Camp Trade Down
-
Trade down with Jacksonville to #4 for a 2nd and 3rd take Mitch, use #12 on OJ Howard . This draft class is loaded with defense you could load up with all the extra picks.
-
Trade down with Jacksonville to #4 for a 2nd and 3rd take Mitch, use #12 on OJ Howard . This draft class is loaded with defense you could load up with all the extra picks.
Trade down with Jacksonville to #4 for a 2nd and 3rd take Mitch, use #12 on OJ Howard . This draft class is loaded with defense you could load up with all the extra picks.
Sorry but if you take 2 O players as your first two, you will not get premier D players from 33 on. Good? Sure. Great? No.
Besides if you trade down to #4 there is no guarantee Mitch does not go to either SF or Chi. Why would you trade down that far with that kind of risk? Makes no sense.
-
Trade down with Jacksonville to #4 for a 2nd and 3rd take Mitch, use #12 on OJ Howard . This draft class is loaded with defense you could load up with all the extra picks.
Trade down with Jacksonville to #4 for a 2nd and 3rd take Mitch, use #12 on OJ Howard . This draft class is loaded with defense you could load up with all the extra picks.
Well Jax may be in the market for a DE/OLB So? What is the status of Dante Fowler? Is he like so badly injured as to be unsalvageable?
-
I don't think there are many teams willing to give up the typical ransom required to move into the number one spot. I don't recall it happening too often for a defensive player. If for some reason several teams start to think there is a sure-fire pro-bowl qb, then things might start getting interesting.Yes, a few teams think pretty highly of a few of the different qbs, but it doesn't seem there is a consensus cant miss qb to generate the trade-buzz required for the expensive trades.
A few years ago the Dolphins moved from 12 to 3 and just swapped 1st and gave up their second. I think if Garret is still the number one player come draft day (and I think he will be) then I think the trade price will be something similar (a little stronger as it is the #1). I just don't see teams willing to bet the farm in order to select a defensive player, especially in a defensive loaded draft.
-
I don't think there are many teams willing to give up the typical ransom required to move into the number one spot. I don't recall it happening too often for a defensive player. If for some reason several teams start to think there is a sure-fire pro-bowl qb, then things might start getting interesting.Yes, a few teams think pretty highly of a few of the different qbs, but it doesn't seem there is a consensus cant miss qb to generate the trade-buzz required for the expensive trades.
A few years ago the Dolphins moved from 12 to 3 and just swapped 1st and gave up their second. I think if Garret is still the number one player come draft day (and I think he will be) then I think the trade price will be something similar (a little stronger as it is the #1). I just don't see teams willing to bet the farm in order to select a defensive player, especially in a defensive loaded draft.
I don't think there are many teams willing to give up the typical ransom required to move into the number one spot. I don't recall it happening too often for a defensive player. If for some reason several teams start to think there is a sure-fire pro-bowl qb, then things might start getting interesting.Yes, a few teams think pretty highly of a few of the different qbs, but it doesn't seem there is a consensus cant miss qb to generate the trade-buzz required for the expensive trades.
A few years ago the Dolphins moved from 12 to 3 and just swapped 1st and gave up their second. I think if Garret is still the number one player come draft day (and I think he will be) then I think the trade price will be something similar (a little stronger as it is the #1). I just don't see teams willing to bet the farm in order to select a defensive player, especially in a defensive loaded draft.
So? What is your answer then? Just use #1 on a guy...or trade it?
While a lot of people here are convinced about what the Browns are going to do...they have to remember this group's short history: analytics says multiply your assets. A Trade down is not out of the question.....IF someone comes along and is desperate for that #1 pick the Browns have already announced that they are open to the possibility.
-
I don't think there are many teams willing to give up the typical ransom required to move into the number one spot. I don't recall it happening too often for a defensive player. If for some reason several teams start to think there is a sure-fire pro-bowl qb, then things might start getting interesting.Yes, a few teams think pretty highly of a few of the different qbs, but it doesn't seem there is a consensus cant miss qb to generate the trade-buzz required for the expensive trades.
A few years ago the Dolphins moved from 12 to 3 and just swapped 1st and gave up their second. I think if Garret is still the number one player come draft day (and I think he will be) then I think the trade price will be something similar (a little stronger as it is the #1). I just don't see teams willing to bet the farm in order to select a defensive player, especially in a defensive loaded draft.
