Myles Garrett requests a trade

[SirAndrew]

15 hours ago, HomeTeam said:

My concern is that this defense is not that close where one single player will push them over the edge (even though Garrett is a very special player).  

 

This defense needs an upgrade at edge, a nose tackle, an additional DT, 2 CBs and a safety. 

 

I imagine Beane would be hesitant to place all his resources in one player like he did with Von, who ended up injured. I'm not comparing Von to Garrett but the point remains. 

 

I rather they follow the eagles route, where they double dip on the the same positions like they did last year at CB and D-line in 2023. They only caveat is that the eagles were picking much lower than us and you have to hit on your picks.  I like Beane, but he would admit that he needs to do better in the earlier rounds. 

This is exactly where I am. I’m surprised this opinion isn’t very popular. We have many knowledgeable folks on this site, and I’m somewhat surprised how many of those would be willing to give up the world for Garrett. I’m slightly confused by the amount of people who criticize Beane’s draft choices, and McDermott as a coach, but would give up a small fortune for Garrett. If Beane hasn’t been good enough, and McDermott’s scheme isn’t it, how can you also say Garrett gets us over the hump? 

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, JP51 said:

I also think that if you were to go after 1 player that could impact the entire D...  MG pass rush helps DBs because he gets home, Interior lineman because he draws double teams and LB because he blows plays up in the run game down the LS... he certainly is not a panacea but his game wrecker status will make it a bit easier on the existing crew... 

 

Yeah, and I think that is what other people are missing as well.  It may not even be Myles that makes the play, but if he can just affect the play making it easier for someone else to make the play, its the same affect.  

[JP51]

6 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah, and I think that is what other people are missing as well.  It may not even be Myles that makes the play, but if he can just affect the play making it easier for someone else to make the play, its the same affect.  

Thats what game wreckers do,,, they are the molding that helps cover up the imperfections and makes it look pretty... 

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Cook is cheap, $5M, he is on his rookie contract.  They do not have to renegotiate his salary.  And if Cleveland loses him to a big contract after the season they could be in the running to get a comp pick.  Same with AJE and Elam.

 

These are not expensive players and the combined total would be less than what the Browns would be sending just for Newsome.

 

No disrespect, but not sure how any of this makes sense.  Cook is making it clear he doesn't want to play on his $5M deal here on a team on the door step to a SB with an elite QB and excellent OL...you think he is going to just go to Cleveland purgatory and be cool playing on his $5M deal there?  And $5M is not cheap to a team looking to shed salary big time when they can draft a rookie in a good RB class that will be cheaper...not to mention on a team who benefits more from losing than winning the next 2 seasons.  

 

As far as AJE goes...0%, maybe less than 0% they will take AJE back in a trade, he is on a 2nd contract and been a rotational DE. Especially heading into a draft that is very strong along the DL and they can get a bunch of draft picks to add higher upside rookies on cheaper deals than AJE. 

 

There is honestly absolutely no benefit to the Browns to take on these players, it makes no sense to their situation in any capacity, nor can they really afford to do it either.

 

With or without adding AJE and Cook for example, the Browns are still the worst team in their division.  So what would they gain by adding guys they can't afford to a team that is going to finish last and with a cap disaster like no other for the next 2 seasons?  It is in their best interest to lose as many games as they can, not grind out a 6 or 7 win season and worsen their draft position while trying to completely gut and rebuild that team.  

 

They need to shed salary to even field a roster, they are not taking back guys with 2nd contracts or due 2nd contracts.  And why would they take a first round bust rookie in Elam who is on a first rounder deal?  I mean, unless they just coveted Elam when he was in the draft, why would they want a bust who has a first round contract and then try and rehab his career while in the midst of a full rebuild when they can draft a rookie(s) cheaper they hand pick for what they want to do moving forward?

 

Again, no disrespect, but I can't see Browns taking any players back that are coming up on 2nd contracts or already into their 2nd contracts as it only hurts their rebuilding efforts as they begin the 3 year process to get out of the worst contract in NFL history.  

Edited Thursday at 05:59 PM by Alphadawg7

[Alphadawg7]

18 minutes ago, JP51 said:

Thats what game wreckers do,,, they are the molding that helps cover up the imperfections and makes it look pretty... 

 

Yup, and they can also help make up for deficiencies in the scheme too.  

