@oconrecon said:

Ha.  I did a trade-down mock this morning on FanSpeak.  I was hard to pull the trigger.  It was my "what if Kizer looks the part enough to roll with him" trade-down scenario, which I'm still not crazy about.  If done, it probably would be for future draft picks, not 2018 picks, but the simulator keeps the picks in-year.

Anywho:

You only got two 2nd rounder for dropping from 1 to 9?

@oconrecon said:

Speaking of which, maybe Njoku is settling in (at the ripe old age of 21).  Lots of posts and short-vids on his blocking in the last 2 days.

https://twitter.com/jake_burns18/status/935522279630438400

Good stuff! I didn't see any other videos on his timeline of Njoku though. Would be interested to see how he's been as a blocker.

@tour2ma said:

Barnidge... a piss-poor blocking TE... a one-season wonder... a guy who can't now get a job in the NFL... is now a "hole filler"? Correction... a "huge hole" filler?

But who may yet be still better than any TE we have.

And of course all we had to do to sign the others was overpay them.

Maybe, maybe not.  We just had to pay them a bit more than someone else was offering.   And its not like the Browns didn't have the cap space to pay a bit extra.

Regardless of where you pick... your natural slot, after a trade up, after a trade down... it's nice to nail the pick. In large part, aside from the 2016 WR net they cast, I think we have... or at least this FO has... especially since they did not pick Gilbert, but managed to get something for him in a trade... an intradivisional trade to boot.

Yes.....getting a draft pick right is always best....whether you trade up, trade down, or stay put.   The Browns have faltered in all those instances.

@tour2ma said:

blocking TE

Speaking of which, maybe Njoku is settling in (at the ripe old age of 21).  Lots of posts and short-vids on his blocking in the last 2 days.

https://twitter.com/jake_burns18/status/935522279630438400

@nero said:

For me, having a depleted team and trading down makes a lot of sense.

You have holes everywhere, trading down provides you more picks, more chances to fix holes, so you trade down.

A team is made by A, B, C, D level players. Your best shot is to try to have many Bs, As in key positions and Cs and Ds in less important places, or surrounded by As, so you minimize their negative impact. 

The Browns, entering 2016 draft, were full of C and D players. If you trade down and get two B players instead of the A player that your trade partner is doing, it's good business. And remember that sometimes A level players are also found later in the draft. I prefer having 6 Bs and 5 Cs in a unit than 3 As, 5Cs and 3 Ds.

Now, that works when you have Cs and Ds, a depleted team, like I said in my first sentence.

Now, it's up for the FO to try to get A level players, as they should by now consider that they have a decent player core. They might use their draft picks, or even choose some of their 'tradedown' picks in order to trade up. Here is where lists enter to play. If they do a trade down in this draft I will be OK as long as they still can get their next player in the list (whoever it is) in the new draft position.

Pretty sure that in 2017 we went the "A" route... to the tune of three 1st round, "A" prospects. As of Week 12 have they all proven to be A's? Debatable, but the jury is not, or at least should not be, in yet as all the evidence is not yet in.

But here's the thing... a good FO does not go into its draft process, i.e., setting its draft board, with trading up, down or staying put locked into their mindset. Any trade temptations are an outgrowth of the Board, due diligence conversations with 31 other FOs, and ultimately the phone calls exchanged just before and on Draft Day. It's all about player evaluation and valuation.

We are months away from assembling our big board in full. Our "A list"? I'm sure it's already taking some form... at least in individuals' minds. But identifying the later alternatives to the A listers is both more important and more difficult than ID'ing the A list prospects.

If you play FirstPick enough there will come a time when:

• it's your pick and there's not a player in the game's generated "Best Available" list whose value you like. That's when you trade down.
• a player you like a lot appears on the BA list, but looks to be "protected" by other prospects at the same position... then a run starts on that position and you start making trade-up offers.
• a prospect falls into your lap at a pick to which you'd never thought he'd fall and you cannot resist taking him, even though the positional need is low.
• two prospects you like are there, but for one there is an alternative you like a bit further down your board.

@the-gipper said:

As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.

But there are key elements here:   in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely.  And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly.   Justin Gilbert as just a start.

Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.

Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.

Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA

Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.

Barnidge... a piss-poor blocking TE... a one-season wonder... a guy who can't now get a job in the NFL... is now a "hole filler"? Correction... a "huge hole" filler?

And of course all we had to do to sign the others was overpay them.

Regardless of where you pick... your natural slot, after a trade up, after a trade down... it's nice to nail the pick. In large part, aside from the 2016 WR net they cast, I think we have... or at least this FO has... especially since they did not pick Gilbert, but managed to get something for him in a trade... an intradivisional trade to boot.

