DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2017 NFL Season 2017 NFL Draft Myles Garrett....

With the Garrett thread 11 pages long...I hope it is ok to start a new thread...

Cleveland Browns mock draft scenarios: Passing on Myles Garrett

by Joel W. Cade11 hours ago
link

The Cleveland Browns have the first overall pick in the draft. What happens should they choose to pass on Myles Garrett? How do they maximize value?
What happens if the Cleveland Browns decide to pass on Texas A&M’s Myles Garrett with the first overall pick? It is a scary question for some. In the eyes of many scouts and draft experts, there is Myles Garrett as the top overall prospect, then there is everyone else.

But a recently released video shows Myles Garrett begging the Dallas Cowboys to trade Tony Romo and some picks to the Cleveland Browns so the Cowboys could draft him first overall. Garrett later said the video was a joke and wants to be the first overall pick. However, the video has left a bad taste in some Browns fans’ mouths about drafting him first overall.

Disclaimer: It would be a poor decision to pass on Garrett because of the video. A cursory viewing of Garrett’s play against Laremy Tunsil then of Ole Miss and Cam Robinson of Alabama shows Garrett’s star potential. He is the best player in the draft and should be taken first overall.

In this week’s edition of mock draft scenarios, we explore the scenarios that could take place should the Browns decide to pass on Myles Garrett.

The Browns could pass on Garrett to draft a quarterback first overall. This is a plausible scenario. The Browns could fall in love with either of the Big 3 quarterbacks: Notre Dame’s DeShone Kizer, Clemson’s Deshaun Watson, or North Carolina’s Mitch Trubisky, and decide to bypass Myles Garrett to take what they feel would be a franchise quarterback.


Such a move would be ill-conceived for the Browns. In terms of value, an argument can be made for taking someone the team feels is a franchise quarterback first overall. However, such an argument fails to recognize that the draft is market driven.

Right now, Myles Garrett has the most value in the draft market. Simply passing on Garrett for a quarterback fails to maximize the value inherent with the first overall pick in relation to Myles Garrett. The Browns front office will most likely not pass on Garrett for a quarterback.

However, for the sake of our discussion, let’s say they are committed to passing on Garrett but still want to maximize the value of the first overall pick.

In this case, the Browns could trade down with a team looking to come up to the first overall pick to take Garrett. A trade partner should not be hard to find. At this point, the combine and free agency have yet to define the needs of teams coming into the draft market. There may be a team out there willing to overpay for the services of Myles Garrett. If there is, the Browns should be extremely cautious about making a deal.


The Browns need to come out of this draft with impact players. Trading out of the top ten or even the top five would severely limit their chances of landing the draft’s top talented players. A trade out of the number one spot only makes sense if it put them in position to land the best defensive player on their board or to take a quarterback at a lower draft slot thereby minimizing the damage if he turns out to be a bust.

Related: Should Browns be wary of Patrick Mahomes?

Should the Browns trade down they could target a safety like Ohio State’s Malik Hooker or LSU’s Jamal Adams. This would leave No. 12 open to take a dynamic, maybe even spectacular edge rusher still on the board.

Come No. 12, Stanford’s Solomon Thomas or Tennessee’s Derek Barnett could still be available. The possibilities are endless if the Browns do trade down, the key would be to land top players at their positions.

The worst possible move the Browns could make would be to trade out of the first overall pick for a third-year backup quarterback. Not only would they be passing on the best overall player in the draft, but they would also be getting an unproven developmental project in return.

It would be better for the Browns to simply take a quarterback in the draft as a developmental project than to take another team’s backup quarterback.

The best possible move with the first overall pick is to select Myles Garrett. His talent is clear on tape. He needs refinement in the run game but those issues are fixable with experience at the NFL level. This pick is a no-brainer. Selecting Myles Garrett is the best use of the first overall pick.

This is a lame attempt to find a reason to avoid talent IMO. Take MG. Take a CB or safety at 12. Don't trade down. The idea of a project is superior is bad. Get players in round one and FA and limit developmental crapshoot projects this draft. This guy's crystal ball assertions are more of the same decisions that have proven bust potential in my judgment.
He repeats stuff already seen. Draft impact in round one. I wouldn't play follow the leader here. And I wouldn't count on the Combine to answer all our questions. I have confidence in this DC to improve folks. And an improved defense would be a good day's work indeed.
Step away from this koolaid.
I agree with the close. The rest is drawing to an inside straight.

Aaron Donald certainly became a beast under Williams. Hopefully Garrett/Allen will do the same

My question to everyone who doesn't want the Browns to draft Garrett because he said he doesn't want to play here, who you going to draft? If you was to ask any of the draft prospects and they was being totally honest and truthful 9 out of 10 would not want to be here. I would rather have Garrett than have to play against him. Even more since we don't have anyone on the team that can block him!!

Is that guy a real reporter? Sounds like a dummy on a message board.