I don't think there are many teams willing to give up the typical ransom required to move into the number one spot. I don't recall it happening too often for a defensive player. If for some reason several teams start to think there is a sure-fire pro-bowl qb, then things might start getting interesting.Yes, a few teams think pretty highly of a few of the different qbs, but it doesn't seem there is a consensus cant miss qb to generate the trade-buzz required for the expensive trades.
A few years ago the Dolphins moved from 12 to 3 and just swapped 1st and gave up their second. I think if Garret is still the number one player come draft day (and I think he will be) then I think the trade price will be something similar (a little stronger as it is the #1). I just don't see teams willing to bet the farm in order to select a defensive player, especially in a defensive loaded draft.
Agree... #1's for "the" QB seen as the future of a franchise carry a premium trade value beyond that of any other position... and if that view is held by more than one franchise, then it's the stuff that WSH deals for RG3 are made of.
But in the era of the "common draft" there have been blockbusters for non-QBs and even "non-skill" positions. Both Orlando Pace (Rams gave up 4 picks in 1997) and Russell Maryland ('91 Cowboys gave up players and a couple picks) come to mind.
RBs, the position with the second highest number of players taken #1 overall, doesn't seem to have produced such trades. However, the Ditka-NO deal for a 5th to land Ricky Williams jumps out. Granted, the RB history was amassed in a different era, one that emphasized the run game far more than it is today, but that only shows that times change. And one of the things that has changed is the emphasis on rushing the QB.
Interestingly the third most overall #1's have been spent on DL. And a scan of the draft shows most are DEs. But the last two "premier" edge rushers, Super Mario and Clowney, did not attract enough an offer to pry either of them away from the Texans. Coincidentally neither proved to be very good QB classes.
Who knows? It'll be interesting though...
-
I don't think there are many teams willing to give up the typical ransom required to move into the number one spot. I don't recall it happening too often for a defensive player. If for some reason several teams start to think there is a sure-fire pro-bowl qb, then things might start getting interesting.Yes, a few teams think pretty highly of a few of the different qbs, but it doesn't seem there is a consensus cant miss qb to generate the trade-buzz required for the expensive trades.
A few years ago the Dolphins moved from 12 to 3 and just swapped 1st and gave up their second. I think if Garret is still the number one player come draft day (and I think he will be) then I think the trade price will be something similar (a little stronger as it is the #1). I just don't see teams willing to bet the farm in order to select a defensive player, especially in a defensive loaded draft.
So? What is your answer then? Just use #1 on a guy...or trade it?
While a lot of people here are convinced about what the Browns are going to do...they have to remember this group's short history: analytics says multiply your assets. A Trade down is not out of the question.....IF someone comes along and is desperate for that #1 pick the Browns have already announced that they are open to the possibility.
So? What is your answer then? Just use #1 on a guy...or trade it?
While a lot of people here are convinced about what the Browns are going to do...they have to remember this group's short history: analytics says multiply your assets. A Trade down is not out of the question.....IF someone comes along and is desperate for that #1 pick the Browns have already announced that they are open to the possibility.
I think they take Garrett at 1. While yes there are a lot great players that can be had a few spots lower, I just don't think you are going to get the return to make it worth it as other teams are going to see that as well. Garrett might not end up being the best defensive player out of this draft, but a big majority of scouts seem to agree that he has the highest percentage of being a top-tier defensive player. With each spot you move down, your are a.) subtracting a couple of percentage points from that probability or b.) taking a player that doesn't have as high of a ceiling while maybe having about the same hit probability. I just don't think you are going to get any kind of significant value to make it worth dropping down that percentage.
The wild card is if a team falls in love with a qb and they don't think he will make it past the 49ers (or if the 49ers want to secure him as they are afraid of other teams). As of right now, I just don't see that happening. There are 3 qbs being talked about as the top qb, and I am not even sure that there are many teams that would take their top choice of qb over several of the top defensive studs. It only takes one team to absolutely fall in love with a guy, but as of now I just don't see that happening.