[JP51]

16 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yup, and they can also help make up for deficiencies in the scheme too.  

A freaking men to that.

[Einstein's Dog]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No disrespect, but not sure how any of this makes sense.  Cook is making it clear he doesn't want to play on his $5M deal here on a team on the door step to a SB with an elite QB and excellent OL...you think he is going to just go to Cleveland purgatory and be cool playing on his $5M deal there?  And $5M is not cheap to a team looking to shed salary big time when they can draft a rookie in a good RB class that will be cheaper...not to mention on a team who benefits more from losing than winning the next 2 seasons.  

 

There is honestly absolutely no benefit to the Browns to take on these players, it makes no sense to their situation in any capacity, nor can they really afford to do it either.

 

With or without adding AJE and Cook for example, the Browns are still the worst team in their division.  So what would they gain by adding guys they can't afford to a team that is going to finish last and with a cap disaster like no other for the next 2 seasons?  It is in their best interest to lose as many games as they can, not grind out a 6 or 7 win season and worsen their draft position while trying to completely gut and rebuild that team.  

 

Cook doesn't have a no trade clause- what he wants is of minor consequence.  Cleveland gets the player and the contract problem.  Many here have said make Cook play out his contract, that he has no leverage- let that be the case in Cleveland if they don't want to pay him.  And if they decide not to pay Cook and he walks Cleveland would then be in the running for a comp pick.

[Alphadawg7]

3 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Cook doesn't have a no trade clause- what he wants is of minor consequence.  Cleveland gets the player and the contract problem.  Many here have said make Cook play out his contract, that he has no leverage- let that be the case in Cleveland if they don't want to pay him.  And if they decide not to pay Cook and he walks Cleveland would then be in the running for a comp pick.

 

Come on, what kind of mental gymnastics are you trying to do now to justify including Cook? 

 

So let me get this straight, instead of another quality draft pick, the Browns will instead want an unhappy James Cook in the trade, pay him $5M to play one season (instead of drafting or signing a cheaper RB) on a non contending team for the purpose of getting a comp pick when he for sure leaves as a FA as they can't afford to pay him his market value? 

 

A comp pick that would certainly be worse than the pick they could have had instead of Cook?  And making this idea even make less sense, this is a Browns team that has literally no incentive to try and win more games this year, making a one year rental of Cook be even more counterintuitive to the 2 - 3 year minimum rebuild process they are stuck in just to shed Watson's franchise killing contract. 

 

Not to mention, this is a good year to draft a RB, who would be cheaper and would have potential to be part of the building block of their rebuild moving forward.

 

Yeah, there is just no way this makes any sense at all to the Browns.  But to be fair, this is the Browns we are talking about, wouldn't be the first shocking thing they did that didn't make sense, so guess it can't be totally ruled out.  

Edited Thursday at 11:16 PM by Alphadawg7

[HomeTeam]

17 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I understand what you are saying...but I think you are thinking about it wrong...let me explain.  

 

We don't need a fully revamped defense.  We need to make one or two more defensive plays a game, thats it.  Just one more time a game we need to hold on 3rd down and force a punt rather than allow a scoring drive.  We flip one scoring drive into a punt in each of our last 3 playoff losses to KC and we win every one of those games.

 

Now, if we were losing decisively against KC, I would agree with you, one player probably doesn't make the difference.  That is where an impact player can be all the difference, and if you look at KC, Chris Jones is a substantial reason why KC reached 3 straight and won 2.  He closed out multiple games for them making a key play that sealed the game, including in the SB against the Niners.    

 

 

While yes, you point does make sense, one impact player would make the difference against a team like the Chiefs but I don't think that the game you want to play. 

 

From my understanding, you're saying that you don't mind getting into shootouts with teams as long as the defense makes a few key stops in critical moments. I think that's a dangerous game to play because you are essentially placing a lot of pressure on your offense to be perfect. It's one thing to be perfect for one game, maybe two but to string 3-4 games against elite competition, is a tall ask. 

 

Say we made one extra play against the Chiefs and we end up in the Superbowl. Would it really be fair to ask the offense to score +30 points that would be required to beat that team? 

 

I'm not saying I don't want a blue chip player like Garrett, all I'm saying is that price matters. We have a few more holes than many people on here care to admit. Josh (and the o-line) being so good masks many of those holes. Love your posts Alpha! 

