|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I think that was Flip's scheme, CHS.
Hue's is an all gap scheme that relies more on power blocking. Hue used to be a full on gap guy, but ever since his stint with the Bengals saw him add a bunch of zone schemes. Especially when it comes to outside runs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,292
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,292 |
Yes, bpa - Unless you desperately need a QB in a supposed great QB draft. That's when you take the guy you think you should take. If it's Rosen or Darnold or whomever, take him. We need one, let's not eff this up.
Last edited by lampdogg; 03/04/18 10:57 PM.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,818
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,818 |
Who is to say Dorsey's bpa isn't Mayfield?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Who is to say Dorsey's bpa isn't Mayfield? I think his "or whomever" covered Mayfield or anyone else he didn't name directly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,101
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,101 |
If Dorsey has 1 QB, then he takes him at #1 and moves on. If he thinks 3 are interchangeable, then he takes Barkley #1 and takes who's left at #4. The gamble comes in if he has 2 interchangeable QBs. If he takes Barkley and his 2 QB's go #2 and #3, we lose. But if we take Barkley and 1 QB is there at #4, we win. Huge gamble.
1. #GMstrong
2. "I'm just trying to be the best Nick I can be." ~ Nick Chubb
3. Forgive me Elf, I didn’t have faith. ~ Tulsa
4. ClemenZa #1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
If Dorsey has 1 QB, then he takes him at #1 and moves on. If he thinks 3 are interchangeable, then he takes Barkley #1 and takes who's left at #4. The gamble comes in if he has 2 interchangeable QBs. If he takes Barkley and his 2 QB's go #2 and #3, we lose. But if we take Barkley and 1 QB is there at #4, we win. Huge gamble. I have a hard time believing anyone thinks the QBs are interchangeable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,101
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,101 |
I agree, I was simply making a general point.
1. #GMstrong
2. "I'm just trying to be the best Nick I can be." ~ Nick Chubb
3. Forgive me Elf, I didn’t have faith. ~ Tulsa
4. ClemenZa #1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,235
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,235 |
Although Sashi may not have been qualified in terms of managing our roster/personell, he certainly did a great job for us stockpiling picks.
I think we all should give him a little credit for that...
If we end up getting AJ McCarron in free agency ( which seems like the only real FA we could land ) we should start to look at how that could impact our draft strategy.
McCarron would undoubtedly start over any QB we draft barring injury. Now we could still go QB #1 but then.....
Who in the last 25 years has drafted a QB #1 and not started them at the beginning of the season?
This makes me think... If we sign McCarron or a similarly talented veteran QB, then we take a QB at #4 over #1. And in this scenario it would make more sense to take a QB who has a higher long term ceiling.
In this scenario, I think it makes sense to go..
#1 Barkely and...
#4 Allen ( unless Rosen falls to us here, but I find that unlikely ).
Now if Darnold falls here too, many of you would want him but I simply am not high on the guy at all ( I hope he proves me wrong.).
Cleveland Browns, Space Browns ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/iVP5Po2.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805 |
There is a strong case to be made for Fitz.
He can do a lot being scheme diverse. And certainly
help any team.
But for the Browns at this point of time; we need to score points. We have invested heavily on defense last year with Garrett and Peppers.
The offense needs help and Barkley is the one guy who can help immediately. He doesn't need a rookie year warm up. He is ready to plug in, play, and score.
This guy can run and score from anywhere. In addition he has great hands and is faster than Julio Jones. This bears watching closely. Dorsey seems like a BPA guy. You gotta think Barkley is going to be #1 BPA in this entire Draft. I can easily see us going Barkley at 1. You get the #1 player in the draft 2 years in a row. Then comes 4. There will be 2 if not 3 of the Top 4 QB'S sitting there for your taking. PRAY that Denver and the Jets get FA Qbs. That may eliminate the small move ups. Then comes Arizona and Buffalo at what, 15 and 21/22? Those would be HUGE moves and cost a TON. We might just be sitting at 4 and have ALL QB's available. Lol. Would the G-Men have the balls to take Nelson at 2? Indy Chubbs? My mind is all over the place. Fascinating. Truly Fascinating. We go Barkley. Giants go Rosen? Do we drop a couple picks to Indy and GUARANTEE we get our choice of QB'S? Fascinating indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560 |
Honestly I don't see how we can mess this up.