That's fair, just wouldn't put much stock in the Texas Bowl. Just like all the other meaningless bowl games all the high profile prospects really thinking about the draft and not wanting to get hurt or hurting an nagging injury further. There's an old saying you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but i'm sure Garrett could teach Joe a few of his own. Not sure he would be lining up across from Joe on every play anyway so no I don't feel we have anyone who can block him. My opinion only.

Did you watch the Texas Bowl? KSU quick passing game is the reason why you don't see Garrett on the stat line.

Because we have the #1 pick and MG is rated the #1 player I can see why there is so much discussion going on. To me it's simple. If he is rated the #1 talent, especially at such an important position, take him. Let's not nitpick. It would be great to finally have a Brown that other teams have to game plan for. Plus, he will make his teammates better. To me it's a no brainer.

If we don't draft Garrett, I will be checking out, support-wise and faith-wise, on this FO. I won't need to see anything else - that'll be the deal breaker.

Why is Jacksonville trading up?

Okay enough of this misinformation. MG has NEVER said he does not want to play for the Browns.

When has a team ever traded up to the number one pick for a defensive tackle?

And I made my point as well. We can project anything we wish, but we have no real way of knowing what the future will bring.

Teams don't trade up to the first overall pick to take players that do not throw the ball.

You said "Teams don't trade up to the first overall pick to take players that do not throw the ball."

Here Are 3 that traded up for players that did not throw the ball ...

Dallas Traded up to #1 with NE in 1991 for Russell Maryland

Cincinnati traded up to #1 with Carolina in 1995 for Ki Jana Carter

St. Louis trade up to #1 with the NY Jets in 1997 for Orlando Pace

Courtesy of Scott Chiusano NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Thursday, April 14, 2016, 3:43 PM

Thank you for proving my point.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

lol. 20 years ago there was a trade.


I was reading through these posts and thought the same thing. Jacksonville? Where are we coming up with this stuff?

Some people just want to argue that they are always right and everyone else is wrong, despite being wrong about no one trading up for any position other than QB @ #1 ... It has been done 10 times that is a fact, but you said "Teams don't trade up to the first overall pick to take players that do not throw the ball." So how does that prove your Point?

The last trade you listed occurred in 1997. It is not worth it for a team to trade for a non-QB, trading up to 1/1 takes too much compensation.

I thought it was clear I was not actually saying, "no one." What I meant, and what I thought was clear, was, "not many teams." Next time I will try to be more clear.

You listed all the exceptions (and a bunch of trades that do not apply in today's NFL).

I don't know why it hasn't been done for 20 years, and I admit it is rare but it has been done 10 times and may happen again ... Thats all and the draft list went back to 1936 and it was called the NFL

But if someone likes Soloman Thomas (say...... Chicago), then why miss out on him by picking fourth?

I don't like getting cute. Stick to your board. Not to the board that you think other people have.


If we rank Thomas ahead of Garrett (and god I hope we don't), then we pick him Number 1.

If we rank a bunch of the guys the same, sure trade down if there's a good offer.


But I really don't think there's gonna be any offers worth taking. Not for someone trying to trade up to get a DE, RB, or DT........

I think the only legitimate trade rumor/speculation is if Tennessee feels like Myles Garrett puts them over the top.

5 & 18 (plus more, a lot more) for the #1.

But then Tennessee could also just build up their team with 5 and 18...

Agreed and well said. MG is rated highly and we have the #1. But this is such a huge area of need for us, it would help the secondary immediately. And he has upside. Take the man.

I could see taking allen at 1 and barnett at 12 to have a very nice and complete D-line.

I just don't like saying "we're ganna pass on this guy and take someone of the same position later"

Especially if you're saying a specific person.

While I know generally everyone "knows" where players will get picked.

I would treat every pick separately. And not plan a selection around what I may be able to get later.

Jmho

Yeah, teams follow their vertical and horizontal boards and not who they "hope" will be available later. LOL

To me I really like Garrett so I am more than happy to take him at 1. I've said that many times now so don't misunderstand me and think that I don't.

That being said, he is only one player who can only fill one position. There happen to be several very good DE in this draft. Are they as good as him? No. Are they almost as good as him? Production wise the numbers say yes I am fully aware of how he shuts down a side and doesn't always get the numbers. Still sometimes it's better to force the offense to spread out their protection so you can be more diversified in how you attack.

Now I ask myself after Allen is the drop off for DT significant? To me that answer is a major yes. There isn't another DT in this draft even remotely close to being as good as Allen. This tells me at pick 12 I am not going to get a top tier DT.

So to get a more COMPLETE D-line You take Allen first. Then you take a very good DE at 12 like soloman or most likely Barnett. You will end up with a far better D-line as a whole than taking Garrett and then whatever you get stuck with at 12.

Is garrette the best talent in this draft? Yes. Worthy of pick #1? Yes. Is he the best pick for the Browns? MAYBE. We could trade back to PICK 3 and most likely still get Garrett or Allen and picked up even more for the money.

No offense, but that is a dumb strategy and NFL teams do not draft that way.

They have vertical and horizontal boards and don't draft on "ifs."