@miktoxic said:

one WR?

everyone on here has piled on little saying he can't catch the ball. so wouldn't there be a need for a #2 who lines up outside?

evans and gordon would hit you like a double barrel.

XxDaBuckeyexX said:

one WR?

everyone on here has piled on little saying he can't catch the ball. so wouldn't there be a need for a #2 who lines up outside?

evans and gordon would hit you like a double barrel.

@mike-h said:

T Rich and Weeden.

.

Sure Mike there will be some trading of draft picks.

If the front office, who may even know as much about football as you do, makes the decision to trade up and we go to a Superbowl then think of the fun you will have gloating about it. Possibly ray farmer took a similar course.

I would personally expect to see hey great deal of improvement in the coming season if for no other reason than I believe that the team substantially underperformed last year. Yes I know I've felt that way before.

PS I have no real gripe without making a trade here or there in order to get top notch players. Just not career journeymen or busts.

And while I am not doubting your credentials as a sports writer I have heard plenty of others who do that on a fairly high level who disagree with you. I suppose that's why people bet on sports.

WSS

XxDaBuckeyexX said:

we have a guy like that named Gordon. We need a slot type of guy. Someone who can get open quick. And we need another TE.

Having two is nice though. Look at the Bears offense that torched small backfields all season.

I'd say we could use another TE. But it's not a high priority. I think Barnridge can be decent.

@miktoxic said:

i wouldn't advocate trading up into that mix of the 3 spots in front of us for any player. even clowney.

but i do agree with MikeH that some of those picks will be traded, i mean the later round stuff means nothing unless you are lucky enough to find the next brady or terrelle davis. i could see us trading up in some of these rounds. it is a game of chess, right? sacrifice some pawns.

i'm really hoping that if farmer is thinking QB @4 the guy i hope lands there is bortles. if not clowney. not all that in love with watkins unless he is just one of two WRs we are targeting. we need a tall guy that can win those jump ball throws down the line and in the corner of the end zone.

but i do agree with MikeH that some of those picks will be traded, i mean the later round stuff means nothing unless you are lucky enough to find the next brady or terrelle davis. i could see us trading up in some of these rounds. it is a game of chess, right? sacrifice some pawns.

i'm really hoping that if farmer is thinking QB @4 the guy i hope lands there is bortles. if not clowney. not all that in love with watkins unless he is just one of two WRs we are targeting. we need a tall guy that can win those jump ball throws down the line and in the corner of the end zone.

@unsympathetic said:

if we move to a 4-3 we might.

@the-gipper said:

You missed my sarcasm Gip- of course I knew that- just refuting MIke.

@mike-h said:

I have a full time job that pays extremely well, I get paid to write on the side.

My scouting training is basic, I took a course awhile ago. I'd say that instantly makes me more qualified than you, so yuck it up.

Yeah? So what? I took a course in Russian a few years back- that doesn't mean I can speak it worth a damn.

We need a QB at the 4.

@calfoxwc said:

Mike H is a legend in his own jock LOL

of an NFL scout,

who knew Mike Junkin, aka "mad dog in a meat market", was

the best player in the NFL draft ever, and knew that

everybody who didn't agree with him didn't know anything.

@westside-steve said:

No, actually Mike H served as Ditkas "gum caddy". He would pre-chew Ditkas gum for him.

The 1974 Steelers did....and though they had not won a SB yet, they had been making the playoffs. Recall the Immaculate Reception I believe was 1972...or 73...prior to their draft of Lambert/Webster/Swann etc.

@walterwhite said:

What if Clowney blows it up in the workouts and looks like a real freak and falls to us.

How the hell can a team be so dead set 3 months before the draft?

@walterwhite said:

Take away the hit against Michigan and I see a mid 1st round prospect.

He's got the talent but seems selective on when to use it.

He's like Albert Hanesworth 2.0 according to Steve Spurrior. His own damn coach threw him under the bus.

I am confused... Which is it?

- Clowney is being judged too early; or

- Clowney is overrated?

I fear the troll is strong in this one...

@mike-h said:

1. Clowney won't be available

2. None of you dicks have the balls to support a trade up

3. Therefore, This thread is moot cow poo

Wow... still on the rag as bad as ever. I thought in a week you'd have cooled down some.

@miktoxic said:

There..fixed!

@clevfan4life said:

Agreed. The best player in the draft could just as easily be there at fourth overall as in the top three. There is no clear-cut top pick, so it would be foolish to use the picks in that way.

Some of the other ten could be used to attempt to snap up some usable depth for next season. In fact, I certainly hope they are.

@spectralcow said:

Lol. Didn't I see somewhere that Mike H writes professionally?

I think he used to be scout and personal assistant to Mike Ditka and helped him put together the Ricky Williams trade.

WSS

@mike-h said:

Virtually no team selects every draft pick that makes their roster. Saftey in numbers.No winning team selects 4 HOFers in one draft either, right?

@jeffinwv said:

Clowney hasn't done anything to deserve to even be mentioned in the same breath as Lawrence taylor

Would you mention Derrick Thomas instead?

@mike-h said:

T Rich and Weeden.

And I never said 10 drafted players starting. I said, clearly, 10 drafted players won't make the roster. The Browns are already the second youngest team in the NFL and you assholes want to keep turning over 21 Year old players.

You don't need 10 rookies. They will pick up 2 or 3 UDFA that stick if theyre worth a shit at evaluating takent.

So you want 13 / 53 man roster to be rookies. Youngest team in the NFL easily with that. What 13 players do you cut?

And you don't sign any FAs with 40+ million in cap stace.

SOME OF THOSE 10 PICKS ARE GOING TO BE TRADED, LIVE WITH IT.

Ohhh, such brilliacnce Mike. As others said- for future considerations.

@jcam222 said:

I suspect you are right that some of those 10 picks will be traded. Contrary to what many think though I do not think it will be to move up in the top of the 1st round. I can see us doing something to move back into bottom of the 2nd or perhaps even push our #26 higher into the 1st round. Beyond that I think you will see picks traded for picks in next years draft. Farmer made a comment to that effect recently in an interview when asked about the 10 picks and the FA money. He basically said just because we have 10 picks doesn't mean we have to use them all this year. I am fine with that.

^+1

@clevfan4life said:

and a severe case of PTSD

@clevfan4life said:

and next years 1st rounder and blah blah blah we know how this story ends. With yet another early 1st round pick starting under center in year one and two years later selling used cars somewhere in Tennessee.

@mike-h said:

uh huh, you know I'm right. And it's precisely what teams like Texas want us to do. They want to bait us to move up so that they still pick at #4 and get exactly who they want and get our indy pick. Nice FO material you are there bro.

@mike-h said:

yes, but they shouldn't be traded to move up past the 4th pick, why? cause those teams are going to want next years 1st rounder plus the indy pick plus possibly other late round picks along with all newbords born in Cleveland for the next 15 months. Package some of the later picks, fine. But do what the Redskins did to get RG? no fucking way. And you're Retarded if that's what you want us to do. I think Clowneys hands down the best player in the draft but I don't want us to trade up for him let along any of the qb prospects.