Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#1423512 03/18/18 09:28 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1
K
kwhip Offline OP
Dawg Talker
OP Offline
Dawg Talker
K
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1
Lotsa talk about leaving 4 for Buffalo at 12 & 22.

With the Jets move to 3, we're all but guaranteed to have all 3 STUDS available to us in Chubb, Barkley and Minkah.

DO WE WANT TO GIVE THAT UP?

Denver at 5 is viable if they think Miami, Buffalo or Arizona is hot on 4. Moving down to Denver STILL nets us one of the Top 3. Cool with that move.

Buffalo is the ONLY team that has 2 First Rounders at 12 & 22.

Looking at Jerimiah's Post Combine Top 50, WHO would we possibly target at 12 & 22? Ward's GONE in the Top 10. So who?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...18-nfl-draft-20

I'm NOT seeing any combination of 2 players that outweigh just sitting at 4 or moving to 5 and taking the #1 NON-QB player on our board.

Who are the 2 players you'd want at 12 & 22?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
We gave up taking Deshaun Watson for the #4 pick this year, lets not outsmart (sashi) ourselves, lets take our QB at 1 (whomever that may be) and the top quality player of our choice, Chubb, Barkley or Minkah, have a beer and high five everyone for a first round well done.


#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Likes: 234
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Likes: 234
If the Browns end up with pick #22 they should trade out of it just because. But seriously, I agree with your premise, we shouldn't drop past #5 and I only deal with Denver if they assure me they're going QB at #4.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Originally Posted By: Dave
If the Browns end up with pick #22 they should trade out of it just because. But seriously, I agree with your premise, we shouldn't drop past #5 and I only deal with Denver if they assure me they're going QB at #4.


As long as it's not a QB, i don't see such a big deal with the 22 pick.


But I agree. Trading down with Denver would be optimal. For all else who want to trade for the 4 pick, the premium should be very very high.

More than likely we'd be giving up an opportunity to select the non-qb in this draft of our choice. That's a big thing to give up.



I haven't thought much into who I'd want at 12. QBs aren't an interest to me. I guess Derwin James or a Corner. Maybe Calvin Ridley?

Honestly, this class seems very top heavy. It'd really take a lot to get me to want us to trade down very much. I like Bradley Chubb and Saquon Barkley a lot.


UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
I'm not thrilled with the idea of trading 4 for 12 & 22. The draft value chart says it's a slight overpay from Buffalo's perspective; recent experience suggests the Browns could get more (see Colts/Jets trade for example.) Or, just draft an impact player.

Also as a general rule, I prefer a future first instead of a late first in the current draft. This goes against the general guideline that a pick in the next draft is worth either the last pick in that round, or even a pick in the next round, but nothing says that the Browns must follow this.

Remember, this #4 pick we are talking is the result of a (once) future first. Watt and Watson got injured, along with other starters for the Texans, and their season imploded. Things happen. The final first rounder conveyed in the RG3 trade ended up being #2 overall. The Rams wasted it on Greg Robinson but it was the second pick nonetheless.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
1
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
1
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Originally Posted By: Tulsa
We gave up taking Deshaun Watson for the #4 pick this year, lets not outsmart (sashi) ourselves, lets take our QB at 1 (whomever that may be) and the top quality player of our choice, Chubb, Barkley or Minkah, have a beer and high five everyone for a first round well done.


I'm there with ya!

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,899
P
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
P
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,899
Take our QB at 1. At 4 we still have the pick of the litter (assuming QB goes #2)....take either Chubb or Barkley at 4 and don't look back. We walk out of the 1st round with QB and Barkley/Chubb. That to me is a mega win, however way you cut it.

I actually think Bills will be targeting a trade with the Giants for the #2 so they can leapfrog the Jets and get their guy.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
1
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
1
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
IF Denver wants Mayfield then I'd make them pay regardless of one spot in the draft or not.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 16
C
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
C
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 16
Originally Posted By: Haus
I'm not thrilled with the idea of trading 4 for 12 & 22. The draft value chart says it's a slight overpay from Buffalo's perspective; recent experience suggests the Browns could get more (see Colts/Jets trade for example.) Or, just draft an impact player.

