DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2016 NFL Season 2016 NFL Draft Titans Trade No. 1 Pick to LA Rams

No, actually what I'm responding to is the information that Shefter thought we would trade down 3 or 4 times.

Unless someone is really willing to overpay for the second best QB in this draft, I don't see why someone would offer a huge deal to trade up to #2 to begin with.

But my point is, IF you trade down and CAN trade down, you shouldn't trade below the top 10. Top 5 preferably. I think it's fine to gain value from the #2 pick, but not at the risk of losing out on one of the top talents in the draft to do so.

I haven't really seen anyone that appears to me to be a big stand out in this draft. There are at least 5 or 6 guys I give almost the same value on. But the further you move back, the more depleted top talent becomes.

What I'm not in favor of is continuing to keep trading back to the point that the odds of getting impact talent greatly declines. That's the point where you're simply targeting more bodies rather than focusing on special talent that all teams need for success.

If I had my choice I'd draft Wentz at #2. Now I'm not sure he will be available and even if he is, I'm not so set on him that it would upset me. I just don't want our FO to pull moves that they believe that the body count means more than top flight talent.

If we don't want a QB, then we should trade down as much as possible. We need multiple of everything besides left tackle.

There are plenty of "playmakers" to be had outside the top ten.

Increase the picks, increase the odds of getting good players.

Not really. The odds of landing a playmaker later in the draft is greatly reduced. Does it happen? Of course it does. The odds of that happening? Much lower.

I agree the odds are lower, but probably the difference is probably not as much as you'd expect.

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/

Agreed and in this draft, there is not a huge difference between #15 and #45 in my opinion.

I am soooo sick of the overthinking. By the FO, press & fans. It's simple. There are seven difference makers in this draft, two of them are QBs, the other five don't matter. Why? Because we need a QB. It doesn't matter if the tackle, LB or corner are rated ahead of the 2 QBs. Why? Because we need a QB. It doesn't matter if the QBs aren't worth a #2 pick. Why? Because we need one and that is the pick we have. It doesn't matter if a trade offer comes along that gives us a bunch of picks for this mediocre draft and another number one next year. Why? Because we don't have a QB. Both Wentz and Goff have a lot to learn, but have the tools. We need to take one of them, and it doesn't really matter which one. Why? Because we need a QB.

It's good they'd get a chance to sit and learn for the four to six weeks until RG gets hurt, so we better have one of them.

The Rams trade affects the Brown's only correct decision either a little or not at all. They either take the guy they wanted all along, or they get the other guy. The only other option is making the wrong, stupid move. Again.

On a side note, it's hilarious seeing some of the hysterics at loosing a QB (whichever) to the Rams who 24 hours ago wasn't worth a top ten pick.

That sounds great until you really look at that article. They are using the term "bust". That being a player who fell to a score of 5 or below.

That has nothing to do with the difference between an impact player and a marginal player. Which is exactly what I was referring to.

Maybe you should look at the percentage of pro bowl talent percentages if you wish to address what I was talking about.

Sure, we can acquire bodies that can play later in the draft, but the odds of drafting "impact players" later isn't the same thing.

We need quality bodies at every position. Getting more picks allows us to have more success at acquiring more quality bodies.

(This is assuming we are getting picks that are in rounds one through three where more quality are available.)

We've had a collection of Pro Bowl guys and still can't win because the other guys suck.

I think we should trade down, but I don't think we should trade down 3 or 4 times before we even make a pick.

Well, posters on this board didn't call Savage a "genius" for no reason.

It would have happened?

cfrs was talking about what did happen.

It depends on what the return is really. If we are getting a bunch of second round picks, then we should do it.

Building off of Pastor's comment that people will bad mouth the FO no matter what..........we should take a poll on what the Browns should do in the draft w/the second overall pick.

And then make a rule where you can't trash the FO, or DEFEND them, unless you have participated in the poll.

I say this because I think there are a far, far greater number of posters who will defend the FO no matter what and say stuff.....that's what I thought we should do all along than there are posters who will trash them no matter what.

Maybe it will help shut some people up?

Okay..........it's just opinion, but man, I don't think that is a good idea.

In the poll I created about a month ago thirty-four people voted to draft a QB (thirty for Wentz and four for Goff) and ten voted not to draft a QB.

Thanks..........but my idea is like preventative medicine. You can't talk about how good---or bad---the draft was if you don't participate.

That could stop people from making crap up. Right Pastor?

Forgive me Father for I have sinned...........

I love it! Especially with having an aging Thomas and glaring need at RT! Play Tunsil at RT while we have Joe then move him to LT upon his retirement. That just makes sense. People would argue that #2 is high for a RT, but we have insurance in the long run. Not to mention that RG Knee is going to need the most protection he can get.

Finally, the voice of reason.
I'm so sick of hanging our hats on retreads, old men & midget head cases.
Here's an idea, lets draft a QB with a ton of upside, develop him with coaches that know how & actually move forward for a change.