Look at the loaded 2011 draft class and the teams that got screwed. There were so many hits in the top 17, that as long as you didn't take a qb you got a stud. This looks like it is setting up to be pretty similar (many thought Dareus or Peterson were the top defensive players, but the Broncos actually didn't get any trade request/probes so even at number 2 they didn't have any real trade value so they took a guy many had a few spots lower). I won't be shocked if 3 qbs are taken in the top 10, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the Browns have a shot to trade up from the 33rd pick to about the 25th to take Mitch. I get there are teams in the top 10 that need qb's, and I wouldn't be surprised if Watson and Mitch are gone early, it is just there are so many studs in the top 20 that teams might take the security of a legit defensive player over the crapshoot qb class.
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
-
So? What is your answer then? Just use #1 on a guy...or trade it?
While a lot of people here are convinced about what the Browns are going to do...they have to remember this group's short history: analytics says multiply your assets. A Trade down is not out of the question.....IF someone comes along and is desperate for that #1 pick the Browns have already announced that they are open to the possibility.
I think they take Garrett at 1. While yes there are a lot great players that can be had a few spots lower, I just don't think you are going to get the return to make it worth it as other teams are going to see that as well. Garrett might not end up being the best defensive player out of this draft, but a big majority of scouts seem to agree that he has the highest percentage of being a top-tier defensive player. With each spot you move down, your are a.) subtracting a couple of percentage points from that probability or b.) taking a player that doesn't have as high of a ceiling while maybe having about the same hit probability. I just don't think you are going to get any kind of significant value to make it worth dropping down that percentage.
The wild card is if a team falls in love with a qb and they don't think he will make it past the 49ers (or if the 49ers want to secure him as they are afraid of other teams). As of right now, I just don't see that happening. There are 3 qbs being talked about as the top qb, and I am not even sure that there are many teams that would take their top choice of qb over several of the top defensive studs. It only takes one team to absolutely fall in love with a guy, but as of now I just don't see that happening.
Look at the loaded 2011 draft class and the teams that got screwed. There were so many hits in the top 17, that as long as you didn't take a qb you got a stud. This looks like it is setting up to be pretty similar (many thought Dareus or Peterson were the top defensive players, but the Broncos actually didn't get any trade request/probes so even at number 2 they didn't have any real trade value so they took a guy many had a few spots lower). I won't be shocked if 3 qbs are taken in the top 10, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the Browns have a shot to trade up from the 33rd pick to about the 25th to take Mitch. I get there are teams in the top 10 that need qb's, and I wouldn't be surprised if Watson and Mitch are gone early, it is just there are so many studs in the top 20 that teams might take the security of a legit defensive player over the crapshoot qb class.
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
Very wise...
What's your take on your Broncos' QB situation?
-
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
Very wise...
What's your take on your Broncos' QB situation?
Very wise...
What's your take on your Broncos' QB situation?
I would like to add Romo but shoring up our offensive line is a bigger priority. Neither of the QBs wowed me but neither made me hate them either. The dreaded qb purgatory. But our offensive lines the last 2 years have been really bad so I don't think adding Romo would make us legit contenders. Also I think we really need to fix or interior of our defensive line. We still have an excellent defense but our poor run defense up the middle pretty much brings our production to mediocre which is a shame as most of the pieces are there for it to be suffocating. So I think adding Romo wouldn't make us contenders while I think fixing both lines would even without Romo.
-
Just the interior d-line. Losing Malik Jackson hurt more than I would have liked last year, but his replacement got hurt in the preseason so that ended up causing a lot of problems. Teams were able to run up the middle against us and we couldn't do anything about it even when we knew what play they were running. I think we have the majority and the key pieces in tact so I am not as worried about that side. We need to address it but should be an easier fix than the o-line /qb situation. I agree fix oline / Romo would be idea, but was just saying if we just add Romo I don't know that we would be real contenders.
-
@ghoolie said:
Only in the land of Browns-tardo is Romo an MORE OL players an option to "build for the future"
Fucking morons.
Yes you are... Broncos are in win now mode.
Took a chance that if I looked I'd find a football post... my bad... lesson learned... again...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
I think we've picked up enough guys for the OL. RT might be an issue but we've got some guys to compete there...including Erving who's clinging on for dear life.
I'm also tired of trading down and letting everybody else get the really good guys.
We have the #1 & 12. And we stink. So let's take two really good players.
Joe Banner was right in saying that the name of the game is Pass And Rush The Passer.
