Skip to content

Browns Sign Joe Flacco to a one year deal

The Browns Board
58 21 1.4k 1
  • @orion said:

    Flacco's got a one year contract.  Perfect for Sanders to sit behind.  IF...they like Sanders.  If they don't then give Flacco Hunter.

    I just see his dad making noise haha. A circus. 

    Sitting absolutely makes sense, just hardly happens these days

    OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by
    #19

    @mld-woody said:

    I just see his dad making noise haha. A circus. 

    Sitting absolutely makes sense, just hardly happens these days

    Certainly could be a circus because of sitting behind Flacco.

  • sydS syd wrote on last edited by
    #20

  • I think this is the best of the remaining veteran options. Cousins doesn't excite me at all, & Flacco is familiar with the coaching staff & players.

    Let's ink Chubb by noon.

    sydS syd wrote on last edited by
    #21

    @bob806 said:

    Cousins doesn't excite me at all

    You know The Browns only paid Flacco 4 million, That is back up money and i believe a huge bluff directed towards the falcons (as in we are not gonna give you what you want for Cousins) so I would AssuMe that the price will come way down after the draft or even after the 1st round, So do not be surprised if Cousins is starting for us week 0ne

  • BernieSuperBowl2B BernieSuperBowl2 wrote on last edited by
    #22

    So it's looks like we're taking Travis Hunter at #2, but will we take a QB at #33?

    Dart, Milroe, and Tyler Shough all visited the Browns this week. All three will need time to develop and will not be week 1 or first half of the season starters. Dart is probably gone by #33, so unless we trade up it would be Milroe or Shough?

    I wouldn't mind - #2 Travis Hunter, #33 Dart/Milroe/Shough, #67 Quinshon Judkins - I would love to have Chubb back but we need some RB depth even if we re-sign him, he just may never be the same and we need a running game. 

    Flacco with Dart/Milroe/Shough developing behind him - WR1 Hunter, WR2 Jeudy, WR3 Tillman, TE Njoku, RB Chubb/Judkins/Ford with a hopefully revamped and healthy o-line. 

  • sydS syd

    @bob806 said:

    Cousins doesn't excite me at all

    You know The Browns only paid Flacco 4 million, That is back up money and i believe a huge bluff directed towards the falcons (as in we are not gonna give you what you want for Cousins) so I would AssuMe that the price will come way down after the draft or even after the 1st round, So do not be surprised if Cousins is starting for us week 0ne

    Bob806B Bob806 wrote on last edited by
    #23

    @syd said:

    You know The Browns only paid Flacco 4 million, That is back up money and i believe a huge bluff directed towards the falcons (as in we are not gonna give you what you want for Cousins) so I would AssuMe that the price will come way down after the draft or even after the 1st round, So do not be surprised if Cousins is starting for us week 0ne

    Wouldn't they have to cut or trade either Pickett or Flacco if Cousins is brought in?

    We know they can't cut DW due to cap purposes. He will most likely be on IR, so that doesn't count towards the 53 man roster. 

    Pickett, Flacco, unknown rookie ( we think). That's how I see it anyway.

  • @syd said:

    You know The Browns only paid Flacco 4 million, That is back up money and i believe a huge bluff directed towards the falcons (as in we are not gonna give you what you want for Cousins) so I would AssuMe that the price will come way down after the draft or even after the 1st round, So do not be surprised if Cousins is starting for us week 0ne

    Wouldn't they have to cut or trade either Pickett or Flacco if Cousins is brought in?

    We know they can't cut DW due to cap purposes. He will most likely be on IR, so that doesn't count towards the 53 man roster. 

    Pickett, Flacco, unknown rookie ( we think). That's how I see it anyway.

    sydS syd wrote on last edited by
    #24

    @bob806 said:

    Wouldn't they have to cut or trade either Pickett or Flacco if Cousins is brought in?

    We know they can't cut DW due to cap purposes. He will most likely be on IR, so that doesn't count towards the 53 man roster. 

    Pickett, Flacco, unknown rookie ( we think). That's how I see it anyway.

    we can carry 4

  • sydS syd

    @bob806 said:

    Wouldn't they have to cut or trade either Pickett or Flacco if Cousins is brought in?

    We know they can't cut DW due to cap purposes. He will most likely be on IR, so that doesn't count towards the 53 man roster. 

    Pickett, Flacco, unknown rookie ( we think). That's how I see it anyway.

    we can carry 4

    Bob806B Bob806 wrote on last edited by
    #25

    @syd said:

    we can carry 4

    They can but most teams usually don't.

    Well, since they seem to be allergic to LBs maybe you're right lol

  • sydS syd

    @bob806 said:

    Wouldn't they have to cut or trade either Pickett or Flacco if Cousins is brought in?

