DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Trades

Well, that certainly makes sense. Don’t know if Gronkowski can stay healthy, but that’s a dangerous team if all holds up

So, let me get this straight, Bill Bellichick has just traded a retired player for a 4th round pick?

responding to vers from the last thread



Per the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart
#41 = 490 points
#66 = 260 points

The difference is essentially equivalent to #72 (230 points). I'd rather just give them #74 (220 points) if this were the case and keep our 2nd rounder.

Knowing his cap number this last year of his contract, his age, and guessing he wants a big number in a long term deal - I'm not sure I'd want to give up #74. Tough question.

Thanks for the information.

I asked because there is still legs to the rumor that the Browns are interested in him and I have been a bit underwhelmed of the top OTs in the draft. I heard they were so good, but when I started doing my research, they all have some nagging question marks. Not sure they are worth the tenth pick in the draft when better players should be available.

Thanks again. I appreciate it.

Pick swaps normally favor the teams acquiring the player.

Interesting. I was thinking that TB actually got the better end of that deal. I like the different thought process. Not sure I agree, but it's interesting.

They need to trade us OJ.

Oh and cfrs, I am not talking about OJ Simpson...

I thought I heard a rumor about TB trading OJ before this trade went down. Not certain about that, though.

What do you think of my trade idea? You have way more knowledge about that type of thing than I do. Is it fair for both teams?

They traded the rights to TB which NE still retained from his retirement...

I’d do it but only give we were giving up our third and getting back their fourth.

The tweet says he has already had a physical for TB. How can that happen? No other team is able to give players physicals.

He got his physical before the trade even went through.

You are right. Tampa Bay is trying to trade him.

Thanks. What about from their end? I'm thinking about this being a fair deal for both teams. What do you think they would accept. Both of scenarios?

I saw in the locked thread that Malik Hooker might be available. The guy has some of the best FS skills I have ever seen. And I mean....ever.

Problem is that he's been hurt a lot.

I wonder what they would want in return. If he stays healthy, he could solve our issue at FS for a long, long time.

I understand the nuts and bolts. Doesn't it sound more ironic the way I said it though?

Not to be a bummer but... If we get him he’ll likely have until 2021 to heal up....

It sounds hilarious the way you put it

It's more likely the games are played without fans than the season getting cancelled.

For reference, that equates to the equivalent of pick #90. Sounds about fair to me because I was thinking our #97. I wonder if Washington would even consider this, based on the rumor was they were looking for a 1+ IIRC.

It would not be fair for Washington at all. The team that receives the player in the type of pick swap you are proposing almost always get the better end of the deal.

Sounds like Tampa could use Hunt...

Let's make a deal.

I'm cool with it.

Here's a (really) wild one for you: Browns trade #10 to NE for OG Joe Thuney and a late rounder. Use our 2nd for Ashtyn Davis, FS, our first 3rd rounder for Logan Wilson, ILB, use our second 3rd for OT Terrance Steele, and finally sign Jason Peters. Everything fixed...

Please God no.

.... . (Never say...never).

Imagine giving up the tenth overall pick for a guard on a one year contract.

I would assume the proposed trade would include a signed 4 year contract.

I still wouldn't make that trade. I would consider it if the draft compensation was NE's pick #23 in the 1st round. The presumption is that Tua fall to #10 and NE wants to trade up for him.

Wow, come on people, even Joe Thomas has said that Trent Williams is the best LT in football. Even if he regresses just a little he would be better than any rookie for the next 2-3 years and OMG - would please get off the Peters (I don't want to spend anything) 38-year old way past his prime LT. That's just foolish and would be no better than putting in one of the rookies that have never played LT.

Trent Williams is going to cost some money but the offense is built to win now (on paper). The team does not have the luxury of waiting 1-2 years for a rookie LT to get up to speed if he ever does. With Williams, you have a plug and play player that has been a Pro Bowl selection 7 of the last 8 years (only missing last year because he sat out last year).

