Camp Trade Down
-
If a team like Houston or something wanted to go after Trubisky I could see it, but I would never want to trade back that far for any reason
Sure, the question is.....is there any player that someone would be desperate to trade up to #1 to take. Other than a QB...that is almost never done. And the Browns have a dire a need for a QB as anyone.
But, lets say MT stays in school. Would teams be clamoring to make DeShaun Watson the #1 pick? SF? Jets, Bills, Bears?
If MT is not in this draft....I am about 75% willing to consider a trade of #1.
Who would salivate over one of the high ranked defenders?
Sure, the question is.....is there any player that someone would be desperate to trade up to #1 to take. Other than a QB...that is almost never done. And the Browns have a dire a need for a QB as anyone.
But, lets say MT stays in school. Would teams be clamoring to make DeShaun Watson the #1 pick? SF? Jets, Bills, Bears?
If MT is not in this draft....I am about 75% willing to consider a trade of #1.
Who would salivate over one of the high ranked defenders?
I think one of the reasons why the Browns have had drafting issues is the trades made on draft day,or prior to the draft.
It hasn't worked, period. I will say it until I'm blue in the face....the draft is designed to help the weaker teams get better, by drafting earlier than the better teams. Of course, you have to draft smart ( the major problem the Browns have had). Pittsburgh, Denver, New England, etc. draft in the 20s to 32, and never seem to have a problem reloading.
You, as other fans know the dismal history.They had, for example, picks #4, 17, & 35 just two drafts ago and traded down....made the team worse IMHO with the JM pick alone.
So, the FO made a bunch of deals last year. They are in a great position currently, with 5 of the first 65 picks. Trading away any of these 5 picks is the STUPIDEST thing they can do, they can get better in a hurry (by drafting smartly)....hopefully, the analytics did a proper analysis of the dismal trading history of this franchise starting with the stupid-ass flip flop of draft position with the Lions in 2004.
-
At this point...no, I would not be in favor of the trade down. You know why.
But, these Harvard boys could care less what an Akron U/Cleveland State grad has to say.
They are smarter than the rest of us. Just ask them.
So, if their analytics says trade down, they will do so.
Someone mentioned that all they are doing is following an example of Bill Belichick. OK, sure...but BB lucked into his 15+ year franchise QB early on. The Browns haven't gotten that lucky, yet.
-
Just spitballing here: What if you Luddites are right and the Browns decide they do not want to go after the QB with #1.....but, suppose that they are aware that both the 49ers and the Bears both actually lust after the same QB.
How about then we trade #1 overall to the Bears, getting back their #3...and their first pick in the second round, which would be like #36. That way the Bears can jump the Niners to get the QB they want. The Browns get #3 ....and one of the troglodytes you guys want would still be there (Allen/Garret).
So,the Browns would have:
#3
#12
#33
#36
#52
#65
What say you?
(No, the one thing I did not do is to check this vs. the draft trade value chart...we can see what that says in a bit)
-
Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
On the above , after checking, I note that under the "Old" system #1 is 3000 pts. #3 is 2200 pts. #35 is 550 points (so in theory under that chart, getting back #35 is actually NOT sufficient compensation....falling 250 points short)
However, under the Harvard Chart #1 is 494.6 pts. #3 is 401.3 pts, for a difference of 93.3 pts. The #35 pick is worth 171.4 pts. So there, getting back #35 is far too much compensation.
Under that chart all it would take is for the Bears to give back their 4th round pick, which would be like #99 to adequately compensate us.
What about that deal?
Edit: actually the figures would be off a few points from these as the Bears have pick #36, not #35.
-
Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after.
WSS
Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after.
WSS
Perhaps....though it is more the case that the Bears would have to believe that the 49ers want the QB they want. But, of course you know that these teams do blow smoke up each others asses.
-
Just spitballing here: What if you Luddites are right and the Browns decide they do not want to go after the QB with #1.....but, suppose that they are aware that both the 49ers and the Bears both actually lust after the same QB.
