DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2018 NFL Season 2018 NFL Draft A possible Draft Scenario

I just saw this article and begin to think of something I wanted to pose to you.



What if the Buffalo Bills packaged their pics, a la Philly, to the Browns for the #1 so they can get a Josh Rosen (Presumably the most NFL ready guy).

The Eagles moved twice and Buffalo REALLY needs a QB now. So Here's the move:

Buffalo gets-- #1 draft pick

Browns get -- #12, #21, and a first rounder in 2019 (Possibly more...I don't know how the pick value system lies)

So we'd still have #4 plus two more first rounders this year.

After the pick up of Carlos Hyde, I think the Barkley thing at #1 isn't gonna happen. And since TT is a bridge anyway, we can let any QB sit for a couple years to learn before we throw him in. A good QB can still be had at #4 or #12. Shoot, as long as he is watching and learning but not being thrown in the fire his first year, I'm cool with whomever. I don't think any of these QB's are 100% ready to start in the NFL, so we might as well get a guy with smarts groom him, as all QB's should be.

That way there's no pressure on him to be the savior of the franchise. He can step in to the limelight when the time is right, and he's ready to.

Thoughts?

I am out on this.

Nah, I want our QB taken at #1. #4 I'm willing to listen depending on the situation, but no more letting other teams trade with us and watch them take the guy we should have taken.

It's our time. I don't care anymore about stockpiling picks, we need players. Badly.

Hell no.

Nope. The plan all along seems to have been to gather picks to actually pick them at some point. Pick them this year. We'll still most likely be top ten in 19.
Quit kicking the can down the road and show us something!

Nope, QB at number 1. Number 4 pick could be open for business.

Had we signed Kirk Cousins, things could be different. But we didn't. Tyrod Taylor is on a 1 year contract. We have to select a QB at number 1.

NO! Just because there are a bunch of good QBs in this draft and we the fans see them as all being about the same doesn't mean the Front Offices see them that way. You take the guy you like.

Sounds like a prescription for ending up with the 4th best QB in the 2018 draft to me.

!!!!

After an 0-16 season, you do not trade the number one pick.

take the QB instead of that trade ... now, if they want #4 that's a different animal

This is probably the only time where 90% of the board members here are on agreement lol.

No way. We gotta get our QB at #1. Maybe trade the 4th but not 1.

Just don't ask which QB @ #1

The way I look at it, there's not a starter from this draft class that will do anything to change our fortunes this year anyway. All of them have some deficiencies. The only one, I think, is worth drafting at all is Mayfield because height means nothing in the league, it's just a good look "getting off the bus" for teams. If Mayfield can be Drew Brees, then he's worth taking, but that's just me, not Dorsey.

Second, no matter which QB you get a #4, he's gonna sit. That's not gonna matter who we get. So what does it matter if you get a guy at #1 or #4. And if he's got those glaring deficiencies, then he's gonna sit even longer.

Let's take Goff for instance. He was the #1 pick. He sat for 7 games behind journeyman Case Keenum, then was thrust in woefully unprepared. Never won a game. Had he sat for the whole year under the same OC, he might have had a better understanding of the game.

On the flip side, Rothlisberger wasn't picked #1 overall from a small school but thrived in the Steeler system.

But there's a scenario for everything.

My point is this. Drafting a QB #1 has not always worked out for us. It's a perception game and if they don't have a QB high on their draft board, then you don't draft him. He's not up on the board at the top for nothing. If Dorsey trusts his board, then our first pick should be the person we have at the top. Never reach.

I'd rather add several quality players than one guy at #1. Plus, at 0-16, one guy is not gonna change your fortunes anyway.

How many years in a row leading up to our 0-16 season did we take this same approach?

5, 6?

That's the thing. There's no consensus as there has been in the past. No Luck, no Newton, No Couch (Did I go there...ouch) A QB at #1 is no sure thing. With four guys who have similar skills but no trait that stands them out from the rest, you are gonna be reaching. And that's a bad position to play from. With two picks in the top 4, you're gonna get a QB who's not gonna play right away anyhow. Who cares who you get?

Since returning, we've picked one QB at number 1. Tim Couch. That was like 20 years ago..............



This is a long-term investment. I'm not concerned with what our number 1 QB does this year. I want the guy who is going to be the QB of this franchise for over a decade. Next year doesn't matter, that's why we have Tyrod for next season. If our QB beats him out, great. If not, that's okay.


That number 1 pick is our chance at consistent success. It's why a team like the Broncos went from winning the Superbowl to being average, then to being bad. It why teams like the Patriots, Packers, Saints, Steelers, Falcons, and so on are usually pretty good.


We are in a position to not let any team dictate who the future of our franchise will be. There are some QBs that look to be good. Why would we ever trade down?

Yes, but how many years have we come into the draft with an established starter already on our roster who's won games in the NFL and led a team to a playoff game. One? I guess you could say with RGIII but he was damaged goods (we can all admit).

If people could say, "There's one QB that stands above the rest in all ways." Then I'd be inclined to agree. EVERY QB in the draft is a project. They are not even Eli Manning or Phillip Rivers ready. Not even close. I don't know if I want that kind of uncertainty at #1.

