njbuff Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: There's a rumor the Browns could trade for Andrew Luck which would throw the beginning of the draft into chaos with the Colts having three of the first four picks. How fun would that be? Cleveland is going to give up TWO top four picks for an injured QB????? I don't even see one being dangled for Luck.
njodogg Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) I just don't seen Beane trading all the picks he worked to acquire. I know an argument can be made that he acquired those picks for this exact reason but its also clear that this team needs to get younger. For some reason I see them staying put or even trading down. If they were to trade up my guess would be with the Giants. With picks 21/22, Glenn, and a 2019 3rd RD pick (assuming Gaines is gone we should receive an extra 3rd or fourth in 2019 correct?) I guess maybe my personal views on draft capital are weighing on me. Edited March 1, 2018 by njodogg Left a detail out
Maynard Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 8 hours ago, gonzo1105 said: I’m a firm believer that the Bills and Giants will make a trade for # 2. Just reading what other guys said, previous relationship with Gettlemen(much like the Chiefs last year), and the Giants willingness to hang on to Eli make me think this is a strong possibility. I also expect Cordy Glenn to be part of the deal. It just makes too much sense. I’m in total agreement there. My guess has been that we will work something out with the Giants.
JinxedBill1 Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 I like the bravado but I doubt Darnold is there at 4. I think Darnold and Rosen go 1 and 2 to the highest bidder at 2. JMO
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: Would they trade back? I wouldn't be surprised but I bet they'll be looking for picks next year and in the future at this point. They don't need more this year, really. But can they start a conveyor belt so that each year they have more coming to them than anyone else does? I'm sure they'd love to start something like that. We should be - in the long term - hoping to start working that way as well. But just as for us getting a franchise QB has to be #1 and then probably toughening the front seven the next ... the Browns are going to have bigger priorities than bringing in more picks. They would demand extra value, and would turn things down if the guys they want are there. And they're likely to be. Oh, and Cleveland doesn't need Tyrod. They've got Kiser and Kessler. Tyrod wouldn't mean anything to them. In any case, my guess is no, they'd rather have one of the top seven or ten guys, the absolute blue chippers, rather than more numbers for a team that's already got a ton of picks. Just a guess. But the Bills should ask. They should ask everyone at this point. I'm not a believer, but I'm sure hopeful about it. Kizer and Kessler are just terrible though, and they won 0 games last year... need oline help, defensive backs, running backs. You don't win 0 games unless u have tons of holes. Edited March 1, 2018 by dneveu
RalphWilson'sNewWar Posted March 1, 2018 Author Posted March 1, 2018 4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: Would they trade back? I wouldn't be surprised but I bet they'll be looking for picks next year and in the future at this point. They don't need more this year, really. But can they start a conveyor belt so that each year they have more coming to them than anyone else does? I'm sure they'd love to start something like that. We should be - in the long term - hoping to start working that way as well. But just as for us getting a franchise QB has to be #1 and then probably toughening the front seven the next ... the Browns are going to have bigger priorities than bringing in more picks. They would demand extra value, and would turn things down if the guys they want are there. And they're likely to be. Oh, and Cleveland doesn't need Tyrod. They've got Kiser and Kessler. Tyrod wouldn't mean anything to them. In any case, my guess is no, they'd rather have one of the top seven or ten guys, the absolute blue chippers, rather than more numbers for a team that's already got a ton of picks. Just a guess. But the Bills should ask. They should ask everyone at this point. I'm not a believer, but I'm sure hopeful about it. The idea for Taylor strictly came from Hue Jackson saying his ideal QB Room for 2018 would have 2 young QBs developing and 1 Veteran with playing experience. I think that is the reason Browns put in a bid for Alex Smith. the vet would play because the 1st Pick is probably Darnold or Allen who are the 2 QBs who they say need time. plus out of Keenum, Bradford, Bridgewater, McCarron, Taylor...Taylor on the 1 year deal might be cheapest?
PolishDave Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 9 hours ago, RalphWilson'sNewWar said: so if Cleveland can’t get any of the Viking 3 or McCarron. Buffalo could give you a starting NFL Qb at 10 million dollar salary with Buffalo swallowing that players $6 Million bonus! What are the odds that Cleveland can't get ANY of those guys? Come on man. It won't matter anyway. Cleveland is going to trade up with their #4 pick and end up drafting #1 and #2 and people are going to go WTF?