How about then we trade #1 overall to the Bears, getting back their #3...and their first pick in the second round, which would be like #36. That way the Bears can jump the Niners to get the QB they want. The Browns get #3 ....and one of the troglodytes you guys want would still be there (Allen/Garret).
So,the Browns would have:
#3
#12
#33
#36
#52
#65
What say you?
(No, the one thing I did not do is to check this vs. the draft trade value chart...we can see what that says in a bit)
Just spitballing here: What if you Luddites are right and the Browns decide they do not want to go after the QB with #1.....but, suppose that they are aware that both the 49ers and the Bears both actually lust after the same QB.
How about then we trade #1 overall to the Bears, getting back their #3...and their first pick in the second round, which would be like #36. That way the Bears can jump the Niners to get the QB they want. The Browns get #3 ....and one of the troglodytes you guys want would still be there (Allen/Garret).
So,the Browns would have:
#3
#12
#33
#36
#52
#65
What say you?
(No, the one thing I did not do is to check this vs. the draft trade value chart...we can see what that says in a bit)
This to me would be the ideal situation! Add a 2nd and still get Allen or Garrett!!! Win-Win
GO BROWNS!!!
-
Gip it all depends upon whether the FO sees them as equal or if they see that for their needs one is clearly the better choice for the team with current players in place. I personally would not mind unless we are planning a QB @ 12. Garrett to me is the real bend around the tackle pass rusher in the 4-3. Got to have one of the two 1st rounders be a pass rusher in that mode. Garrett just happens to be the best.
-
-
-
@ghoolie said:
Why not just give the picks away? It's not like the Browns are going to draft anyone worthwhile. Seriously, Give the fucking picks away, save on cap money and throw a big fucking NO CHANCE FOR THE HOF party for Joe Thomas?
Fucking idiots.
I actually laughed aloud at this one
-
-
@ghoolie said:
Why not just give the picks away? It's not like the Browns are going to draft anyone worthwhile. Seriously, Give the fucking picks away, save on cap money and throw a big fucking NO CHANCE FOR THE HOF party for Joe Thomas?
Fucking idiots.
And the real plus side to that is it only makes the Browns look half-foolish instead of completely foolish.
And my wife interrupted my typing this to say, "Why don't they just take the ones who are rated highest when they make each pick."
Out of the mouth of someone who knows absolutely nothing about football comes BPA (she had no idea there was a term for it).
-
I just read a report saying that the plan for the draft was to trade down from #1 and take Mitch Trubisky
-
I just read a report saying that the plan for the draft was to trade down from #1 and take Mitch Trubisky
I just read a report saying that the plan for the draft was to trade down from #1 and take Mitch Trubisky
If that report is out there then there's no way we are doing either one.
-
I just read a report saying that the plan for the draft was to trade down from #1 and take Mitch Trubisky
I just read a report saying that the plan for the draft was to trade down from #1 and take Mitch Trubisky
Unless they trade down to #2 with a guarantee that the 49ers will not take him, then fine.
But without that.....if you trade down any further.....the 49ers or the Bears WILL grab him, almost 100%.
-
No trade down this year.
But with Goff looking like a bust on the scale of JaMarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf, and Wentz rated as the lowest QB in the league after week 7...
It's time to re-evaluate the assertion that the brain trust was stupid to trade down in 2016.
They were RIGHT.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
just Relaying information Gipper, Personally if they want Trubisky may aswell take him at 1 without risk of losing him rather than gamble and take him at 5 or so
-
No trade down this year.
But with Goff looking like a bust on the scale of JaMarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf, and Wentz rated as the lowest QB in the league after week 7...
It's time to re-evaluate the assertion that the brain trust was stupid to trade down in 2016.
They were RIGHT.
No trade down this year.
But with Goff looking like a bust on the scale of JaMarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf, and Wentz rated as the lowest QB in the league after week 7...
It's time to re-evaluate the assertion that the brain trust was stupid to trade down in 2016.
They were RIGHT.
It is way too early to make those assessments on those players.
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