DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Front Office...continued...

I don't believe that to be the case. Sure, Trub was a surprise at @2, but Hooker, Howard, Allen were still on the board at #12 and we passed, so I expect that Plan B was put into effect. Would we have taken Trub at #12... no way to know. I'm expecting more moves today; this FO can never be accused of sitting on their thumbs. A very good first day...

I think people need to realize this: the QB's coming out of the draft, at least the projected first rounders, just wasn't what the FO was looking for.

And the draft isn't even over yet, for all we know, they might like a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round.

But they revamped our o line, got a stud TE in the draft. Looks like Cody or Brock, and that's fine.

I don't believe the FO is finished yet, Swish.

Yea for all we know they might move up to grab Kizer and make him sit til next year

I'dd one more thing regarding this response. You said out maneuvered....I disagree with this assessment. However there was a point in the press conference where a question was asked about the trade down and the resulting pick. I can't find the transcript but Sashi mentioned biting nails, hoping one of their guys would be available, yet conceding that the move took on some risk. After the question, it seemed to me that, although Peppers was on the short list of guys they hoped would be there, he wasn't the top guy on the list. Maybe not even the second guy. So from that perspective perhaps the trade didn't net the perfect scenario for them, if my gut reaction is correct.

Outmaneuvered? No.
Took a risk that didn't pan out 100% the way they wanted? Yes, perhaps.

And about them not being prepared, I didn't see that whatsoever. They came across very methodical in their decision making. Now maybe the decision making will end up being poor, but they looked like the ducks were in rows.

Not only was i not surprised with Mitch at two, i expected it ... different team .. but i expected it .. *LOL* ... i also said MANY MANY times that Chicago could draft a QB at 3 cause Glennon essentially has a one year contract ... there is either ZERO or very little GAURANTEED money if they cut him after 17 ...

I think we had a plan and stuck to it at 12 ... Mitch or trade back if possible ... unless our target was one of the RB's or WR's that went before 12 ... cause the D talent that fell there was INCREDIBLE ...

At least macs hatred started a decent convo for a change ... IMO anyhow ..

We learned they didn't want your boy at 12 ... we have no clue what they thought of my boy or Mahomes ...

Umm it's pretty obvious they didn't value Mitch that high.

Mahomes, sure. We don't know. But if they felt Mitch was the guy they would've taken him.

Based on what? 49ers stole from the Bears while dropping one spot. . . . What was the price for the Browns to trade up to #2 and get Trubisky? We don't know and based on the Bears trade it would NOT have been a good choice.

Personally I think they would have taken Mahomes if he was there at #12.

I feel last nigh went as good as it could.

I believe the Bears move to #2 took some pressure off the FO.
I was frustrated when they traded down, but when I saw the talent on the board at #25 I was thrilled.

I like Peppers and the trade looks good to me.

What will day 2 bring?
We shall see.

Based on where he was picked.

We have the ammo to move up to #2. So if the FO was convinced that trub was the guy, we would've pulled the trigger.

If he was valued enough to be taken at 2, then he was valued enough to be taken at #1. The FO didn't view him that valuable.

I'm not arguing about mahomes as I just agreed with diam about that. KC probably took who we wanted.

But it's pretty obvious trubisky wasnt their guy.

I can see the logic that if he was worth the #2 then he could have been taken #1 overall.

I'm glad we have Garrett, Njoku and Peppers rather than say Trubisky and Hooker. But then I am in the minority of peeps that won't be upset to see Kessler start the season if that happens.

I wouldn't be upset with Webb or Dobson selected later.

I've seen talk about tanking for QB next year .... that isn't happening. jmho - but there's 5 or more wins with simply an improved D. Add a better O'Line and remove the injuries at QB and we're going to win some games. . . Kessler improving and staying healthy, I think we could win more than 5 games.

There were a few reports that the browns were pissed when Mahomes was picks, I think he was their plan at 12, i still think they should have stayed put and just picked either hooker or howard. I like Jabril, but i think he could have been there at 33

You don't fool anyone here.

They've stockpiled a ton of high-value picks in next year's Draft which will be a LOT deeper in higher quality QB's.

Also, if anyone really listened to what the FO has said, this has been the plan. Build the team, then plug in the QB.

The Browns are not the only team involved in any trade. The Browns supposedly contacted every team in the top 10 to see what it would cost to move up. They knew what the cost would be for them to move to pick 2, IF THE 49ers WANTED TO DROP TO 12. We do not know that they did. Perhaps they only wanted to drop a couple slots. They have been praised for getting a trade where they were able to gain additional picks AND STILL GET THE PLAYER THEY WANTED.

As to the Chiefs trade up, there was a lot of speculation that the Bills wanted Mahommes. I would think that the Browns knew this as well and were willing to risk the Bills taking him. Not only that, but the Chiefs gave up 2 FIRST ROUND PICKS to move up. If the Browns were willing to have a wait and see attitude on the Bills taking Mahoomes, they were certainly not willing to pay 2 first round picks to outbid the Chiefs.