A decade is a pretty long time to forcast. Most teams who get a QB for a decade are lucky, at best. Cousins is a really good QB and his team didn't even want him. Nick Foles just won a SuperBowl and he might not even be with the team after next season. So in this league, the phrase "Long Term Investment" is a bit of a misnomer. I remember when drafting a Guard or Tackle was getting a guy who's gonna be your starter for 10 years (Watch someone throw that out on Draft Day) and most barely last with a team that long (see Chance Warmack or Jonathan Cooper).

So I don't believe that anymore that any player is a drafted to be a long term investment. It's "wait and see" with everyone and those who do last with their team for a long time, are very rare. Because if they're getting paid, that means that someone else isn't.

I wish every pick would last a decade, but that's just not realistic.

So if we aren't drafting to play the guy this year, what's to say the guy who can't help us won't be at #4. And I get the "If there's a guy you want at #1, you take him at #1" but what if that guy, for us, is not a QB. What if we want Chubb? Or Fitzpatrick.

Old thinking is that you take a QB at #1 because that's what people have done in the past. But that's no guarantee. So Why not get as many players as you can? Better odds.

Look at this:
Top 32 QBs in NFL now

I believe 6 are former #1 picks. And a good number on this list didn't even start the season as their current team's QB.

I'm just sayin. It's all a crap shoot.

I think that we could trade out of 4 if we got an overwhelming deal, but I don't see us moving out of 1 at all.

Cleveland #1 3,000 Pts.

Buffalo #12 1200 #21 800 53 370 56 340 Total 2710 and would demand next years #1 ... But I would not trade #1

j/c

We, as fans (maybe more avid than most), spend a little time looking at players, making an assessment of their chance of success in the NFL, and form our opinions about what our favorite teams should do. These NFL FO guys spend the better part of their lives refining the art of measuring players at a whole different level than we even have the chance to, and stake their professional reputations on making the right choices.

I guarantee, Dorsey and his staff don't look at this QB class and see 3-4 equal guys. They have them measured and ranked, and they will enter the draft room knowing exactly which QB they want most. It's not just a matter of which QB can play in the NFL, it's how well his particular abilities fit into how they want to build the team. We may see the difference between 2 guys as minimal, while they see how one guy fits what we want better than the others. And playing cute little "I'm smarter than the rest of the league" games is a good way to find themselves looking for lesser jobs in a year or two. Job #1 is solve the QB problem that has cursed the Browns for 2 decades. That need overrides the distinction of QB vs. BPA. And they still have the #4 pick to take the BPA. (I personally believe Barkley will be there #4, and if he isn't another very good prospect will be.)

I don't believe this FO is going to play games. They will listen to offers and measure their options at #4, but I believe the #1 pick is going to be used to solve this organization's biggest issue.

(And for those who argue that they need Barkley to have a good running attack, take a look at some of the other RB in this draft class. He's the best, but he's by no means the only option.)

Now don't you dare try to ruin the good vibe, sir! Are you secretly Jason LaCanfora? HAHAHAHAHAHA JK.

Sure, why not? Whatever Dorsey thinks is best.

I think Dorsey will be fine so long as he drafts a QB.

I believe we take Darnold 1 then trade 4 to Buffalo and get 12 21 and a 2nd probably 56 I would also hold them ransom for a future 1 if they truly want that QB ... Also we could still get Ward/James/Ridley/Davenport/Quinton Nelson etc.. at 12

I have no problem with trading down, I know a lot on here don’t want another trade down and I get it, but remember just because those trade downs didn’t work doesn’t mean one this year won’t either.

This is probably a very good guess.

With all this draft capital we could also trade up from 12 to assure ourselves getting one of the players mentioned. We could even hop up to 7 and draft Barkley if we want him (but I don't think we do). Davenport seems like a very good possibility though.

With LT probably being a target for us now, I think a trade like this is even more an option then ever.

Except that I'm not sure there are any real LT options in this draft. The top OT options are mostly considered to have RT and guard potential in the NFL. There are some projects.

I think the reason we signed Hubbard and Stephenson is to patch together the best tackle combo between them and Coleman/Drango. We still don't know what we have in Rod Johnson. JT is going to be impossible to replace, we'll have to make do with lesser LT like the rest of the league.

Bryan O'Niell was my favorite prospect in this draft, but only if he could develop a year under Joe Thomas. There is no plug and play prospect in this year's draft. If we wanted to try an immediate solution we should draft Quenton Nelson and move Bitonio to left tackle.

So Sam Darnold.

Kizer did not Sit!

Kizer made it "5" , Five--- quarters before he was replaced for migraines, and has now been traded, after getting almost the entire season.



Tim Couch. Tim Couch is the ONLY one I can remember them taking at #1 overall, mostly the only time they took a Qb without taking another position first, (Browns),
including somebody before Weeden, annnnnd, Joe Thomas before Brady Quinn, (was it Quinn back then), all those 1st rd qb's taken at #22 overall, were the 2nd player the Browns took that year.

Now you may say Tim Couch wasn't successful, but he lasted 4+ - years until an elbow injury ended his career, is how I remember it, and I even have tape of a Browns game, starring Tim Couch, where the announcers talk of "this Browns high powered offense", imagine that, when was the last time anyone heard that?

The Price to trade up into the top 5 just went up ... Thank You Jets

Not a chance in HE double hockey sticks