That is an INSANE offer. This year's 1st, 2nd and 3rd and next year's 1st is what the Skins are offering and that might not even be their maximum? I might be completley done with the Browns if they tried to best that. No player is worth all of that especially not on a team with this many gaping holes.

@hoorta said:

WARNING!!! BLOGGER ON CRACK

You can buy a pick in the NBA, but I sincerely doubt that's legal in the NFL. Never been done before. And if the Browns want RGIII that badly, Lerner has about as much money as Snyder, AND better draft picks to throw at the Rams.

It would be way cheaper for the Redskins is actual $$$ and draft picks to throw the house at Peyton Manning, should he be released. Stay tuned.

Are you kidding? Has anybody in the NFL ever outbid Daniel Snyder on anything? It's not about how much money Lerner has it's about the fact that Snyder throws it away like it's absolutely nothing on that organization and Lerner doesn't do that with the Browns (smartly). Lerner would actually think "the price is too high" or "that's too much" while Snyder would just give it away (this is the man who okay'd giving Haynesworth $100 million)

There seems to be a debate as to whether or not it would be legal. It doesn't seem like it would be, but apparently it's not specifically stated in the rules.

The Redskins already said they are absolutely not giving draft picks up for Peyton Manning. I think they are definitely the Browns biggest competition for RG3 and the thing that concerns me most is the close relationship between Fisher and Shanahan. I wouldn't be surprised if they made a deal way before draft day.

Also, I have to honestly ask, what key players on the Browns do you think we could trade? I hate to sound negative, but I'm not sure who anyone would want - particularly at the most coveted skill positions (RB, WR, TE, LB, DB)

Hate to bring this up, but did anyone read the article about Dan Snyder possibly just giving Fisher and the Rams money for the 2nd pick to help them stay in STL? Here's the link:

http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/2/9/2787187/are-the-pieces-of-a-rg3-trade-coming-together

Can he actually do that? Just throw money at them to renovate their stadium? Ugh, the idea of trying to outbid the Redskins just makes me cringe. I think it's more likely we get Flynn or draft someone like Tannehill, Foles, Wilson, Moore or Keenum.

@brownfish said:

Yes, we will probably have to give up at least a 2nd round pick...if not a first. Green Bay will place a franchise tag on him as fast as Sean Connerey can slap a woman in the face.

if we can get Tom Clements with the deal I'm in...of course still a chance that the Saints could shock everyone and trade Drew B. and then pick up this kid? I think he used to play for LSU...stranger things have happened.

Sigh, again it is highly unlikely that Green Bay wil place a franchise tag on him.

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/226468/report-packers-unlikely-to-tag-qb-matt-flynn

I really think this is the best option. We won't have to give up any picks for him. I think we have a few teams to worry about as far as bidding for his service, but he'd fit in here since he's been in the type of offense we run and I'd prefer him to trading up and giving away picks for RG3. A Flynn and McCoy competition would only be good for this team and we could fill the rest of the holes through the draft.

jparsh said:

I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.

Are you opposed to Flynn? I mean, in all honesty, I think Flynn is the best option. He's had a few starts in the NFL, he's been in a very good offensive system for a few years and learned under a great QB. Spending a little money (we have the cap space) to bring him in and compete sounds a lot more sensible to me than trading away picks that we desparately need.

I am not at all against drafting a QB or even bringing in Flynn, I am against trading up for one. If we get Tannehill or Foles or Moore or Keenum, and bring them in to compete with Colt? That is fine! Great! I'm not opposed to competition at all. We can use our other draft picks to get wide receivers, maybe a running back later, and help on the offensive line. My main issue is that I think there is a 99.9% chance that RG3 will not be there with the #4 pick and I can not agree with trading away picks to try to outbid others for RG3 when this team has so many other needs. If the Skins intend to give up this year's 1st, 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1st - we would have to beat that and I am not at all willing to do it when we have other needs.

jparsh said:

Yes, Rex Grossman and Colt McCoy are comparable QB's, I would 100% agree with your comparison. Those are the types of QB's that have competition brought in for them. As for GB franchising Flynn, it's a legitimate option that I wouldn't be surprised in a hearbeat if they do. They know the value for Flynn right now and have a shot at getting something for him, not just letting him go in free agency.