I will still be holding my breath come draft day but damn I am super confident.
And that is something I have not felt.
I don't think WE can mess it up, but the player can. I am sure that Dorsey is going to make a solid pick....but that is on paper. Players sometimes don't live up to expectations.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560 |
I think it's a lot harder to pass on Bark than Fitz. Fitz is a good FS but he is not going to contribute as much to winning a game as Bark will. Bark is just going to be a very dominant player IMHO who scores a LOT of points and that to me is irreplaceable over a few broken up passes a game.
It's a little more then a few broken up passes. My line of thinking is we can get a back near as good in round 2.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,818
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,818 |
Yes.
And I'm sorry but I keep trying to overthink this. I can't. In my mind it's absolutely asinine to trade the pick or draft any other position than QB at #1. Unless there's some variables you are absolutely certain, I just don't know how you can go this route.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
I have some questions for all you guys who want to draft Barkley w/the first overall pick.
When was the last time a RB was drafted first overall?
What is the shelf life of a RB?
Who influences a game more, a QB or a RB?
Which position is harder to find, QB or RB?
Does a QB typically play much longer than a RB or is it the other way around?
Can you guarantee that Barkley is better than Zeke? Gurley? A. Peterson?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,307
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,307 |
I have some questions for all you guys who want to draft Barkley w/the first overall pick.
When was the last time a RB was drafted first overall?
What is the shelf life of a RB?
Who influences a game more, a QB or a RB?
Which position is harder to find, QB or RB?
Does a QB typically play much longer than a RB or is it the other way around?
Can you guarantee that Barkley is better than Zeke? Gurley? A. Peterson? The logic behind drafting Saquan does not imply not drafting a QB... We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... After Zeke and Fournette, and the impact they had on their teams, drafting a RB with the 1st isn't that crazy... Adds that Saquan is, IMHO, by far the best player on this draft..
Last edited by rastanplan; 03/05/18 09:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,818
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,818 |
I have some questions for all you guys who want to draft Barkley w/the first overall pick.
When was the last time a RB was drafted first overall?
What is the shelf life of a RB?
Who influences a game more, a QB or a RB?
Which position is harder to find, QB or RB?
Does a QB typically play much longer than a RB or is it the other way around?
Can you guarantee that Barkley is better than Zeke? Gurley? A. Peterson? I don't want to draft Barkley, but... 1) Ki-jana Carter 2) average life of RB is what 3 yrs? 3) QB 4) QB 5) QB 6) No
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,307
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,307 |
Saquan is a special case,he's a great character guy unlike Zeke...
He's also the best player in the draft.
And people forget that we passed on Zeke...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Who influences a game more, a QB or a RB?
Which position is harder to find, QB or RB? About the only questions needing asked. Take the QB, if he can play and have success, that alone will substantially put this team light years on the right track.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Who influences a game more, a QB or a RB?
Which position is harder to find, QB or RB? About the only questions needing asked. Take the QB, if he can play and have success, that alone will substantially put this team light years on the right track. Except that you're guaranteed to get a good QB at #4 so in this draft the irreplaceable pick is Barkley. Bark immediately adds an insane impact to the offense of your team. Bark is that rare breed of individual who will only get better in the pros because of his insane work ethic and extremely high character. You add that god given talent to be great and he is a no brainer at #1. There will be a good QB for us at #4 I can promise you that so let's not lose our chance to grab that player who will help us dominate for the next decade. This guy will be the next Barry Sanders.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... This only works if the FO thinks that there are 3 franchise QBs in the draft, and that they are all rated equally. You might think that, but that does not mean the FO thinks that. The FO has much, much more information on these guys that we will ever get. In my opinion, it does not seem likely that the FO has a 3-way tie at the top of the heap for QBs. There may be 3 that they would be OK with drafting, but not likely that they see all 3 as equals in regards to what they think will happen during their career. That's what's nice about having the #1 pick. No need to settle. Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. In my opinion, there are no other options. We have a shot at Rosen. We take it. If the concussions are an issue take Darnold. And do not look back. Do not try to out think the room, we do not need to as we have the 1st pick. Barkley is good, but a QB will have more impact on this team, and for a longer time. And do not tell me about his impact in the return game. That was a selling point on the triple threat Peppers last year. Too hard to impact the game as a returner in the NFL. Rule changes have made the return game an afterthought.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Who influences a game more, a QB or a RB?