    We know they can't cut DW due to cap purposes. He will most likely be on IR, so that doesn't count towards the 53 man roster. 

    Pickett, Flacco, unknown rookie ( we think). That's how I see it anyway.

    we can carry 4

    OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by
    #26

    @syd said:

    we can carry 4

    Hardly anyone even carries 3.

  • @syd said:

    we can carry 4

    Hardly anyone even carries 3.

    sydS syd wrote on last edited by
    #27

    @orion said:

    Hardly anyone even carries 3.

    cut Flacco ? or pickett

  • sydS syd

    @orion said:

    Hardly anyone even carries 3.

    cut Flacco ? or pickett

    tiamat63T tiamat63 wrote on last edited by
    #28

    @syd said:

    cut Flacco ? or pickett

    Watson will be on a designation of some kind all year.  So they can carry 3. 

  • sydS syd

    @orion said:

    Hardly anyone even carries 3.

    cut Flacco ? or pickett

    OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by Orion
    #29

    @syd said:

    cut Flacco ? or pickett

    Right.  Rather than carry 4 QB's.  (Watson not included in this scenario)

    ...but they just traded for Pickett and gave Flacco 4 mil.

  • @syd said:

    cut Flacco ? or pickett

    Right.  Rather than carry 4 QB's.  (Watson not included in this scenario)

    ...but they just traded for Pickett and gave Flacco 4 mil.

    sydS syd wrote on last edited by
    #30

    @orion said:

    Right.  Rather than carry 4 QB's.  (Watson not included in this scenario)

    ...but they just traded for Pickett and gave Flacco 4 mil.

    LOL Did you forget who the owner was ?

  • nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #31

    Hooray... Let the Arch Manning Sweepstakes begin!

  • Sweet. Run it back.

    Is this what excited Garrett? Lol. 

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by nickers
    #32

    @mld-woody said:

    Sweet. Run it back.

    Is this what excited Garrett? Lol. 

    I was thinking about this the other day ironically... "Why did Garrett sign back so willingly"... It can't be because of Flacco naturally.... There has to be a secret trade and sign deal set up with someone,,, It's about the only thing that makes it all make sense... ..

  • Hooray... Let the Arch Manning Sweepstakes begin!

    T TexasAg1969 wrote on last edited by
    #33

    @nickers said:

    Hooray... Let the Arch Manning Sweepstakes begin!

    Well with Flacco we just screwed ourselves out of the tanking run for Longhorn.??

  • L LA Dawg wrote on last edited by LA Dawg
    #34

    Good signing. I was not happy when we let him go last year. I think we would have won several more games than we did if we had Flacco. 

    Whatever QB we draft can sit and learn from Joe instead of being thrown in as a rookie (hopefully). 
     

  • Good signing. I was not happy when we let him go last year. I think we would have won several more games than we did if we had Flacco. 

    Whatever QB we draft can sit and learn from Joe instead of being thrown in as a rookie (hopefully). 
     

    Dutch OvenD Dutch Oven wrote on last edited by
    #35

    @la-dawg said:

    Good signing. I was not happy when we let him go last year. I think we would have won several more games than we did if we had Flacco. 

    Whatever QB we draft can sit and learn from Joe instead of being thrown in as a rookie (hopefully). 
     

    McShay was running through a scenario today where the Browns draft Hunter at #2 and then trade up into the middle of the first to get his teammate Sanders. 

    That would be a bold move, Cotton. 

  •  Had best invest heavily in fixing the Oline and running game now.   But it's nice to see old Joe. 

    jcam222J jcam222 wrote on last edited by
    #36

    @tiamat63 said:

     Had best invest heavily in fixing the Oline and running game now.   But it's nice to see old Joe. 

    I hope we do shore up the line but Joe took far fewer sacks than Watson did behind our walking wounded line. 

  • bbedwardB bbedward wrote on last edited by
    #37

    IMG_8896.jpeg

  • @mld-woody said:

    Sweet. Run it back.

    Is this what excited Garrett? Lol. 

    I was thinking about this the other day ironically... "Why did Garrett sign back so willingly"... It can't be because of Flacco naturally.... There has to be a secret trade and sign deal set up with someone,,, It's about the only thing that makes it all make sense... ..

    jcam222J jcam222 wrote on last edited by
    #38

    @nickers said:

    I was thinking about this the other day ironically... "Why did Garrett sign back so willingly"... It can't be because of Flacco naturally.... There has to be a secret trade and sign deal set up with someone,,, It's about the only thing that makes it all make sense... ..

    I think all the reasons he gave for staying were rehearsed for both he and the team.  He stayed because he and his team figured out they had no leverage in my opinion.