MrEpsYtown Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 9 hours ago, RalphWilson'sNewWar said: Let’s have some speculation fun and play with what some of the other teams are being quoted on at today’s press interviews from Combine. Let’s start with the Browns and how they end their QB search by drafting one at #1. But what happens to the 4th Pick? Hue Jackson quoted today “Having six of the first 65 picks is going to be a huge opportunity for us moving forward.” okay Hue. If Buffalo gives you 21 and 22 and a second rounder you could have not 6 of the first 65 picks, but EIGHT of the first 65 picks! Lol. 8 is better than 6. ? what type of Quarterback Room does he want? A Young Player (the first overall pick) and according to Hue, “You want a guy who’s been a veteran player, that’s played in the National Football League, that’s had a chance to win,” so if Cleveland can’t get any of the Viking 3 or McCarron. Buffalo could give you a starting NFL Qb at 10 million dollar salary with Buffalo swallowing that players $6 Million bonus! so Buffalo could boost Cleveland’s number of picks in the top 65 and provide a CHEAP Starting caliber QB. If You are Cleveland does Drafting Darnold and trading the 4th pick to then have in total Sam Darnold and Picks 21, 22, 33, 35, 53, 64, 65 and Tyrod Taylor. Look good as opposed to Sam Darnold and picks 4, 33, 35, 64, 65 ? I think a Cleveland trade down makes sense if they go with a veteran quarterback. I still think they will sign McCarron, draft Barkley with 1, trade down from 4, develop Kizer. It's the fastest way to competing. You have McCarron, a really good offensive line, Corey Coleman, Josh Gordon etc. They could go from 0-16 to 8-8 on the edge of the playoffs. Having 2 of the top 4 picks becomes a really expensive situation in a couple of years with fifth year options and such. While it sounds like a cool idea on paper, when these guys pan out, the Browns are going to have to pay all of them. It's the problem the Rams are having now, they have a number of high picks whose pay days are coming up (Watkins, Joyner, Goff, Gurley, Donald) and they are going to wind up having to cut a really good player like Mark Barron or Robert Quinn. With all of that said, I am only trading up for Rosen and I think we need to trade up with the Giants to get him.
CLTbills Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 9 hours ago, Starr Almighty said: 10 mil for a backup? ? I'm no Tyrod fan, but........ A backup that led a team to the playoffs...
PaattMaann Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 Just now, CLTbills said: I'm no Tyrod fan, but........ A backup that led a team to the playoffs... Agreed. And its really 10 million for a possible place holding starter for them... On a team that has loads of cap space and wouldnt care about 10 million... To a team who has stated they want a proven NFL QB in the QB room... (I still don't think the trade we are looking at is with the Browns at 4 though, I would think 2 or 3 to ensure the QB we identify as being "The Guy")
CLTbills Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 Just now, PaattMaann said: Agreed. And its really 10 million for a possible place holding starter for them... On a team that has loads of cap space and wouldnt care about 10 million... To a team who has stated they want a proven NFL QB in the QB room... (I still don't think the trade we are looking at is with the Browns at 4 though, I would think 2 or 3 to ensure the QB we identify as being "The Guy") And with the big name FA QB's probably going for 20-30 mill a year, 10 million doesn't sound terrible for a guy who took a team to the playoffs last season. 1
BobChalmers Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) The problem with this whole concept is that Cleveland really does (and SHOULD) want BOTH of their early picks. If Sequon Barkley runs well at the combine at 230+ pounds, Cleveland would be nuts not to take him FIRST and then take whatever QB they can get at #4. Darnold is not special. ALL the rookie QBs have major question marks. Indy isn't taking a QB - they're taking DE Chubb. They very well could take Barkley if he's still there though. They just let Gore go. Cleveland at worst will get their 2nd choice at QB, and again, they all have significant flaws - any one of the first 4-6 could be the right answer. They can take Barkley and still have one of Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield/Allen. No brainer. Edited March 1, 2018 by BobChalmers
MrEpsYtown Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, BobChalmers said: The problem with this whole concept is that Cleveland really does (and SHOULD) want BOTH of their early picks. If Sequon Barkley runs well at the combine at 230+ pounds, Cleveland would be nuts not to take him FIRST and then take whatever QB they can get at #4. Darnold is not special. ALL the rookie QBs have major question marks. Indy isn't taking a QB - they're taking DE Chubb. They very well could take Barkley if he's still there though. They just let Gore go. Cleveland at worst will get their 2nd choice at QB, and again, they all have significant flaws - any one of the first 4-6 could be the right answer. They can take Barkley and still have one of Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield/Allen. No brainer. I agree with you on taking Barkley. But why not trade down from 4 if you don't love the quarterbacks? Sign a vet, draft Barkley, then trade down for more picks.