Which position is harder to find, QB or RB? About the only questions needing asked. Take the QB, if he can play and have success, that alone will substantially put this team light years on the right track. Except that you're guaranteed to get a good QB at #4 so in this draft the irreplaceable pick is Barkley. Bark immediately adds an insane impact to the offense of your team. Bark is that rare breed of individual who will only get better in the pros because of his insane work ethic and extremely high character. You add that god given talent to be great and he is a no brainer at #1. There will be a good QB for us at #4 I can promise you that so let's not lose our chance to grab that player who will help us dominate for the next decade. This guy will be the next Barry Sanders. I respect your opinion and what you're saying, but if we're to help this team, in a matter of overall speaking, QB and Minkah (imo of course) is the path to take and wouldn't require and dealing or anything extra. The impact on both sides of offense and defense are, on paper, substantial then. Besides Jones and even Guice if available are all options to solidify the rb and legitimately too. Just sounds like in an overall manner, given the drop from Minkah's assumed competition and the rbs still likely available after Barkley, that's the route to go. I'm not dogging the kid's talent either or his ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
Love to have the kid but lean towards QB. I'd put maximum effort into making everyone think he was my guy just in case there's a Ditka type coach out there willing to sell the farm. I'd have to listen but still not sure I'd trade out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Some folks just love shiny objects ... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. Food for thought... what if we preempt any Indy trade by trading with them first. If we want Barkley and have two (or more) QBs rated as "franchise QBs": Flip 4 for 3 with Indy - throw in 2nd. Now we are guaranteed SB and one of the two QBs we have targeted. Not to say this crazy scenario is a be all/end all, but in fact just one of the many scenarios that help us land the two players we want in the first round. FACTS: Saquan is the most coveted RB in the class, no one else is close. The QBs are all basically "neck in neck". Saquan won't last til 4. There will be potential franchise QBs at 4. Comparing the value of RBs and QBs is moot if you can have both. Complaining about taking a RB at 1 is ridiculous if you can have both. We have a rare opportunity because we draft at 1 and 4, acting like drafting Barkley at 1 is ignoring the need for a franchise QB doesn't make sense. Now, if we have our QB targeted and are sold that he is the only QB in the draft to lead this team to the promised land - can't take a chance - DRAFT HIM AT 1.
HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,307
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,307 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... This only works if the FO thinks that there are 3 franchise QBs in the draft, and that they are all rated equally. You might think that, but that does not mean the FO thinks that. The FO has much, much more information on these guys that we will ever get. In my opinion, it does not seem likely that the FO has a 3-way tie at the top of the heap for QBs. There may be 3 that they would be OK with drafting, but not likely that they see all 3 as equals in regards to what they think will happen during their career. That's what's nice about having the #1 pick. No need to settle. Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. In my opinion, there are no other options. We have a shot at Rosen. We take it. If the concussions are an issue take Darnold. And do not look back. Do not try to out think the room, we do not need to as we have the 1st pick. Barkley is good, but a QB will have more impact on this team, and for a longer time. And do not tell me about his impact in the return game. That was a selling point on the triple threat Peppers last year. Too hard to impact the game as a returner in the NFL. Rule changes have made the return game an afterthought. Then I would trade out of 4 for whoever wants Fitz or Chubb and get a ransom....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... This only works if the FO thinks that there are 3 franchise QBs in the draft, and that they are all rated equally. You might think that, but that does not mean the FO thinks that. The FO has much, much more information on these guys that we will ever get. In my opinion, it does not seem likely that the FO has a 3-way tie at the top of the heap for QBs. There may be 3 that they would be OK with drafting, but not likely that they see all 3 as equals in regards to what they think will happen during their career. That's what's nice about having the #1 pick. No need to settle. Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. In my opinion, there are no other options. We have a shot at Rosen. We take it. If the concussions are an issue take Darnold. And do not look back. Do not try to out think the room, we do not need to as we have the 1st pick. Barkley is good, but a QB will have more impact on this team, and for a longer time. And do not tell me about his impact in the return game. That was a selling point on the triple threat Peppers last year. Too hard to impact the game as a returner in the NFL. Rule changes have made the return game an afterthought. Then I would trade out of 4 for whoever wants Fitz or Chubb and get a ransom.... Teams don't give up a "ransom" for non-QBs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
At 4 I could stomach it. At 1 I would throw it back up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301 |
At 4 I could stomach it. At 1 I would throw it back up. Hey, to each his own, but that's truly the part I don't get. If you're getting the two players you want and that was the only path to getting them - how does it matter?
HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
At 4 I could stomach it. At 1 I would throw it back up. Hey, to each his own, but that's truly the part I don't get. If you're getting the two players you want and that was the only path to getting them - how does it matter? You're not getting the QB you want at 4 if you pass on him at 1. One way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... This only works if the FO thinks that there are 3 franchise QBs in the draft, and that they are all rated equally. You might think that, but that does not mean the FO thinks that. The FO has much, much more information on these guys that we will ever get. In my opinion, it does not seem likely that the FO has a 3-way tie at the top of the heap for QBs. There may be 3 that they would be OK with drafting, but not likely that they see all 3 as equals in regards to what they think will happen during their career. That's what's nice about having the #1 pick. No need to settle. Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. In my opinion, there are no other options. We have a shot at Rosen. We take it. If the concussions are an issue take Darnold. And do not look back. Do not try to out think the room, we do not need to as we have the 1st pick. Barkley is good, but a QB will have more impact on this team, and for a longer time. And do not tell me about his impact in the return game. That was a selling point on the triple threat Peppers last year. Too hard to impact the game as a returner in the NFL. Rule changes have made the return game an afterthought. Then I would trade out of 4 for whoever wants Fitz or Chubb and get a ransom.... And then end up with no QB?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
We’d have the shiny object though ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. Food for thought... what if we preempt any Indy trade by trading with them first. If we want Barkley and have two (or more) QBs rated as "franchise QBs": Flip 4 for 3 with Indy - throw in 2nd. Now we are guaranteed SB and one of the two QBs we have targeted. Not to say this crazy scenario is a be all/end all, but in fact just one of the many scenarios that help us land the two players we want in the first round. Possibility. But I imagine someone will offer Indy more than a 2nd to move into that spot. Say Denver offers their second this year and 1st next year. We can get outbid easily. Someone can offer enough so that Indy is OK with dropping a few spots instead of just one. A risk I do not want to take when our QB is there for the taking. IMO, franchise QB trumps stud RB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,990
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,990 |
j/c:
I don't think the Browns will select Barkley at #1 for the same reasons teams at #2 and #3 won't pick him-- the QB / pass rush need is high and the RB class is deep.
Thus, I hope he is available at #4. I'd take him there.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,974
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,974 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. Food for thought... what if we preempt any Indy trade by trading with them first. If we want Barkley and have two (or more) QBs rated as "franchise QBs": Flip 4 for 3 with Indy - throw in 2nd. Now we are guaranteed SB and one of the two QBs we have targeted. Not to say this crazy scenario is a be all/end all, but in fact just one of the many scenarios that help us land the two players we want in the first round. Possibility. But I imagine someone will offer Indy more than a 2nd to move into that spot. Say Denver offers their second this year and 1st next year. We can get outbid easily. Someone can offer enough so that Indy is OK with dropping a few spots instead of just one. A risk I do not want to take when our QB is there for the taking. IMO, franchise QB trumps stud RB. No really. Our second this year is worth more than denvers, and INDY would only be moving down 1 spot to get the second. so they are still getting the guy they want NOW and a second for nothing, trade w/ Denver they are moving farther down and not guaranteed to get their guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,235
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,235 |
j/c:
I don't think the Browns will select Barkley at #1 for the same reasons teams at #2 and #3 won't pick him-- the QB / pass rush need is high and the RB class is deep.
Thus, I hope he is available at #4. I'd take him there.
This could happen. I think if we do pass on Barkley we should definitely look at RB with our first pick in the second round.