Anywho:

@gumby73 said:

Nope..Tried to let it go.. but draft day in Browns football is National Sky is falling Day..but Lets just keep the facts straight..We sat at our pick, top of 2nd rd for #32 took Ogbah. To top of 3rd round #65 we sat & took Nassib..If ya want to 2nd guess? Ogbah....My draft thought was, up to #29 DT-Robert Nkemdiche. Could have also slid down to 34.Jaylon Smith-LB//36.Myles Jack-LB//or 39.Noah Spence...#65 Nassib..I got 1 bitch..DE Yannick Ngakoue went #69.. 

Oh the ogbah pick was our natural 2nd rounder. I thought his pick was from an extra that we got from some previous trade down or deal. 

But in any case, if we sat with our natural pick in the 1st round and took bosa, ogbah wouldnt even have been remotely considered. Maybe nassib still who knows

@clevfan4life said:

I know people will say trading down alot gives u future capital to trade up. But all we do with trade downs is draft mediocre talent like nassib and ogbah. I would think this teams track record at passing on immediately productive players by either just passing or passing as the result of a trade down, would be self explanatory

Nope..Tried to let it go.. but draft day in Browns football is National Sky is falling Day..but Lets just keep the facts straight..We sat at our pick, top of 2nd rd for #32 took Ogbah. To top of 3rd round #65 we sat & took Nassib..If ya want to 2nd guess? Ogbah....My draft thought was, up to #29 DT-Robert Nkemdiche. Could have also slid down to 34.Jaylon Smith-LB//36.Myles Jack-LB//or 39.Noah Spence...#65 Nassib..I got 1 bitch..DE Yannick Ngakoue went #69.. 

@nero said:

Yes, the reason for the team to be depleted was the FO itself. 

Only way I can explain this, though I don't comoletely agree with the approach, is to create a group that grew together and lost together, in order to add the FA pieces once the core of the group was settled. 

Free Agents coming to losing teams like Browns many times don't contribute a bit, as they take it as an early retirement. It happens or has happened with many teams, rookies are eager to prove themselves and earn a big contract more than veteran players who probably have left their best game days behind.

It's a radical approach but has some sense. Winning teams wouldn't need to do it because they don't have many years of losing in their backs, so it makes sense that the Browns tried this approach.

FO works hard to get it right. 

@the-gipper said:

As Nero says....the trade down is to get more valuable assets that will allow you to fill more holes on your team than just the one you would get with having just the one pick.

But there are key elements here:   in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely.  And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly.   Justin Gilbert as just a start.

Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.

Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.

Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA

Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.

How any other examples do we see where this FO created the hole they are trying to fill just because the guy there was not "our guy"...or because he was a little older....or because a guy wanted a bit more money than you were apparently willing to pay? 

Sorry.....but to a great extent this FO is just trying to play Whack a Mole....to fill holes that have cropped up due to their ridiculous policies.

Yes, the reason for the team to be depleted was the FO itself. 

Only way I can explain this, though I don't comoletely agree with the approach, is to create a group that grew together and lost together, in order to add the FA pieces once the core of the group was settled. 

Free Agents coming to losing teams like Browns many times don't contribute a bit, as they take it as an early retirement. It happens or has happened with many teams, rookies are eager to prove themselves and earn a big contract more than veteran players who probably have left their best game days behind.

It's a radical approach but has some sense. Winning teams wouldn't need to do it because they don't have many years of losing in their backs, so it makes sense that the Browns tried this approach.

But there are key elements here:   in trading down and getting these more picks....you have to choose wisely.  And to a great extent....this team has chosen stupidly.   Justin Gilbert as just a start.

Also.....one of the problems with this management is that they are trading down to fill holes that THEY have created, but just letting some decent players walk.

Sign The Scwartz and you don't have a hole at RT.

Sign Gipson and you don't have a hole at FA

Bring Barnidge back....and you don't have a huge hole at TE.

How any other examples do we see where this FO created the hole they are trying to fill just because the guy there was not "our guy"...or because he was a little older....or because a guy wanted a bit more money than you were apparently willing to pay? 

Sorry.....but to a great extent this FO is just trying to play Whack a Mole....to fill holes that have cropped up due to their ridiculous policies.

You have holes everywhere, trading down provides you more picks, more chances to fix holes, so you trade down.

A team is made by A, B, C, D level players. Your best shot is to try to have many Bs, As in key positions and Cs and Ds in less important places, or surrounded by As, so you minimize their negative impact. 

The Browns, entering 2016 draft, were full of C and D players. If you trade down and get two B players instead of the A player that your trade partner is doing, it's good business. And remember that sometimes A level players are also found later in the draft. I prefer having 6 Bs and 5 Cs in a unit than 3 As, 5Cs and 3 Ds.

Now, that works when you have Cs and Ds, a depleted team, like I said in my first sentence.