We need both (as usual).
-
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
ERGO, taking your argument, it calls then for the trade down. If you don't want to "force" a pick, then trade down from #1....get more of the players that are available in this "loaded" draft.
And all I say is: don't be surprised if that is exactly what the Browns do. With all the salary cap space they have NOT expended all that much of it so far...and there really isn't a lot out to to spend on, unless you want to give Adrian Peterson the 8 mill. that he is demanding ( I don't). Therefore, it may be quite possible that the Browns could try to snag even another 1st rounder with a trade down. If they could do, say a deal with the Tits for #5 and #18, that would give them 3 of the top 18 picks....and even if you argue not to draft a qB, they could fill in several holes....DL if you will, DB,..maybe a couple. OL. Other skill player?
-
@ghoolie said:
The draft exposes pussies. Most of you here are pussies. You really could get a job for the Browns, you would fit right in.
I have never in my fucking life seen a bunch of cunts afraid of high draft picks. Great teams would suck a BBC for a high draft pick, Browns fans however think high draft picks are land mines.
Fucking idiots.
It don't matter what we do, think or say......Most of what is said here is for shits and giggles. You know, how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin, that sort of thing.
Just harmless speculation. The Browns FO is going to do what it wants to do...and I doubt it consults this board for advice
(even if sometimes they should).
-
Very wise...
What's your take on your Broncos' QB situation?
I would like to add Romo but shoring up our offensive line is a bigger priority. Neither of the QBs wowed me but neither made me hate them either. The dreaded qb purgatory. But our offensive lines the last 2 years have been really bad so I don't think adding Romo would make us legit contenders. Also I think we really need to fix or interior of our defensive line. We still have an excellent defense but our poor run defense up the middle pretty much brings our production to mediocre which is a shame as most of the pieces are there for it to be suffocating. So I think adding Romo wouldn't make us contenders while I think fixing both lines would even without Romo.
I would like to add Romo but shoring up our offensive line is a bigger priority. Neither of the QBs wowed me but neither made me hate them either. The dreaded qb purgatory. But our offensive lines the last 2 years have been really bad so I don't think adding Romo would make us legit contenders. Also I think we really need to fix or interior of our defensive line. We still have an excellent defense but our poor run defense up the middle pretty much brings our production to mediocre which is a shame as most of the pieces are there for it to be suffocating. So I think adding Romo wouldn't make us contenders while I think fixing both lines would even without Romo.
Romo is going to be a TV commentator because he is fucking done being an NFL QB.
Better off having Brock Osweiler and Kessler.
-
@ghoolie said:
Only in the land of Browns-tardo is Romo an MORE OL players an option to "build for the future"
Fucking morons.
That's a Bronco fan talking....so it is the land of Bronco-tardo.
-
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
ERGO, taking your argument, it calls then for the trade down. If you don't want to "force" a pick, then trade down from #1....get more of the players that are available in this "loaded" draft.
And all I say is: don't be surprised if that is exactly what the Browns do. With all the salary cap space they have NOT expended all that much of it so far...and there really isn't a lot out to to spend on, unless you want to give Adrian Peterson the 8 mill. that he is demanding ( I don't). Therefore, it may be quite possible that the Browns could try to snag even another 1st rounder with a trade down. If they could do, say a deal with the Tits for #5 and #18, that would give them 3 of the top 18 picks....and even if you argue not to draft a qB, they could fill in several holes....DL if you will, DB,..maybe a couple. OL. Other skill player?
Therefore, it may be quite possible that the Browns could try to snag even another 1st rounder with a trade down. If they could do, say a deal with the Tits for #5 and #18, that would give them 3 of the top 18 picks....and even if you argue not to draft a qB, they could fill in several holes....DL if you will, DB,..maybe a couple. OL. Other skill player?
I'll probably take some flak for this, but I wouldn't mind that trade one bit. The Browns would be guaranteed to land an elite defensive prospect (Garrett, Allen, Thomas, Hooker, Adams) and pick up an extra top 20 pick. Garrett is a great prospect, but those other guys are close enough to make the trade back a no-brainer. Would you take Jamaal Adams and Malik McDowell instead of Myles Garrett? I would. How about Solomon Thomas and Gareon Conley? Yup. Malik Hooker and Taco Charlton...you see where I'm going with this.