Also as a general rule, I prefer a future first instead of a late first in the current draft. This goes against the general guideline that a pick in the next draft is worth either the last pick in that round, or even a pick in the next round, but nothing says that the Browns must follow this.

Remember, this #4 pick we are talking is the result of a (once) future first. Watt and Watson got injured, along with other starters for the Texans, and their season imploded. Things happen. The final first rounder conveyed in the RG3 trade ended up being #2 overall. The Rams wasted it on Greg Robinson but it was the second pick nonetheless.


I think I would go for it if we get 12, 22, and next year's 1st. Maybe try to get 65 back too. They are starting the 3rd or 4th QB drafted, or AJ McCarron. I'd think the pick has a decent chance of being top half of the 1st.

Then try to trade 12 and 64 or 65 and get back up to get Ward around 7 or 8.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
I would do it for 12+22+next year's 1st. Hard to pass up that kind of package for a (non-QB) positional player.

Also about Buffalo: while they were a playoff team this year at 9-7, they also had a -57 point differential in the regular season. They've already downgraded their starting QB and LT. That future first would be pretty enticing, even if they don't have the freakish injury luck that the Texans did this past season.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 70,640
Likes: 510
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 70,640
Likes: 510
i hope denver gets nervous at 5 .. offers us a 3rd round pick to move up to 4, we slide back one slot and still get Chubb/Barkley


"First down inside the 10. A score here will put us in the Super Bowl. Cooper is far to the left as Njoku settles into the slot. Moore is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Ford are split in the backfield as Watson takes the snap ... Here we go."
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
i hope denver gets nervous at 5 .. offers us a 3rd round pick to move up to 4, we slide back one slot and still get Chubb/Barkley

This would be a great result. Either that, or leverage that into a bigger deal described above. Want your quarterback? Better get him before Denver does (at #4 or #5.)

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
We should keep trading down until we own all the 7th round picks for the next ten years.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski

"Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield

#gmstrong
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
This is probably wishful thinking though. A Denver perspective: https://www.milehighreport.com/2018/3/16/17131318/case-keenum-contract-broncos

Quote:
Case Keenum contract is a pretty strong two-year deal

The Denver Broncos have strongly committed to Case Keenum for the next two years with a cap hit of $15M in 2018 and $21M in 2019.

The contract details for Case Keenum have been released and the Denver Broncos made a strong commitment to Keenum in their two-year, $36 million offer.

Tweet: Case Keenum's Broncos deal is for two years, $36M, of which $25M is fully guaranteed at signing. He gets a $6M signing bonus, a fully guaranteed $8M 2018 salary and a $4M 2018 roster bonus. His $18M 2019 salary is guaranteed against injury, and $7M of it is guaranteed at signing.

The $6 million signing bonus means the Broncos will take a $15 million cap hit in 2018 and a bigger $21 million cap hit in 2019, but with the dead cap sitting at $10 million in 2019 it is unlikely the team will even consider moving on from Keenum before the end of his two-year deal.

The likelihood of the Broncos taking a quarterback in the 2018 NFL Draft is still high, but with the potential draft pick having two years to sit it could open some doors for a project quarterback like Josh Allen who would need some time to develop.

Tweet: That $7 million full guarantee in 2019 means this is ironclad 2-year deal for Case Keenum. Can't imagine Broncos making solid, 2-year investment in Keenum and then drafting a QB with No. 5 overall pick. That No. 5 pick would have to sit 2 years. But ... you never know. #9sports

It will be interesting to see how the team proceeds with their draft plans.

Keenum is now the highest paid player on the team from a cap space standpoint, eating up 9.72% of total cap space. The move leaves the Broncos with $25.1 million in total cap space once you account for draft picks and restricted free agents. That number includes all of their free agent signings now, except for cornerback Tramaine Brock.

That leaves the Broncos with a big chunk of change for potential moves in free agency or even trades. John Elway may not be done quite just yet.

Seems like they could just sit back at #5 and take Barkley.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Originally Posted By: CalDawg
We should keep trading down until we own all the 7th round picks for the next ten years.

I'm talking about adding an additional two first round picks to move down! Nothing about 7th rounders.