Cleveland Browns, Space Browns
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301 |
We can draft Saquan and then a franchise QB, but we can't draft a franchise QB and then Saquan... Say that the FO has Rosen first, then Darnold a close second, but are willing to settle for Darnold if they can have Barkley. They draft Barkley at one. Then NYG takes Rosen and Indy trades out with Denver who then takes Darnold. Then what do we take at QB? The 3rd best one in the Mountain West last year? The actual teams do not matter, but QBs can easily go at #2 and #3. Food for thought... what if we preempt any Indy trade by trading with them first. If we want Barkley and have two (or more) QBs rated as "franchise QBs": Flip 4 for 3 with Indy - throw in 2nd. Now we are guaranteed SB and one of the two QBs we have targeted. Not to say this crazy scenario is a be all/end all, but in fact just one of the many scenarios that help us land the two players we want in the first round. Possibility. But I imagine someone will offer Indy more than a 2nd to move into that spot. Say Denver offers their second this year and 1st next year. We can get outbid easily. Someone can offer enough so that Indy is OK with dropping a few spots instead of just one. A risk I do not want to take when our QB is there for the taking. IMO, franchise QB trumps stud RB. Agreed. That's why we go hard first. The benefits for them is a possible guarantee that we don't draft the player they have targeted. At 4 they still have the option of a deal with another team. They could have a fairly strong guarantee of the player they want being available... and a possibility to really capitalize if they decide to move down further. Win-win... provided it fits the narrative I spoke of initially. At the end of the day, it's no risk at all... if they won't do the deal, we still have the clear option of drafting our QB at 1.
HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,538
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,538 |
j/c:
I don't think the Browns will select Barkley at #1 for the same reasons teams at #2 and #3 won't pick him-- the QB / pass rush need is high and the RB class is deep.
Thus, I hope he is available at #4. I'd take him there.
I think there is close to a zero percent chance the Browns pass on a QB at #1 and take Barkley. QB if far more important to a team's long term success than a RB. Not having a franchise QB is why the Browns have been abysmal on the field for nearly 20 years. However, I'm not so sure NYG doesn't take Barkley at #2. I'd almost be more surprised if they didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301 |
j/c:
I don't think the Browns will select Barkley at #1 for the same reasons teams at #2 and #3 won't pick him-- the QB / pass rush need is high and the RB class is deep.
Thus, I hope he is available at #4. I'd take him there.
I think there is close to a zero percent chance the Browns pass on a QB at #1 and take Barkley. QB if far more important to a team's long term success than a RB. Not having a franchise QB is why the Browns have been abysmal on the field for nearly 20 years. However, I'm not so sure NYG doesn't take Barkley at #2. I'd almost be more surprised if they didn't. If I'm the Browns... I've thrown enough shade on the QB sweepstakes. They're all so close anyway that there is no reason to try to influence any other team's perspective where they are concerned. Saquan is the prize... and I make it abundantly clear that we are in love with him. That opens dialog with all important teams for possible trade scenarios, they know if they want him - the only road to drafting him is through our #1. When the bidding begins we could possibly steal draft picks from the Giants with no possible impact on our QB... Steal even more from other teams with limited risk.
HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805 |
We’d have the shiny object though .. My Head's Spinning. I Love it! Guys. There is NO WAY we are taking a RB #1. Although. And I mean ALTHOUGH. We DO have the 4 pick. Hmmmmm. Interesting. This hasn't been seen before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
j/c:
I don't think the Browns will select Barkley at #1 for the same reasons teams at #2 and #3 won't pick him-- the QB / pass rush need is high and the RB class is deep.
Thus, I hope he is available at #4. I'd take him there.
I think there is close to a zero percent chance the Browns pass on a QB at #1 and take Barkley. QB if far more important to a team's long term success than a RB. Not having a franchise QB is why the Browns have been abysmal on the field for nearly 20 years. However, I'm not so sure NYG doesn't take Barkley at #2. I'd almost be more surprised if they didn't. If I'm the Browns... I've thrown enough shade on the QB sweepstakes. They're all so close anyway that there is no reason to try to influence any other team's perspective where they are concerned. Saquan is the prize... and I make it abundantly clear that we are in love with him. That opens dialog with all important teams for possible trade scenarios, they know if they want him - the only road to drafting him is through our #1. When the bidding begins we could possibly steal draft picks from the Giants with no possible impact on our QB... Steal even more from other teams with limited risk. Pretty much this. If the Giants want him and only one other team gets interested, we simply flip picks with NY and still get the #1 QB off the board, while also getting an additional 2nd and possibly first in 2019 (whatever the cost to move from 2 to 1 is nowadays).
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
We’d have the shiny object though .. My Head's Spinning. I Love it! Guys. There is NO WAY we are taking a RB #1. Although. And I mean ALTHOUGH. We DO have the 4 pick. Hmmmmm. Interesting. This hasn't been seen before. THANK U SASHI ....
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2018 NFL Season 2018 NFL Draft The case for Saquon Barkley
|
|