 

Go Bills! 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, HomeTeam said:

While yes, you point does make sense, one impact player would make the difference against a team like the Chiefs but I don't think that the game you want to play. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I am hoping he does more than just affect one more play or two a game.  This is a defense that without turnovers would have been atrocious as we were bottom of the league in 3rd down conversions and first downs allowed.  I was just simply highlighting how little has to have changed for us to have gotten past the Chiefs.  

 

1 hour ago, HomeTeam said:

 

From my understanding, you're saying that you don't mind getting into shootouts with teams as long as the defense makes a few key stops in critical moments. I think that's a dangerous game to play because you are essentially placing a lot of pressure on your offense to be perfect. It's one thing to be perfect for one game, maybe two but to string 3-4 games against elite competition, is a tall ask. 

 

Sorry if I gave you that impression, that really wasn't what I was saying.  I was more highlighting how just one more stop would have changed the outcomes of our last 3 Chief losses and how important it is to have a player like Garrett, who can be a real difference maker.  My whole case for addressing the defense is so we don't have to ask Allen and the offense (and the refs) to be perfect every week in the postseason because the moment we aren't its over.  I 100% agree that is not the right approach and a tall ask and one with a low % of success.  

 

1 hour ago, HomeTeam said:

 

Say we made one extra play against the Chiefs and we end up in the Superbowl. Would it really be fair to ask the offense to score +30 points that would be required to beat that team? 

 

Affecting just one more play would have gotten us to the SB, but do we win it against the Eagles?  I don't know, our run D would have been an issue.  Which is why we also need to address size on the IDL too and its a good draft to do that in 

 

1 hour ago, HomeTeam said:

 

I'm not saying I don't want a blue chip player like Garrett, all I'm saying is that price matters. We have a few more holes than many people on here care to admit. Josh (and the o-line) being so good masks many of those holes. Love your posts Alpha! 

 

Go Bills! 

 

Thanks bud, appreciate that.  

 

And I am with you on that.  IMHO we need to add at least one CB, maybe 2, a Safety, and some beef on the interior.  But, I do think this team is in the perfect position to make a bold move for someone like Garret or Crosby.  Things I take into consideration on a move like this are:

• We are already a SB contending roster returning most of its most important pieces.  
• This may be the least amount of major holes we have had in an offseason during the Allen era
• We are smack in the middle of Allens prime
• Entering this offseason, we have extra picks this year and all our picks next year still where we expect to keep picking very late in each round.
• Its rare a player like Myles or Crosby are available and still in their prime, and a case can be made that our biggest issue has been the lack of a difference maker on defense these past few seasons.  

Personally, I would offer 2 firsts for Garrett and see if they bite.  If they do, we still have FA or trades to add to the team, along with multiple picks in rounds 2, 4, 5, and 6 each this year too.  

Edited Thursday at 11:33 PM by Alphadawg7

[SoTier]

27 minutes ago, HomeTeam said:

While yes, you point does make sense, one impact player would make the difference against a team like the Chiefs but I don't think that the game you want to play. 

 

From my understanding, you're saying that you don't mind getting into shootouts with teams as long as the defense makes a few key stops in critical moments. I think that's a dangerous game to play because you are essentially placing a lot of pressure on your offense to be perfect. It's one thing to be perfect for one game, maybe two but to string 3-4 games against elite competition, is a tall ask. 

 

Say we made one extra play against the Chiefs and we end up in the Superbowl. Would it really be fair to ask the offense to score +30 points that would be required to beat that team? 

 

I'm not saying I don't want a blue chip player like Garrett, all I'm saying is that price matters. We have a few more holes than many people on here care to admit. Josh (and the o-line) being so good masks many of those holes. Love your posts Alpha! 

 

Go Bills! 

 

Sometimes, a player is so good that he's worth it.  IMO, Garrett is that player.  He's a six time All Pro and 2023 DPOY.  He's a game wrecker against both the pass and the run who makes the players around him better.   On defense, the Bills would need to add veteran safety and cornerback in addition to Garrett to significantly upgrade that unit.

 

The Bills averaged almost 30 points a game last season, which was second best in the league.  They need another WR unless they decide to keep Cooper and/or Samuel, and they need to decide if they will extend Cook and/or Shakir.