I get that trading down gets a bad rap here. But a lot of this has to do with past GMs simply doing a lousy job with the picks they do make. Leaving franchise QBs on the board when you need one is another mistake, but we are talking about the #4 here, not the #1. I'm kind of working on the assumption that we go QB at #1.

The thing is that teams, in recent years, have been rather aggressive in making large deals to move up to get their QBs. The Colts got three second round picks to move down from 3 to 6! How do you pass up that kind of deal when your team isn't in the market for a QB?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 16
C
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
C
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 16
Originally Posted By: Haus
I would do it for 12+22+next year's 1st. Hard to pass up that kind of package for a (non-QB) positional player.

Also about Buffalo: while they were a playoff team this year at 9-7, they also had a -57 point differential in the regular season. They've already downgraded their starting QB and LT. That future first would be pretty enticing, even if they don't have the freakish injury luck that the Texans did this past season.


Dion Dawkins played LT most of last year as a rookie because Glenn was hurt and was pretty good. He isn't really a downgrade, especially considering Glenn's injury history.

Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,763
Likes: 116
S
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
S
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,763
Likes: 116
Please do not trade down. We need premium players. We have 3 second round picks, if anything trade up. Tired of always dropping and watching teams get top players while we high five each other for trading down and taking inferior players


"The Elf is killing the Curse"
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,499
Likes: 1282
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,499
Likes: 1282
Stay at four. The Browns have the opportunity to take the best player on their board (Chubb, Ward or Fitzpatrick) after QBs likely go 1,2,3.

Do not try and be the smartest guys in the room. Time and again that strategy ha failed.

No need to overcomplicate the situation.

Tired of winning the draft instead of on Sundays.

Since 2010 every draft pick selected at #4 has been selected to the Pro Bowl except for Sammy Watkins in 2014.

(I could handle a trade down with Denver and only Denver).

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Yeah, I don't see the need for Denver to swap picks with us, if they want a QB they know we're not taking one. If they're afraid we're going to take their player why would we trade down? For more picks? We don't need them, we need impact players. They only way I would consider a trade with Denver would be one that included a ridiculous haul like 2nd rounders for this year and next, and a guarantee they're not taking our player. That's likely not happeneing.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski

"Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted By: Haus
Originally Posted By: CalDawg
We should keep trading down until we own all the 7th round picks for the next ten years.

I'm talking about adding an additional two first round picks to move down! Nothing about 7th rounders.

I get that trading down gets a bad rap here. But a lot of this has to do with past GMs simply doing a lousy job with the picks they do make. Leaving franchise QBs on the board when you need one is another mistake, but we are talking about the #4 here, not the #1. I'm kind of working on the assumption that we go QB at #1.

The thing is that teams, in recent years, have been rather aggressive in making large deals to move up to get their QBs. The Colts got three second round picks to move down from 3 to 6! How do you pass up that kind of deal when your team isn't in the market for a QB?


Again, we don't need more picks. That's the point. I wouldn't trade with Buffalo because that means we've given up our shot at Minkah/Barkley/Chubb. That is stupid given all the picks and young players we already have, IMO.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski

"Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield

#gmstrong
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
#12, #22, and Buffalo's 1st round pick next year could be 3 impact players.

That's a ridiculous haul and I'd take it every time for #4. That said, it's not an offer likely to be made, so you probably don't have to worry about it.

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1
K
kwhip Offline OP
Dawg Talker
OP Offline
Dawg Talker
K
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Haus
#12, #22, and Buffalo's 1st round pick next year could be 3 impact players.

That's a ridiculous haul and I'd take it every time for #4. That said, it's not an offer likely to be made, so you probably don't have to worry about it.


My question wasn't about whether we agree to moving down to 12 & 22.

It's about IF WE DID, who would be the picks and would those 2 players outweigh the ONE STUD we'd get at 4 or even 5.

I say NO.

This is a Top Heavy Draft for STUDS. I for one do NOT want to bypass a Barkley, Chubb Or Minkah-Fitzpatrick.

Furthermore, I'd bet anything that at 33 & 35 we're going to have TWO players on our Top 25 Board sitting there.