If you're going after Williams, I think you need to add a player to lessen the draft blow. Getting Williams for next years 2nd round pick and Njoku can probably get it done. Trading Njoku makes sense since it looks very unlikely that the Browns will exercise the 5th year option on him making him a free agent at the end of the season. So one way or another, it doesn't look like the Browns will hold on to Njoku. Washington needs a TE so it benefits them this year and they might pass on the draft pick until next year.

In comparison, going after a Clowney who wants 20-million per year after turning down 18.5 from the Seahawks when we have Vernon (though I'm not a fan and would welcome the Browns dumping him and his 17-million for this year) seems a little foolish considering we have nothing for LT as it is right now. Paying a 7-time Pro Bowler 17-18 million seems a much smarter investment considering his history of performance which you can say about Clowney or even the injury factor.

Finally about OJ - he's in the same boat as we have with Njoku. Howard was selected 19th and Njoku 29th. Both players must have their 5th year options exercised by May 3rd. IMHO, Njoku hasn't earned that 5th year option with a hefty pay day considering what he's done with the Browns. I think the signing of Austin Hooper. Likewise though, Howard is in the exact same situation and if the Browns trade for him they either exercise the 5th year option or they get him for 1-year before he becomes a free agent. The question you have to ask is has Howard's performance warranted the 5th year option? My guess would be he hasn't of they wouldn't be putting him out there as trade bait. Just my opinion but trading one under performer for another seems a little silly.

Joe Thomas also said Johnny Manziel was a great QB..... you shouldn't listen to Joe Thomas' player evaluations.

Did he say that pre or post draft ? It's been noted that Joe is overly enthusiastic about members of the Browns team. I don't know that extends to anyone and everybody 'just because' ... and his breakdown on the draft OT's this year was critical and balanced in nature imo

Trent Williams for #97 overall and I am happy.

Would this mean we go BPA, trade down? Which top tackle could make the transition to RG?

Really, you want to take a jab at Thomas because he voiced his opinion on Williams, a 7-time Pro Bowler, by comparing it to his thought of Johnny M's future stated as a team mate? What did you expect him to say, "Our QB sucks"? That's the same Joe Thomas that people on this board say would be the perfect mentor to teach a young rookie how to play LT but according to you his evaluation of players suck.

I'll take Thomas'opinion on Williams because he's actually lived the position and knows what it takes to be successful. That said, the best in the game right now at LT is Williams as Thomas said. It would be a huge positive move if the Browns can get him via trade.

I would hope the plan is BPA. Even if we do not get a LT before then, I would hope the plan is BPA.

Yes, I'll take a jab at that 10-time pro bowler for his comments that 7-time pro bowler for the 19th time. Three times I'll say that the 10-time pro bowler is like Chucky talking about QB's, be it n-time Pro Bowl QB's and 0-time Pro Bowl QB's. And that is Pro bowl with both capitalized letters and non-capitalized.

I don't know how much you're going to get in kick backs from Trent for your advertising, but your marketing of him - and consistent use of "7-time pro bowler" is tiring, repetitive, and frankly, kinda dumb. You *think* you're adding to the argument and validity of what you're saying, but you're not. You're just a broken record re-hashing that you can count (or read) how many pro Bowls a guy that didn't play last year has been voted to.

Just because some of us are cautious about going after a guy who not only didn't play last year, but has missed more games than he has played in the last three years, and are not willing to give up anything the Redskins wish for to get him doesn't make us wrong. In fact, it makes us right. You, on the other hand, have continuously gone out of your way to construct paper arguments as to why giving up tons of cash & capital somehow makes sense for a player that IS a risk. In fact, his agent has battled the fact that he is an Age Risk, a Character Risk, and a Health Risk. Despite everything, he is indeed all of those.

Now, as I've said, I am not averse to getting Trent, but absolutely NOT at the expense of large draft capital AND gigantic contract extension. In that event, we are far better off in the long run - and we ARE building a team for the long run and NOT the 'right now' - to spend a large draft pick on a rookie and have that player on a rookie deal for the next several years and then pay out the big contract 4 years down the road.