-
Therefore, it may be quite possible that the Browns could try to snag even another 1st rounder with a trade down. If they could do, say a deal with the Tits for #5 and #18, that would give them 3 of the top 18 picks....and even if you argue not to draft a qB, they could fill in several holes....DL if you will, DB,..maybe a couple. OL. Other skill player?
I'll probably take some flak for this, but I wouldn't mind that trade one bit. The Browns would be guaranteed to land an elite defensive prospect (Garrett, Allen, Thomas, Hooker, Adams) and pick up an extra top 20 pick. Garrett is a great prospect, but those other guys are close enough to make the trade back a no-brainer. Would you take Jamaal Adams and Malik McDowell instead of Myles Garrett? I would. How about Solomon Thomas and Gareon Conley? Yup. Malik Hooker and Taco Charlton...you see where I'm going with this.
I'll probably take some flak for this, but I wouldn't mind that trade one bit. The Browns would be guaranteed to land an elite defensive prospect (Garrett, Allen, Thomas, Hooker, Adams) and pick up an extra top 20 pick. Garrett is a great prospect, but those other guys are close enough to make the trade back a no-brainer. Would you take Jamaal Adams and Malik McDowell instead of Myles Garrett? I would. How about Solomon Thomas and Gareon Conley? Yup. Malik Hooker and Taco Charlton...you see where I'm going with this.
I think I would too. Thomas and Barnett are potentially as good as Garrett. Getting a top DB seems critical to me. And then there is the QB thing.
-
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
ERGO, taking your argument, it calls then for the trade down. If you don't want to "force" a pick, then trade down from #1....get more of the players that are available in this "loaded" draft.
And all I say is: don't be surprised if that is exactly what the Browns do. With all the salary cap space they have NOT expended all that much of it so far...and there really isn't a lot out to to spend on, unless you want to give Adrian Peterson the 8 mill. that he is demanding ( I don't). Therefore, it may be quite possible that the Browns could try to snag even another 1st rounder with a trade down. If they could do, say a deal with the Tits for #5 and #18, that would give them 3 of the top 18 picks....and even if you argue not to draft a qB, they could fill in several holes....DL if you will, DB,..maybe a couple. OL. Other skill player?
I get you need a qb, just don't force it. You are not a qb away from being a contender, but with the slew of picks you have in this loaded draft plus next year you could be there very quickly. You have the chance to really stabilize your team, take it.
ERGO, taking your argument, it calls then for the trade down. If you don't want to "force" a pick, then trade down from #1....get more of the players that are available in this "loaded" draft.
And all I say is: don't be surprised if that is exactly what the Browns do. With all the salary cap space they have NOT expended all that much of it so far...and there really isn't a lot out to to spend on, unless you want to give Adrian Peterson the 8 mill. that he is demanding ( I don't). Therefore, it may be quite possible that the Browns could try to snag even another 1st rounder with a trade down. If they could do, say a deal with the Tits for #5 and #18, that would give them 3 of the top 18 picks....and even if you argue not to draft a qB, they could fill in several holes....DL if you will, DB,..maybe a couple. OL. Other skill player?
Well if you only read that one sentence then you can make that claim I suppose.
But..
This is a very strong defensive draft along with the fact that there doesn't seem to be a qb for a team to fall in love with (at least yet anyways which this could be the wildcard), teams aren't going to be as inclined to give up a lot of value for that #1 selection. I think teams this year are going to cherish their top 20 pick and so any moves made to get multiple top 20 picks are going to be hard to come by. Also couple that with the number of early draft picks you already have, I don't think the Browns will take less value than the #1 is worth just to acquire more picks. If the Titans would give up #5 and #18 to move up, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them pull the trigger on that, but the Titans do have a strong need at safety and they can pretty much get their pick of the litter in a very strong class around #5. I get that you don't think much of Garrett and really just want to trade out of the #1 pick so that you can give them an excuse to pick someone else, but I think the Browns as well as the rest of the NFL pretty much have a different opinion of him and aren't looking for an excuse not to take him. There are several players in this draft that would warrant being the #1 pick in other draft years, and the fact that the #1 pick isn't even really up for discussion should tell you a lot, regardless of your personal scouting opinion on the kid.
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