Where on earth did you hear that the Browns were going to trade up to get RG3 and where in this universe did you hear that we'd have to give up 3 picks to get him??? I'd guess that our 3rd round pick would suffice if the Browns did in fact do that, which I don't think they'd do. But if they did it would be FAR from the dumbest choice they can make. Getting a franchise QB is never a dumb decision.

You seem to be very misinformed about much of how things work in the NFL. Your perception of what value trading up costs, your perception of what teams would do with their franchise tag is off. But you are spot on with your comparison of Colt and Grossman being the same type of QB to their teams.

Again, Green Bay is not franchising Flynn. You should read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html

If the Packers tag Flynn, thta $14 million counts against their salary cap and by league rules you are not allowed trade franchise players. It was only done once with the Patriots and that is because Brady was on IR. Look at the rules! You are are not allowed to franchise tag a player with the intent to sign him and then trade him. You seem to be the one misinformed. When you tag a player, the amount that the tag is worth counts against the cap whether the player does or doesn't sign (if the player signs it is guaranteed to them). If the Packers put a franchise tag on Flynn he would be the highest played player on the team annually. That is NOT going to happen.

Sigh you don't get it with RG3. People are saying we need to get RG3. RG3 is not going to be there at the #4 pick. The Rams' (and Vikings') phones will be ringing off the hook with offers from QB needy teams to trade up. Right now, Casserly says for the Redskins to move from #6 to #2 they would have to give up their first this year, their second this year, a first next year and possibly one additional pick. In order for the Browns to outbid them we would have to match that and beat it. Does it make sense now? RG3 is not just going to fall into the Browns lap at #4 and thinking that he will is amazingly naive.

jparsh said:

I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined. We will wind up with either RG3, Flynn or Tananhall (sp?) and one of those 3 will be the starting QB next year. The only option there that allows for two wide outs in the first round is if GB doesn't franchise Flynn and we get him free and clear through free agency. But I'm leaning towards thinking GB will franchise him, the only issue is the fact that his salary would be so large it may scare teams away. Then there's the issue on whether or not he'll resign long term with the team he's being traded to. There's a lot to be determined in that area, except for the fact that Colt will not be the guy. If anyone is taking the whole "we love him and he has a shot to be our franchise guy" BS then you need to learn what it means when a GM/coach/president says the right thing.

I said before, you don't give your future guy competition and leave things in limbo. Name one other starting QB this year that's secure in their job who had their gm and president say that they're not willing to name him the starter for next year.

Umm, you have no idea whether or not Colt will be the QB next year. An open competition is an open competition. As for your challenge pretty sure Rex Grossman ended last season with the Redskins and yet went into the next year having to battle it out with John Beck for the starting job.

I'm not even going to talk about how absurd the idea of Green Bay franchising Flynn would be. That would make him the highest paid player on the team - a backup QB. Also, they have to tag Finley (which is much more likely). You really think Green Bay is going to put themselves in a position where Flynn makes more money than Rodgers? That's just absurd.

Also since they claim they won't be very active in free agency, trading up to get RG3 needs to be absoultely out of the question. They would be giving up at least 3 picks for him and if the Browns don't intend to do anything in free agency the draft is our only hope of filling the massive holes that we have on this team.

I would MUCH RATHER trade down than get into a bidding war with someone like the Redskins and trade away a ton of picks after having not done a freaking thing in free agency. This team would be in an even worse position that it is now.

All of you people thinking that RG3 will be there at the #4 pick? He won't. If we want RG3 we will have to trade up for him and I think that would be the dumbest decision this organization can make considering all of our issues and the fact that we don't intend to do much in free agency.

@nw220 said:

Problem is no way does Richardson make it past the Bungles or Jets to Cleveland they would both jump on him before we got the chance and i wouldnt take him with the 4th pick, as far as the Washington trading with St.Louis there could be one peice that could unfold before the draft which is if Dan Snyder makes a play for Matt Flynn and dosent wanna waiger the possibility of working out a trade to get RG3,theres a good possiblity they couldnt and would you wanna take that bet. That might mean they would have to reach at 6 for Ryan Tannehill

I think Washington Signs Flynn because they have never been afraid to spend money, or they could all throw us a curve ball and get Peyton Manning...

But yes there is a good possiblity they could move up with St.Louis but nothing is set in stone, wait until after F/A first.