That's like FOUR 1st Round Talents according to OUR BPA board.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
I already said that I wasn't fond of trading 4 for 12 and 22 (even though this is already overpaying from the Bills perspective based on the draft value chart.)

It's the addition of the future first on top of 12 and 22 that does it for me. Again though, this is an unfair trade (clearly in the Browns favor) and I don't even think we'll have the option of taking it the first place.

Look back at past drafts. Players bust at the top of the draft all the time; studs fall to later in the first round and beyond. It's not as simple as being guaranteed a stud vs being guaranteed just a few guys.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted By: Haus
#12, #22, and Buffalo's 1st round pick next year could be 3 impact players.

That's a ridiculous haul and I'd take it every time for #4. That said, it's not an offer likely to be made, so you probably don't have to worry about it.


Yeah, I don't see their next year's #1 coming into play.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski

"Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield

#gmstrong
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,499
Likes: 1022
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,499
Likes: 1022
The only deal would be Denver. Knowing another QB is going at four.

I see no rational that would make me not want the top guy at any position that is not a QB.

We need players like Chubb, Fitz, Barkley, Ward or whoever they like.

Immediate impact pro bowl type guys.

Dropping to 12? Not interested.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
I like the idea of trading with Denver too. Move down a spot, pick up an extra pick, grab the guy we were going to take at #4 all along. Bonus points for saving some money on the contract.

What's in it for the Broncos? They just signed Case Keenum to a pretty substantial 2 year deal, with significant guarantees into the second year. They've already shown they can sign QBs in the past (Peyton Manning.) I don't think they are so desperate for a QB that they need to give up a good pick to move up one spot. If somebody jumps them for the 4th QB they can just take Barkley.

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 187
Likes: 3
C
Practice Squad
Offline
Practice Squad
C
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 187
Likes: 3
Not enough compensation probably for only moving one spot stay at 4 and get the player you want. We still have plenty of picks.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,771
Likes: 1341
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,771
Likes: 1341
j/c

I do not see the sense in following the same pattern that we've used in the past that has done nothing but helped us to lose on Sundays.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,817
Likes: 19
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,817
Likes: 19

I absolutely think there's a need for Denver to trade up to 4. If it's a QB they are after, they'll trade up. A year ago the Bears traded 2 3rds and a 4th to move up one spot to draft Trubisky.

If The draft goes Darnold-Rosen-Allen, then that 4th pick is HOT HOT HOT. I still can see where we trade back with the Bills or Dolphins and then use draft capital to move back up in the draft. This might net us the same player we covet plus an additional pick (or a move up in the draft).

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Sometimes I think these trade discussions would be more fruitful if both the teams (err, fans of both teams) were represented in the discussion. Trade scenarios are almost always presented in favor of one's own team, sometimes laughably so.

This thread is actually not so bad. I went with the idea of 4 for 12, 22, and next year's first from Buffalo. I think this is a lopsided trade in the Browns favor, and most are against it. I get the reason behind being opposed to it, and it's understandable.

A couple not so reasonable ideas:

I went to TwoBillsDrive, and one poster had this ingenious idea:

- This anonymous poster wanted to trade up to #2 with the Giants. He correctly deduced that this would cost a large amount of draft picks, and wanted to recruit the Browns as part of a 3-way trade. The Browns would contribute either a second or third round pick so the Bills could move up, with the understanding that the Bills would take a QB, the Jets would take a QB at 3, and the Browns could take Barkley at #4. That's it. The Browns wouldn't actually receive anything else in exchange for their 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Not to be outdone, I went to JetNation. Here, a poster suggested that the Browns would take Darnold at #1, the Giants a QB at #2. The Jets would "call the Browns bluff" and take Barkley at #3. This would send the Browns in a panic, and the Browns would send Darnold and a 3rd round pick for the rights to Barkley, who this poster believed the Browns were counting on to be there at #4.

These were actual posts made on those forums. I couldn't pick up on any sarcasm, nor were they made in purple.

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 320
G
2nd String
Offline
2nd String
G
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 320
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
j/c

I do not see the sense in following the same pattern that we've used in the past that has done nothing but helped us to lose on Sundays.


