 1a)Bortles 1b) Lee/Evans)

    3) Draft 1a & 1b as they stand, and attempt to get rid of some picks for better picks next year (just like we did last year)

    4) Trade later round picks to get more 2nd-3rd round talent

    We don't have room for 10 rookies on our 53-man roster, IF you want to see any improvement next year. We should only draft 7 guys, and really should only be counting on at most 2 of them to be in the starting lineup... We can't just draft 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and 2 3rds and hope to add 3-5 new starters to our lineup... that would be dumb drafting... Any time you add rookies, you add growing pains, so expecting 1 or 2 to start is enough...

    I'm with Gip on this one.If we lose Ward or Mack, we're going to have to use one of those high picks on a replacement. Right now we at least need (qb of the future) OG (maybe two) RB, ILB, CB, safety depth, upgrade at #2 TE, I've already used up 7 picks without even trying. More if we lose some FAs.

  • Well the rookies taken in rounds 4 through 7 will likely not be starting material. Round 3 toss up...

    But there's no reason we couldn't have 4 or 5 starters from the draft.

    WSS

    www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons

  • If you put 2-3 players you draft on the PS, they can be signed to other teams without compensation... thus wasted draft picks if they're any good

    Also, if you get 4-5 starters from the same draft, then you're starting 4-5 rookies which means "waiting until next year" while these guys develop and get beat... especially late in the year when they hit the inevitable "rookie wall"

    If we have 7 holes to fill in the starting lineup, which I don't think we do, we need to utilize the players we have been developing, FA, and the draft to fill them... not just the draft... unless you want to wait another 3 years to see if those 10 guys turn out to be any good... Youth is good, but the 2nd youngest team in the NFL adding 10 rookies... just doesn't make sense...

    #Justsayin'
Log in to reply