[HomeTeam]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Dont get me wrong, I am hoping he does more than just affect one more play or two a game.  This is a defense that without turnovers would have been atrocious as we were bottom of the league in 3rd down conversions and first downs allowed.  I was just simply highlighting how little has to have changed for us to have gotten past the Chiefs.  

 

 

Sorry if I gave you that impression, that really wasn't what I was saying.  I was more highlighting how just one more stop would have changed the outcomes of our last 3 Chief losses and how important it is to have a player like Garrett, who can be a real difference maker.  My whole case for addressing the defense is so we don't have to ask Allen and the offense (and the refs) to be perfect every week in the postseason because the moment we aren't its over.  I 100% agree that is not the right approach and a tall ask and one with a low % of success.  

 

 

Affecting just one more play would have gotten us to the SB, but do we win it against the Eagles?  I don't know, our run D would have been an issue.  Which is why we also need to address size on the IDL too and its a good draft to do that in 

 

 

Thanks bud, appreciate that.  

 

And I am with you on that.  IMHO we need to add at least one CB, maybe 2, a Safety, and some beef on the interior.  But, I do think this team is in the perfect position to make a bold move for someone like Garret or Crosby.  Things I take into consideration on a move like this are:

• We are already a SB contending roster returning most of its most important pieces.  
• This may be the least amount of major holes we have had in an offseason during the Allen era
• We are smack in the middle of Allens prime
• Entering this offseason, we have extra picks this year and all our picks next year still where we expect to keep picking very late in each round.
• Its rare a player like Myles or Crosby are available and still in their prime, and a case can be made that our biggest issue has been the lack of a difference maker on defense these past few seasons.  

Personally, I would offer 2 firsts for Garrett and see if they bite.  If they do, we still have FA or trades to add to the team, along with multiple picks in rounds 2, 4, 5, and 6 each this year too.  

You make some valid points, which I agree with. I would definitely be tempted for two first rounders but I imagine they are going to have better offers on the table, especially since those ones are more like second round picks. 

 

Another thing to consider, which I'm sure is been mentioned here is that Myles is going to want a new contract, something north of +35 million. Are we able/ comfortable with that? 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, HomeTeam said:

You make some valid points, which I agree with. I would definitely be tempted for two first rounders but I imagine they are going to have better offers on the table, especially since those ones are more like second round picks. 

 

Another thing to consider, which I'm sure is been mentioned here is that Myles is going to want a new contract, something north of +35 million. Are we able/ comfortable with that? 

Yes. We do not care what Terry has to pay. We do not care about the cap ramifications in 2035. The window is open and the cost is irrelevant to any and every decision that this team should make over the next few seasons. Just kick the can down the road for the rest of Josh’s career. Load up!!

[SoTier]

7 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yes. We do not care what Terry has to pay. We do not care about the cap ramifications in 2035. The window is open and the cost is irrelevant to any and every decision that this team should make over the next few seasons. Just kick the can down the road for the rest of Josh’s career. Load up!!

 

I agree.   I don't often fall in love with FAs or draft prospects because I know that I'm no expert -- I see one make a great play, and I like him --  but Myles Garrett is special.  He is a force on the field, a "game wrecker", a "difference maker".  There is no way the Bills can obtain a player as good as he is without "breaking the bank" one way or the other.  He's chasing a legacy at this point in his career, not just a big pay check, so the Bills have to be on his short list.   He's the kind of player who can put the Bills "over the hump" to get a Lombardi.  The Bills need to go all in.

Edited 20 hours ago by SoTier

[Kirby Jackson]

11 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

I agree.   I don't often fall in love with FAs or draft prospects because I know that I'm no expert -- I see one make a great play, and I like him --  but Myles Garrett is special.  He is a force on the field, a "game wrecker", a "difference maker".  There is no way the Bills can obtain a player as good as he is without "breaking the bank" one way or the other.  He's chasing a legacy at this point in his career, not just a big pay check, so the Bills have to be on his short list.   He's the kind of player who can put the Bills "over the hump" to get a Lombardi.  The Bills need to go all in.

Spot on. This isn’t the spot for them to overthink it or worry about protecting future assets. You have a chance to get the best defensive player in football, in his prime, at your position of biggest need. There will never be a better opportunity to “go for it.” 