Trading down 3-4 times doesn't mean those trade downs are all gonna happen with the same pick (#2).
They could trade down from #2, they could trade down from #32 they could trade down in the later end (4/5) of the draft to build depth and the back end of the roster.

My guess is the aim is to get as many picks in the top 50 as possible and enough picks to manipulate and acquire players they target in the later part of the draft.

We have had the best LT and a Probowl CB for years. 0 playoff appearances because we don't have a signal caller. We have to get a QB. Had a chance to get the best one. Now we have to settle for the "other" guy, whether it's the guy we wanted or not!

Hopefully Hue and company does their homework and The Rams pick Sam Bowie at #1 and we get Jordan at #2!!!!!!

My vote is cast, make it 5 for Goff.

Tradewise, I'd agree with the writer, but not on the rest. If the FO is happy enough with RGIII and taking another player at #2 vs. having to take a QB, the rest of his argument is pretty much invalid.

The RGIII signing made me think we're going in a different direction, and nothing since then has changed my mind.

Good point. I think he said 3-4 times. I don't think he said 3-4 times in the 1st round. But that was hours ago so I can't say for sure.

It also assuming that the group in charge can effectively identify quality bodies. I'm sorry, but there is ZERO proof at this point that they can. And given the history of this franchise in doing so, I just cringe at the possibility of trading down AGAIN so another team can grab the play maker the Browns COULD have had.

Take the BPA...not necessarily the BQBA.

At this point, I have to ask this: Who does the best job of evaluating talent that any of you follow?

[quote=The Beast
At this point, I have to ask this: Who does the best job of evaluating talent that any of you follow? [/quote]

Clevesteve

I take the QB that the Rams don't take and not look back. Develop him, let him sit, even if its all year.

When you don't have a Franchise QB and you are in position to draft a potential franchise QB, you don't pass on him.

Both Wentz and Goff have the potential to be a Franchise QB. There are Pro's and Con's for both but I think it would be madness to pass up on either of them when we don't have a Franchise QB on our team.

We have had a Probowl Left Tackle and Center with high 2nd round picks at Right Tackle and Left Guard.....Zero playoffs.

We've had a Probowl at Corner, TE, S, WR, LT & C on our team in the same year....no playoffs and if I remember correctly 4 wins.

I understand we need more talent at skill positions, but we also NEED a franchise QB and will continue to see 3-4 win seasons until we find that guy. Every now and then we will get lucky with a weak schedule and Journeyman QB and celebrate a 7 win season like we won the Superbowl.

J/C

A thought I had last night (admittedly while half asleep) was this: I've read different thoughts on how analytics will be used for the draft. Some suppose that means getting players who can play immediately, thus getting more bang for the buck so to speak. I'm wondering if Haslam has told his guys that the #1 thing they need to use analytics for in this draft is to find a quarterback. If that's the goal, then maybe it really does come down to which QB projects better over the long haul.

I guess what I suggesting is the possibility that it's "use analytics to first find a QB, then best player at the spots after that."

I guess they could've pulled and had themselves a Josh Gordon moment of utmost stupidity!

I think the Browns need a qb, too. However, I have a question for you:

Do you remember last year's games? If so, how many games was the qb responsible for losing? I can post the opponent's scores if it will help refresh your memory.

Deshaun Watson?

Can you get by with a Journeyman QB? Sure, but sustaining year on year success typically doesn't happen.

How many game just on the QB? Well typically that's a hard question to answer, people come up with many excuses as to why we lose, play calling....drop passes....wrong routes ect...

The only game that comes to mind is the Oakland game where McCown threw a horrible INT for Oakland to seal the game despite McCown having a pretty good game IIRC. But many will say Haden lost us that game when Cooper torched him all game.

But that is just off the top of my head on a frustrating year and I was switching around watching other games to keep track of my fantasy players.

There is the issue. My guess is when they started analyzing all these QBs the guy with the cannon arm, good mobility and an inate toughness is the guy that the Browns want. Problem is that its not the small school 24 year old QB and it isnt the weak armed Cal kid. It is Paxton Lynch.

The Browns have RG3 for 2 years andif RG3 studs woo hoo. If he doesnt, hey you have Lynch learning and growing in your system. Everyone knows Lynch has the highest ceiling and we are in position to get him and a lot of other picks to build so when he is ready to take over, the team is ready to be taken over.

You completely misread the point of my post.....The point is you can have those guys (Which are important) but if you don't have a QB it's not going to matter.

I'm looking at this draft and see Tunsil, Ramsey....those are good players and if we had a QB I would take them, but if I'm in position to draft a Potentail franchise QB or draft the Potential Franchise LT....I'll go with the QB if I don't already have one 100% of the time.

No he'll be a Junior and likely a first round pick, so I would be shocked if he did not enter the draft unless he has just an awful season or gets injured. Actually even if he gets injured he's going to be a top pick.

Mourgrym, I am open to thinking about Lynch. You make a good point about Wentz being 24, and Goff's arm is not a strength. But are you saying to trade down and still target him? Because I am not positive you can do that. Maybe if Chip really wants Goff, but I don't know.