Now, it's up for the FO to try to get A level players, as they should by now consider that they have a decent player core. They might use their draft picks, or even choose some of their 'tradedown' picks in order to trade up. Here is where lists enter to play. If they do a trade down in this draft I will be OK as long as they still can get their next player in the list (whoever it is) in the new draft position.

@clevfan4life said:

I only "entertain" the idea of trading down when the bpa's are at positions we're flush at AND (most importantly) some team is willing to part with major capital. With a team so deficient at so many positions, staying put is the way to. 

I know people will say trading down alot gives u future capital to trade up. But all we do with trade downs is draft mediocre talent like nassib and ogbah. I would think this teams track record at passing on immediately productive players by either just passing or passing as the result of a trade down, would be self explanatory

If Peppers and Njoku turn out to be "mediocre talent", then I'll concede your point. Until then...

Everyone points to Wentz, but the cold fact is that to turn down the Philly deal we had to believe strongly that he was worth two 1sts. And evidence of belief at that level by those here at the time is severely lacking.

Skimming thru two Camp threads turns up:

• tia as the big, early backer. Interestingly he's also a leader of the "let Carson go" movement... http://thebrownsboard.com/topic/39463-camp-wentz-starts-here/
• cal as a later proponent, albeit for some semi-pervy, non-football reasons... http://thebrownsboard.com/topic/39914-camp-wentz-part-deux/?tab=comments#comment-588868

@clevfan4life said:

We didnt trade up into the top 5 to take johnny. I dont consider moving up a couple spots in the late 1st one of thise sell the shirt off ur back trades. Those, or anything close...i want no part of. As well as no trade downs unless the talent available is at positions we're already good at and some team is willing to give us the shirt off their back. 

Take this for year instance. If we had our franchise qb, i would potentially entertain trade offers for barkley. And if no one bit id fukking sit at one and take barkley. This FO tho seems like they'll take a bunch of later round picks and some cases of natty light. When teams know ur desperate to trade down they're not gonna bend over for u. 

To me thats one of the main downsides of a known analytics FO. Teams know they dont have to do alot of pre lubing and stretching.

Belichick supposedly thought otherwise. 

@tour2ma said:

So.... so long as a trade up doesn't cost us much, it's OK to miss.

And as long as a trade down works out, it's OK to trade down.

Probably why "those guys" are gone.

My point was trade ups are no more assured than trade downs.... and by inference nether is staying put.

I only "entertain" the idea of trading down when the bpa's are at positions we're flush at AND (most importantly) some team is willing to part with major capital. With a team so deficient at so many positions, staying put is the way to. 

I know people will say trading down alot gives u future capital to trade up. But all we do with trade downs is draft mediocre talent like nassib and ogbah. I would think this teams track record at passing on immediately productive players by either just passing or passing as the result of a trade down, would be self explanatory

@tour2ma said:

So.... so long as a trade up doesn't cost us much, it's OK to miss.

Well yeah. The point is trading up into a high pick always costs alot. The risk is "very" high. Trading up a couple spots late in the 1st round is usually finalized with a promise of a trip to the titty clibs nextbtime they're in town. 

Thankfully, I'm sure Jimmy would rather pay for a #15 draft pick than a #2 draft pick. So at least i'm happy trading down saved him money.

2,600 yards passing, 28 Tds, 5 Ints...

@clevfan4life said:

We didnt trade up into the top 5 to take johnny. I dont consider moving up a couple spots in the late 1st one of thise sell the shirt off ur back trades. Those, or anything close...i want no part of. As well as no trade downs unless the talent available is at positions we're already good at and some team is willing to give us the shirt off their back. 

Take this for year instance. If we had our franchise qb, i would potentially entertain trade offers for barkley. And if no one bit id fukking sit at one and take barkley. This FO tho seems like they'll take a bunch of later round picks and some cases of natty light. When teams know ur desperate to trade down they're not gonna bend over for u. 

To me thats one of the main downsides of a known analytics FO. Teams know they dont have to do alot of pre lubing and stretching.

So.... so long as a trade up doesn't cost us much, it's OK to miss.

And as long as a trade down works out, it's OK to trade down.

@hoorta said:

I swear, 1\2 the guys on this board- not just me, could have done a better job drafting in the first round than the guys who get paid to make those decisions.

Probably why "those guys" are gone.

My point was trade ups are no more assured than trade downs.... and by inference nether is staying put.

@gumby73 said:

coulda & shoulda takes Wentz at #2 for nothing, while wouda finds Billy Joel's bottles of Red & Whites..we done burnt the Wentz & Watson Bridge...who's next 

Ah, it's all looking forward now gumby.   That trade down will haunt the Browns for the next 15 years. UNLESS Rosen or Mayfield win more SBs than Carson.