Exactly. I guess trading down is fun for some as far as discusion on this board but I would think we would learn from past Browns history.


I just want a winner. We need players who can be part of the solution not part of the problem.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Likes: 136
E
Legend
Offline
Legend
E
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Likes: 136
Time for quality over quantity!


Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!

GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Originally Posted By: Glw12
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
j/c

I do not see the sense in following the same pattern that we've used in the past that has done nothing but helped us to lose on Sundays.


Exactly. I guess trading down is fun for some as far as discusion on this board but I would think we would learn from past Browns history.

Think about where a team like the Patriots drafts. The first pick is in the 30s every year, the second one in the 60s. They got a second round pick for Garoppolo.

I think we've kind of lost sense of how valuable an 'ordinary' first round pick is. In an ideal world, we won't ever even get a crack at the #12 pick again, unless it's from another team.

We're talking about trading the #4 pick-- a pick which was once a "future first", probably valued as a second round pick at the time the trade was made-- for #12, #22, and another future first (from the Bills, who while they went 9-7 this past season, haven't exactly been the model of consistency.)

I guess I'm just surprised at how much people are against such a trade. It's not like picks in the top 5 are sure things. We've had our misses there as well including our own "can't miss" running back prospect.

The trade proposed is arguably even a bigger win than what the Colts got from the Jets in that trade.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,771
Likes: 1341
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,771
Likes: 1341
You can't compare a team like the Patriots to the Browns. That's apples to oranges. Let me explain.....

BB and the Patriots have had the same HC and system for many years. As such you can bring players into a pipeline. Into a process that's been working for what seems like forever. You're not pressed to start a rookie right away. He will have time to work and grow into the system that's long established. You can attract the FA's you choose at a bargain price.

It's a situation that has nothing in common with us. We haven't established squat. Thus far we don't have a successful system. Once we ever get to that point, it will become much easier to accomplish a continued success in the manner you are suggesting.

There's a reason why the worst teams draft early and better teams draft late. Because you first must build success before you can continue success.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 70,640
Likes: 510
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 70,640
Likes: 510
I've seen some people say that NYJ traded up to 3 and will select Barkley ... that's laughable IMO. They didn't trade all of those assets for anything but a QB


"First down inside the 10. A score here will put us in the Super Bowl. Cooper is far to the left as Njoku settles into the slot. Moore is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Ford are split in the backfield as Watson takes the snap ... Here we go."
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
You can't compare a team like the Patriots to the Browns. That's apples to oranges. Let me explain.....

BB and the Patriots have had the same HC and system for many years. As such you can bring players into a pipeline. Into a process that's been working for what seems like forever. You're not pressed to start a rookie right away. He will have time to work and grow into the system that's long established. You can attract the FA's you choose at a bargain price.

It's a situation that has nothing in common with us. We haven't established squat. Thus far we don't have a successful system. Once we ever get to that point, it will become much easier to accomplish a continued success in the manner you are suggesting.

There's a reason why the worst teams draft early and better teams draft late. Because you first must build success before you can continue success.

I agree with all this. I also don't think it's very relevant to this particular discussion.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
1
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
1
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Originally Posted By: eotab
Time for quality over quantity!


Time for action! As David Gilmour sang..

"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you."

It's time to start...

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
I've seen some people say that NYJ traded up to 3 and will select Barkley ... that's laughable IMO. They didn't trade all of those assets for anything but a QB

Agreed. This is only logical.

It's basically the same logic I'm applying here, only the inverse. You don't put together a massive package unless you need a QB. And you don't turn such down a massive package unless you need a QB.

The first part is pretty much obvious. It's the second one that people need to come through on. I'll keep working at it. wink

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
There's no way they made that trade for Barkley, when they have no idea if he'll actually be there.

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,341
Likes: 98
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,341
Likes: 98
"IF" we traded with Buffalo you can throw the draft chart away, at that point Buffalo is over anxious and will pay a lot more "IF" they want a QB. I would say 12, 22, 56, 65 and next years 1 anything less and I send the card in ...


John 3:16 Jesus said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2018 NFL Season 2018 NFL Draft Moving Down from #4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5