You're probably right about Richardson not making it past the Bengals or the Jets.

Tannenhill has a significant foot injury and won't be in the Senior Bowl. I think his best chance of impressing the Redskins and them possibly drafting him just went out the window.

I actually expect Flynn to be a Brown. After the fiascos of McNabb, Grossman and Beck I don't think Shanahan is going to get another QB from another team. He traded up to get Jay Cutler when he really wanted him, I expect him to do the same this year. Holmgren has never drafted a QB in the first round and his history shows that he likes QB's who have some NFL experience. I am not completely sold on Flynn as I think two games is not enough of a sample size, but bringing him in to compete with McCoy isn't a terrible idea. He's only 26 years old too and learned under one of the best and most productive teams/offensive systems in football - a system not unlike the one they have been trying to implement here.

@miktoxic said:

you might be new here but you make more sense than a lot of people who've been here for a while.

keep #4 and get blackmon or trade down.

and what i saw of richardson last night doesn't inspire me to get him @ #22. who did jump off the screen last night was the LB hightower from alabama.

if we could get a wr, lb and cb with the first 3 picks.............party over here!

I am not too fond of drafting RB's high, but I really think there is a very small chance that Hillis will still be here. If he isn't, and after reading Holmgren's interview, I think he views the key to any QB (specifically Colt's) success as a team having a strong running game so I can see him drafting Richardson. I think Hightower is a stud, I just don't know if he'll be around at #22. The Eagles really really need linebackers.

I know that most people here are very pro-Blackmon, but what would people think of trading down and maybe getting Floyd and an extra offensive lineman with the pick we get from whoever we trade with? If we don't take Richardson but trade down with a team that really needs an RB, we could further build through the draft. I think we should use this draft to fill as many holes possible but still getting quality players who can be productive at skill positions.

@brownskidd said:

Trading down has some advantages, but I would feel like cutting my right arm off we did that again and missed on RG3 or Blackmon. If RG3 is not there. We get Blackmon at #4. Than at #22 I would like to grab a stud Linebacker or shore up the right side of our OL.

I don't think there is a "if RG3 is not there at #4" option. He won't last to #4. The question is, are we willing to get into a bidding war with the Redskins or the Dolphins for him? John Clayton of ESPN who used to be a major part of the Skins organization and still has ties said that the Skins will trade up http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/john-clayton-predicts-redskins-will-trade-up-draft-robert-griffin-iii/2012/01/05/gIQABHztcP_blog.html

I don't think it would make sense at all for the Browns to get into a bidding war when we don't have wide receivers, an offensive line, probably a starting running back, etc. If the Skins trade up, we have a very good chance of getting Blackmon as I don't think the Vikings would take him. If we traded down we could still probably get a good receiver, but who would we trade down with? Especially if the QB-needy teams are looking to trade with the Rams?

Hi! I'm new here, but I've been keeping up with the draft possibilities. I fully expect (and if you read the Redskins boards, so do they) for the Redskins to trade with St. Louis for the number 2 pick. Do we really want to get into a bidding war with the Redskins when we have so many other holes to fill? It's quite possible that Jeff Fisher will be the Rams next head coach and he just happens to be one of Mike Shanahan's very good friends. RG3 was interviewed about his favorite QB and his favorite team of all time and his answer was John Elway and the Denver Broncos when Shanahan coached. I'd bet that he'd relish the idea of being coached by the guy who coached his all-time favorite QB.

Also, we do not need a QB and even if we do, we definitely have too many holes to fill to be getting into a bidding war with someone like Dan Snyder over one that doesn't fit our system in the first place and when we already have Colt McCoy (who I'd like to see the starting QB next year with more talent around him).

I think the best scenario for us is to bring in Matt Flynn at QB and for the draft to go this way:

1. Colts - Luck

2. Redskins - RG3 (trade with Rams)

3. Vikings - Kalil

4. Browns - Blackmon

22. Browns - Richardson

Trading down is always an option, but I don't think the team should trade out of the top ten. I do think that after the combine the race between Blackmon, Jefferson and Floyd as far as who is the best receiver in the draft will be a lot closer so trading down with the Dolphins or Redskins could mean that we get extra picks in addition to a really good WR (I still think though that the Rams hold all the cards).