Skip to content

owner front office different opinion then coaches?

The Browns Board
42 16 860
  • @texasag1969 said:

    And hopefully it doesn't make sense to the FO either.

    Right.....that would be key.....

    Shashi did say they value picks too much to want to give 2 picks for one guy.......lets hope thats true.....

    And, lets also hope that they dont value 2 picks(so much) that they pass on the great players to get em......(ala 2016)

    Edit: speaking on higher picks only.....no issue with grouping some late picks to move up a bit.....I just have this thing that I feel we should tap "good" players instead of larger groups of bad players.....thats just me tho

    T TexasAg1969 wrote on last edited by
    #33

    @mudfly said:

    Edit: speaking on higher picks only.....no issue with grouping some late picks to move up a bit.....I just have this thing that I feel we should tap "good" players instead of larger groups of bad players.....thats just me tho

    Me 2.

  • @orion said:

    The abysmal defense certainly does need help doesn't it.......and so does our abysmal offense.......we were abysmal.

    We were the Abominable Abysmal.

    The worst year in my career as a Browns fan. And that's saying something because there have been some really bad ones.
    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by Tour2ma
    #34

    @comeonman said:

    The worst year in my career as a Browns fan.

    Wait... I could have made a career out of this? How good are the bennies?

    @mudfly said:

    Me too....

    So, when people speculate we will trade up to get our QB, it makes me wonder why we would pass on one when we have the pick(this year AND last year).....but then suddenly give 2 firsts(or the equivalent or more) for one thats not deemed to be so great....

    Doesnt make any sense....

    Sure it does... just as our FO is looking ahead to 2018 so were they in 2017. And in the over 30 minutes of tape they then had on Trubs, they saw greatness.

    #sarcasm

  • @texasag1969 said:

    And hopefully it doesn't make sense to the FO either.

    Right.....that would be key.....

    Shashi did say they value picks too much to want to give 2 picks for one guy.......lets hope thats true.....

    And, lets also hope that they dont value 2 picks(so much) that they pass on the great players to get em......(ala 2016)

    Edit: speaking on higher picks only.....no issue with grouping some late picks to move up a bit.....I just have this thing that I feel we should tap "good" players instead of larger groups of bad players.....thats just me tho

    OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by
    #35

    @mudfly said:

    no issue with grouping some late picks to move up a bit.....I just have this thing that I feel we should tap "good" players instead of larger groups of bad players.....thats just me tho

    I agree 100%.

    The picks of the later rounds are no different than the guys who don't get drafted.

  • Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
    #36

    Don't believe statistically that's true (in fact I am sure it's not) on an individual basis... but so many more UDFAs attend camps than Day 3 picks that in the aggregate it may appear to be true.

    The reason I am sure it's not true statistically is the Meers Chart.

  • as to the point how can garett make a difference well ask yourself how will a guy with only 13 college games make a difference?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #37

    @beare said:

    as to the point how can garett make a difference well ask yourself how will a guy with only 13 college games make a difference?

    Because franchise QBs make more of a difference than any other position on the field. Now see is you can come up with a harder question.

  • @the-gipper said:

    We all don't believe Canfora but one or two of us? Yes, that is true.

    He beat me by 30 seconds. I have only read Ghoolie and maybe you that want trubs number one
    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #38

    @comeonman said:

    He beat me by 30 seconds. I have only read Ghoolie and maybe you that want trubs number one

    Hoorta. And I am not saying I want MT #1....but I do want him. If he goes to #12, great. (he won't slip that far). If the Browns trade up to #5 or 6, also good.

    I fully expect the Browns to take Garrett. The question, for me, is how can they also get MT.

  • Well.... ok. If we take him, I won't count on him winning us any games by himself. I would count on him making an abysmal defense better.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #39

    @comeonman said:

    Well.... ok. If we take him, I won't count on him winning us any games by himself. I would count on him making an abysmal defense better.

    Somewhat, perhaps. But they would only be better with him and about 4-5 additional quality players.

  • @comeonman said:

    Well.... ok. If we take him, I won't count on him winning us any games by himself. I would count on him making an abysmal defense better.

    The abysmal defense certainly does need help doesn't it.......and so does our abysmal offense.......we were abysmal.

    We were the Abominable Abysmal.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #40

    @orion said:

    The abysmal defense certainly does need help doesn't it.......and so does our abysmal offense.......we were abysmal.

    We were the Abominable Abysmal.

    The OL has gotten a lot of help now. Zeitler, Tretter, Martin etc. But skill areas of improvement needed ...besides QB: a productive TE and WR.

    I think we get a TE. Not sure about WR give last year's quadruple picks.

  • @gumby73 said:

    Nope..But I'd take Wentz over this QB draft class.

    Me too....

    So, when people speculate we will trade up to get our QB, it makes me wonder why we would pass on one when we have the pick(this year AND last year).....but then suddenly give 2 firsts(or the equivalent or more) for one thats not deemed to be so great....

    Doesnt make any sense....

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #41

    @mudfly said:

    Me too....

    So, when people speculate we will trade up to get our QB, it makes me wonder why we would pass on one when we have the pick(this year AND last year).....but then suddenly give 2 firsts(or the equivalent or more) for one thats not deemed to be so great....

    Doesnt make any sense....

    Because you are wrong and the guy that they want this year is better...in their opinion... than that guy from last year. That is why.

  • @comeonman said:

    He beat me by 30 seconds. I have only read Ghoolie and maybe you that want trubs number one

    Hoorta. And I am not saying I want MT #1....but I do want him. If he goes to #12, great. (he won't slip that far). If the Browns trade up to #5 or 6, also good.

    I fully expect the Browns to take Garrett. The question, for me, is how can they also get MT.

    hoortaH hoorta wrote on last edited by
    #42

    @the-gipper said:

    Hoorta. And I am not saying I want MT #1....but I do want him. If he goes to #12, great. (he won't slip that far). If the Browns trade up to #5 or 6, also good.

    I fully expect the Browns to take Garrett. The question, for me, is how can they also get MT.

    Exactly Gip. Taking Mitch #1 over Garrett would be a huge risk, and would be universally critised.

    I've already said the 49ers #2 is out of reach from what we'd have to give up. But if he's still there @ #5 with the Titans on the clock, it gets interesting. For all we know, the Jets who supposedly love Trubs could move up to #2. That would probably only cost them their 2018 first round pick.