[HomeTeam]

10 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yes. We do not care what Terry has to pay. We do not care about the cap ramifications in 2035. The window is open and the cost is irrelevant to any and every decision that this team should make over the next few seasons. Just kick the can down the road for the rest of Josh’s career. Load up!!

I guess I'm just a little more conservative in nature, especially since we just witnessed the Von Miller case play out.  Luckily we did not have to trade for that scenario to compound the situation. 

 

I don't have much else to add to the conversation. I will have to trust that Beane will make the right decision. 

[Sharky7337]

15 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Dont get me wrong, I am hoping he does more than just affect one more play or two a game.  This is a defense that without turnovers would have been atrocious as we were bottom of the league in 3rd down conversions and first downs allowed.  I was just simply highlighting how little has to have changed for us to have gotten past the Chiefs.  

 

 

Sorry if I gave you that impression, that really wasn't what I was saying.  I was more highlighting how just one more stop would have changed the outcomes of our last 3 Chief losses and how important it is to have a player like Garrett, who can be a real difference maker.  My whole case for addressing the defense is so we don't have to ask Allen and the offense (and the refs) to be perfect every week in the postseason because the moment we aren't its over.  I 100% agree that is not the right approach and a tall ask and one with a low % of success.  

 

 

Affecting just one more play would have gotten us to the SB, but do we win it against the Eagles?  I don't know, our run D would have been an issue.  Which is why we also need to address size on the IDL too and its a good draft to do that in 

 

 

Thanks bud, appreciate that.  

 

And I am with you on that.  IMHO we need to add at least one CB, maybe 2, a Safety, and some beef on the interior.  But, I do think this team is in the perfect position to make a bold move for someone like Garret or Crosby.  Things I take into consideration on a move like this are:

• We are already a SB contending roster returning most of its most important pieces.  
• This may be the least amount of major holes we have had in an offseason during the Allen era
• We are smack in the middle of Allens prime
• Entering this offseason, we have extra picks this year and all our picks next year still where we expect to keep picking very late in each round.
• Its rare a player like Myles or Crosby are available and still in their prime, and a case can be made that our biggest issue has been the lack of a difference maker on defense these past few seasons.  

Personally, I would offer 2 firsts for Garrett and see if they bite.  If they do, we still have FA or trades to add to the team, along with multiple picks in rounds 2, 4, 5, and 6 each this year too.  

Can keon and kair count as the two firsts? Asking for a friend

[Kirby Jackson]

8 hours ago, HomeTeam said:

I guess I'm just a little more conservative in nature, especially since we just witnessed the Von Miller case play out.  Luckily we did not have to trade for that scenario to compound the situation. 

 

I don't have much else to add to the conversation. I will have to trust that Beane will make the right decision. 

I mean, what are we being conservative with? Why do we care about protecting cap space 3 years from now? We can just push that back in 3 years if needed. Also, why are we worried, that the best defensive player in football, at age 29, comes here and doesn’t work out? If you’re betting on anyone that’s who you’re betting on. 
 

I guess where I’m at, is there is NO reason to be conservative now. This IS the time you’ve been conservative for. You probably have 5-7 years left of “elite” Josh Allen. There’s no reason to let that number lower to 4-6 “just in case something goes south?” They 100% need to take any and all chances. Throw caution to the wind. Kick the cap can down the road as far as we can in terms of cap hits. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Kirby Jackson

[BigDingus]

How would you guys feel about trading for Micah Parsons?

 

My friend lives across the street from Micah Parson's girlfriend & frequently talks to him when he goes over there. He told me yesterday that Parsons was saying he's preparing to be traded & thinks the Cowboys are going to be looking for picks soon. Most of the time, he doesn't talk much football & chats about other stuff, but this was one of the rare times Micah brought it up.

 

Got me thinking, what would it take to get him, and would that be something people would even want.

[Ga boy]

11 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yes. We do not care what Terry has to pay. We do not care about the cap ramifications in 2035. The window is open and the cost is irrelevant to any and every decision that this team should make over the next few seasons. Just kick the can down the road for the rest of Josh’s career. Load up!!

To get Garrett, it would take a Herschel Walker type swap - 3 first and seconds.  Does this trust the process group have the stomach to do so?  Hope not.

Edited 16 hours ago by Ga boy
Word omit