We do not know what trades were offered, what trades were turned down, or the reasons for the trades being accepted, one over another, but to question the Browns "judgement" when there are multiple teams involved and not knowing the value assigned to the players in question, or the goals assigned to the draft picks by the Browns is irresponsible.

About as well as could be expected, they aren't forcing something that wasn't there.

If we do go QB now, they might actually get to sit awhile rather than being rushed onto the field.

I firmly believe that a QB in round 1 was never part of the plan for this year. I think that they have their plan and have stuck to it: build the team, then get a QB to plug in.





Well, good... they don't require your buy-in. They only require the owner's and they seem to have it, which means that they have given Haslam their plan and he is on-board with it.

And, seriously? You didn't even watch the Draft last night, but you have the balls to add "and 2017" to that statement? That's lame.

As for 2016 - they had 100 days to assemble a front office and scouting team and do the Combine, Pro Days, Free Agency, and get ready for the Draft.... I'm pretty sure that their plan was to stockpile picks and get "guys" to fill roles. No, it wasn't flashy, but I think they laid an acceptable, if unspectacular, foundation.

If they thought a QB was better than Garrett, he would have been the selection. Was there a QB you thought should have been taken over him? Or a QB we should have traded up for with the 12th selection? Was Watson worthy of the 12th? IMO, no he wasn't.

I think the Browns may have actually wanted Mahomes at 12 and were a bit stunned when KC moved up to 10 and took him. Just speculation that has been tossed around.

I can't believe I'm going to say this but to a certain extent I agree with mac that this was mismanaged. I agree that they were stunned with the KC/Mahomes thing. The mismanaged part is if they really wanted him that's why they have the draft capital but they didn't use it. They then compounded the issue by not standing pat and taking BPA.

I don't think yesterday could have gone any worse for the Browns.

All of you guys act as if I'm the only person asking these questions concerning the front office.

I might be the only on this message board, but I'm not alone as many others are asking questions about what the front office is doing concerning the QB position.

Also, it is not just me commenting..the Browns own front office is commenting on the plan for QB.

Here is a story with time stamp of April 28, 2017 at 1:51 AM..read.


Browns might still pursue Jimmy Garoppolo; 'we won't rest until we solidify the position' says Sashi Brown

By Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com
Follow on Twitter
on April 28, 2017 at 1:29 AM, updated April 28, 2017 at 1:51 AM
link

BEREA, Ohio -- The Browns didn't land Mitch Trubisky or Jimmy Garoppolo on the first day of the draft, but it's not over yet for the latter.

Browns head of football operations Sashi acknowledged that the Browns will leave no stone unturned in trying to find a franchise QB, and he didn't rule out trading for a veteran.

What's more, he's now got even more ammunition to pull it off. The Browns acquired an extra first-round pick in 2018 in a trade down from 12 to 25 with the Texans, and now have two first-rounders in 2018 -- and three second-rounders. The Texans, meanwhile, selected Deshaun Watson at No. 12, marking the second time in two years the Browns may have traded away from a potential franchise quarterback.

Last year, it was Carson Wentz, whom they traded away from at No. 2.

But now, they're sitting on a gold mine from the Wentz trade that keeps on giving, and they've either tried to swing a deal with the Patriots already, or they will.

"We won't rest until we solidify that position,'' Brown said. "It's not solidified right now, so we know we need the guys here to work their tails off and Hue (Jackson) is going to develop them as much as possible and push them to be their best and we also know that until we get it solidified, we're going to continue looking for players all over the league and in college.

"That may be in next year's draft, it may be in free agency, it may be via trade. So But again, Brock (Osweiler), Cody (Kessler), and Kevin (Hogan) are here working hard and we're going to support them as best we can.''

Does Brown leave Berea on Thursday night looking for a veteran QB?

"Every day until we solidify the position we leave this building thinking about what opportunities might be out there, so absolutely,'' he said.

It's a dramatic departure from last week, when he was asked if he'll trade for a veteran QB and he said, "no.''

Now, he's acknowledging that a veteran signal-caller is a distinct possibility -- either this year or next.

He did, however, shoot down the NFL Network report that the Browns were trying to trade for Redskins QB Kirk Cousins during the first round, attributing it to "bad reporting.''

The Bears traded up from No. 3 to No. 2 to take Trubisky, the Chiefs traded up to 10 with the Bills to draft Patrick Mahomes and the Texans traded up with the Browns to draft Deshaun Watson. In the case of the first two teams, they likely knew they had to jump in front of the Browns.

"We just thought that the better opportunity for us was to trade back. Hue and I, we've spent some time with all of the quarterbacks that were taken this evening. We did like all of them at certain places. For us, in terms of our plan and building the roster, we felt like it was just better to move back. That shouldn't be a take against Deshaun, a great young man. We'll root for him to have a great career."