YoloinOhio Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 “hue Jackson quotes” lol - needs its own twitter handle. He’s such an idiot. 1
BobChalmers Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said: I agree with you on taking Barkley. But why not trade down from 4 if you don't love the quarterbacks? Sign a vet, draft Barkley, then trade down for more picks. I still think they want and should get one of the top rookies - I'm just saying the difference between the top 4 isn't clear enough to miss out on Barkley. So trading down depends on how far down they think they can trade and still get a good one - given that there's a flood of teams needing a QB after them (the whole reason the Bills need to trade up to 5 or similar to get their guy in all these mocks) they can't move down very far and still get a top 4 QB guy. It comes down to: Do you (if you're the Browns) want: - your first choice at QB, then a top safety or a bunch of picks in trade OR - your second choice at QB AND the consensus top offensive player in the whole draft Edited March 1, 2018 by BobChalmers
MrEpsYtown Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 1 minute ago, BobChalmers said: That depends on how far down they think they can trade and still get a good one - given that there's a flood of teams needing a QB after them (the whole reason the Bills need to trade up to 5 or similar to get their guy in all these mocks) they can't move down very far and still get a top 4 QB guy. I hear you. My argument is if I'm Cleveland and I don't love the quarterbacks, then don't take one. Trade down as far as you want in that case.
Big Turk Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) You are delusional if you think trading 21 and 22 is enough to get up to number four. Maybe that works in your career Madden simulation but it damn sure isnt working in real life. You are likely adding in a 2nd round pick this year and another pick next year...so make that 9 of the top 65 Edited March 1, 2018 by matter2003
RyanC883 Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 I actually think this idea has some merit. It totally depends on them striking out in FA, but if they want a 1 year bridge QB TT could be ideal. Inexpensive, only 1 year left on contract. And he'd have some weapons with Gordon. But, if your Cleveland, do you pass up on Barkely (if he's there?). Likely not. So I think Barkely (RB-PSU) has to be off the board for this to happen. 1 hour ago, BobChalmers said: The problem with this whole concept is that Cleveland really does (and SHOULD) want BOTH of their early picks. If Sequon Barkley runs well at the combine at 230+ pounds, Cleveland would be nuts not to take him FIRST and then take whatever QB they can get at #4. Darnold is not special. ALL the rookie QBs have major question marks. Indy isn't taking a QB - they're taking DE Chubb. They very well could take Barkley if he's still there though. They just let Gore go. Cleveland at worst will get their 2nd choice at QB, and again, they all have significant flaws - any one of the first 4-6 could be the right answer. They can take Barkley and still have one of Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield/Allen. No brainer. I hear ya, but is Barkley THAT much better than the RB you could get at 21? I don't know. If I really love a QB, I take him 1, and consider the Bills offer. Or, another thing could happen and somehow Barkely is still there at 4, then I take him. This is why the draft and pre-draft conversations are so much damn fun!!!
apuszczalowski Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 13 hours ago, RalphWilson'sNewWar said: Is it a lock Darnold or Allen are day 1 starters? I was under the assumption both of the QBs who are being talked about going first are not locks to start. cleveland put in an offer for Alex Smith which makes me believe they wanted a Vet to start because the QB they like the most will need some time to adapt to the NFL. so Taylor on a 1 year deal...while Allen sits or Darnold sits? Is that beyond possible to see when it was almost Alex Smith starting while Allen/Darnold sat? The way they, and most other QB prospect get talked about around here sometimes before they are drafted they are day 1 HOFers The Browns most likely go QB #1 but still bring in a veteran with the idea that the veteran starts and the picks sits until they can take over the spot.
Recommended Posts