I didn't say or advocate for trading up to draft the first QB in this draft. As a matter of fact I would love nothing more than be able to see the Browns stand pat and have a QB they have targeted fall to them. I think what we have here is a miscommunication and that may be my fault.
Let's use Mahommes as an example from your list. First let's look at my actual quote.....
I've never been a fan of "take whoever is left" in terms of QB's.
Now let me ask you, do you think KC saw Mahommes as "whoever is left" or do you believe he was a target of theirs all along?
You see there are many variables none of us know. As of now, even though we can take it all with grain of salt, there are three QB's considered in the top tier of QB prospects this year. I have no idea how the Browns view those three QB's. They may see all three of them being fairly equal and being potential franchise QB's. In that case they may be able to sit right where they are at and get a QB. They may only see two of them having that potential which may mean a slight trade up or still stand pat in the draft.
But I think that KC was not being foolish by drafting Mahommes at #10 because they saw him as a "who ever is left".
And I don't want the Browns to put in "who ever is left" position either. I would venture to guess that almost all, if not all of the QB's on your list were targets of the team who drafted them. That in each of those situations they saw those QB's as having a high potential of being their franchise QB. I don't think they saw them as "who ever if left"
And that's the exact same situation I want to see the Browns take advantage of in this upcoming draft. Whoever they draft at QB I want it to be a QB they see as a top QB.
That may not be the first QB taken. Hell, it may not even be the second QB taken. It just has to be "their guy". What it can't be is "who ever is left".
I hope that helps to clear things up.