Can the Browns still find a starting quarterback in this draft? Some left on the board are Notre Dame's DeShone Kizer, Cal's Davis Webb, Tennessee's Josh Dobbs and Pittsburgh's Nate Peterman.

"You never know, but we'll see what happens,'' said Brown. "I wouldn't want to telegraph too much.''

Jackson admitted that the Browns tried to land their man on Thursday. He wasn't specific, but it's no secret they liked Trubisky and hoped they could draft him either at 12 or by trading up. They also liked Mahomes but the Chiefs jumped their route.

"We didn't know who would be the first quarterback off,'' said Brown. "We didn't know if the quarterbacks might fall out of the top 10 and maybe there at 12.''

When will they get their first-round QB? Next year's draft is supposedly full of premier prospects, including USC's Sam Darnold, UCLA's Josh Rosen and Wyoming's Josh Allen.

"Soon,'' said Jackson. "When it's time for us to get one. Obviously, it didn't happen today, but it's not like we didn't try. I guarantee you that. But I think that time's coming, and it will be here. We're going to continue as Sashi said, to do anything and everything we can to get this position better as we continue to move forward.''

Patriots sources continue to tell reporters that they're not parting with Garoppolo, who's set to be a free agent after next season.

The Browns have also had some interest in Cincinnati's AJ McCarron, who wants to be traded, but it's unknown if they'll make a play for him.

Related: The Browns select Myles Garrett No. 1 overall.

Woah! Mary Kay wrote a QB article???

I'll further add that I think this draft will drive a wedge between Hue and the FO.

This was one draft they couldn't screw up. My opinion is they already have.

I'm curious why you think this is? Specifically, the wedge part. Was there a selection or decision you think went against what Hue preferred?

I only say this because in the press conference Hue seemed rather brief with his responses than Sashi. Sashi seemed to elaborate more and cam across as more excited. So, I could see if some think this way from watching the presser. I'm just not sure where pick selection would necessarily deviate from what Hue wanted. In fact, we're told Garrett was the guy he REALLY wanted.

Sure. They are considering a veteran QB. The article does not say TODAY. It says 2017 or 2018. It even says there are other options in the draft. Yep, that's true, and I expect them to explore them. I would love to see them explore the possibilities of Webb, Dobbs, or Peterman. No one said they wouldn't. I do not see Mary Kay calling for the FO's heads.
I do see NFL,com giving the Browns kudos on their picks and an overall score of "A" on their day 1 draft.

You made that statement off the back of the first round of this draft - and not one of them has played a down in the NFL. Not one was universally considered a top 10 pick.

What's so incredibly ironic is that when other teams REACH for unproven talent - you try to use it as a way to suggest the Browns FO failed. Sorry but every position you take is loaded on assumptions and unfair comparisons/evaluations using similar situations.

I am not sold that the Browns wanted to reach for a QB in round 1.
I am not sold they will take one on day 2 or 3.

Those claiming the FO got schooled because Mahomes was taken prior to the #12 pick must have some great inside info that ranks up there with T. McShay. The Browns kept everything very tight to the vest and I would be shocked if we ever find out who they were targeting.

Many side with the MKC school of thinking that we need a FQB right now. I will say this, Wentz would not have won us any more than 2 games last year. I doubt he would have been healthy for all 16 behind the OL. The Browns should be improved next season, both offensively and defensively.

After improving the overall talent of a 3 win 2015 team. the FO seems to be putting everything else in place before drafting a FQB. I liked Watson, but how do we know he is that much better than Kessler or Brock?
We don't. But after this upcoming season we will have a much more honest view at what this team has and needs.

GO BROWNS!!!!

I guarantee you the Peppers pick was a coaching deal (aka Williams). There is no way that any analytical model is going to like his production in coverage. Williams wants him to be an in the box SS, and the coaching won........same with Garret.

The only pick that Hue/FO might have differed on is Njoku I guess.

I wouldn't use the word "guarantee", but I'd definitely say heavily influential.

No, I think you are over stressing on this.

There was probably little to no chance they could have taken Garret and then traded up for Trubisky. That most likely would have cost us too much. the 12th pick this year, maybe a 1st next season or a second next year.. Who knows.

We had more ammunition to get Mahomes.. would have been costly, but not as bad as trying for the 2nd pick. So I'd say, no, they didn't want him either.

Asd for Watson, no way if they wanted him that they'd have let the Texans trade happen. no way.

So of the three QB's picked, I think the only one they might have wanted would have been Trubisky. And as it turns out, that was out of reach.

The other two were reachable, one we had in the bag (watson) (maybe) because if the Texans wanted him bad enough, maybe they go to the Saints to get the 11th pick.

And Mahomes, would have been costly but still doable.

So, No, I don't think they wanted any of the QB's that went yesterday.

j/c:


https://twitter.com/RaidersAnalysis/status/857987247026479104

So? You don't pass on solidifying other defensive and offensive positions and trade down. Then turn right around and trade back up into the first rd. Idiotic way of drafting IMO. But whatever.