DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk NFL Draft 2026 college quarterback prospects

I am in agreement with 100% of this post. Could have typed it myself.

The 2025 New England Patriots finished as a top-tier NFL defense, ranking 4th in points allowed (18.8 per game) and 8th in total yards allowed (295.2 per game).

Trading away your top defensive player makes no sense.

Calvin Johnson was drafted almost 20 years ago. It seems you have gone from elite WR to generational WR's. Tate compares to many great WR's drafted near the top of the draft who turned out to be top five #1 WR's in the NFL.

That's the problem we have been looking at for years now. A failure to invest highly in the draft at the WR position. The only time they tried to invest highly was in 2005 with Braylon Edwards at #3.

That was 21 years ago.

Yes just like any other draft. Lower rated WR's.

I'm not promoting that that the Browns draft Tate. Just like you I would prefer a trade down myself. But should they decide to draft Tate I'm fully aware he is worthy of the selection.

To trade down you need a partner to trade with that's willing to give you the proper compensation for that to be possible and make sense. That's simply never just a given.

As such I try to open up the possibility that simply may not happen and look at the other moves that would make sense. Tate is what I would consider to be one such option.

ID42, I will disagree with your idea of trading Garrett.

Yes, you will get a boat load of players and or picks if you trade Garrett. But, Garrett has a "No Trade Clause" in his contract. That'll limit the teams he will wave the clause for. Assuming he will only accept playoff contenders. It's unlikely that team is trading their QB. You'll potentially get bottom half of round picks. Nice, but, is it worth the price for a HOF edge?

If the Browns were to trade Garrett, they will weaken the defense to obtain draft picks to trade and get a QB. What does that get you? Most likely an above average defense. A QB that will need two to three years to develop. That is of course they are able to draft a QB that is HOF caliber. After all, they are trading a HOF edge and want equal return value.

Duplicate what Philly did to get Hurts and Seattle did with Darnold. I see nothing wrong with QBs like Nussmeier, Klubnik, Allar, or Simpson and let then compete with Sanders. Obviously, these QBs are no where near the level of Burrow or Mahomes. Build a competitive offense around these QBs.

I believe in the end you can't have both an elite offense and defense. It is one or the other. You have a top 5 defense. Create an above average offense. Trading Garrett will simply be robbing Paul to pay Peter.

He didn't say "we must trade Garrett".

He merely said it was an option if that is what is needed for enough ammo to trade up and get a QB we have targeted in the 2027 draft.

And since you said it yourself... "A QB that will need two to three years to develop". What do you think a 35-year-old Garrett will look like??

My bottom line is this: Myles Garrett will not win you a championship. Myles will be 32 going into 2027. If we have escaped yet another year without him having a major injury, the "time is ripe" for exploring the upside of trade assets... if need be.

And lastly... Myles is a lot of fun to watch. He does things I've never seen another human his size do. That has meant virtually nothing in the W/L column. He is not the "nasty" that propels the play of those around him. He's not enough of a "dawg" to pick up others and drag them along. Myles Garrett will not propel you to a championship.

But please understand, I'm also not saying "we must trade Garrett".

I'm simply saying trading Garrett is not an ideal solution in creating a contender.

You weaken one side of the football to build the other side. You essentially turn into the Bengals.

I get that Garrett is getting older. That is why I am saying, stop looking for perfection, draw a line in the sand, and build a competitive offense to complement the defense.

Otherwise, you have what the Browns had in the 70s and 80s, a pendulum swing, good defense, good offense, and never a good team.

We are 8-26 over the last two years of Garrett playing the best football of his career and "pieces" all around him on defense.

There's only one player on a football team that can be a "pendulum" the way you describe it; that's the fQB.


But you're entirely correct in saying "trading Garrett is not an ideal solution in creating a contender", I don't think that's even arguable.

Fate, I think we pretty much agree.

I have been a firm believer that the QB position is overvalued. I'm not saying it isn't an important piece of the offense.

I believe teams can develop an above-average QB by surrounding him with complementary playmakers and play-calling. That is not to say teams can make any QB great. What I am saying is that good teams can draft a "potential" QB and make it work. Good examples are Buffalo, Baltimore, Philly, and Kansas City. All drafted QBs with potential and made it work. Is that saying all were lucky? Maybe. It also could mean they created an environment with a high probability of success.

Cleveland needs an identity on offense. Stefanski started something, but the organization tried to get cute. I understand the gamble, but the loss was substantial. Let's hope they make a more calculated risk this time around.

You are leaving out the offense, which in this case is REALLY important:
They ranked 2nd in points at 28.8 (Seattle was 3rd at 28.6)
and 3rd in total yards 379.4

Cleveland:
31st in points at 16.4
30th in total yards 262.1

I really don't know why you are arguing this point. The Browns offense was deplorable. If we don't fix the QB, we will never win a Super Bowl. Myles is going to be 31 next off season, if you can trade him in order to get the QB you want, then you must do it.

Now, if Sanders somehow comes out and shocks me, then all bets are off. You ride the Garrett wave as long as you can.

I think we all pretty much agree. No one wants to trade Garrett. There will never be a higher value for Garrett, if he can have another stellar year, than in 2027 off season. I understand you won't get top ten first rounders for him, if you could get a single top ten first rounder, that could be enough to get the QB you want in the draft. Getting multiple first round picks though work in a similar manner to a top ten pick. Getting (2) first rounders, to go with the one you already have, which most likely is already in the top ten if Sanders isn't the answer could propel you into a position to draft a really good QB.

Look, I'm not suggesting we send (5) first round picks in the 2027 draft just to draft any QB. A) I'm not even willing to spend the #39 pick on Ty Simpson in THIS draft because I don't believe in him, despite where the talking heads have him ranked.

What I am saying in regards to Garrett, a lot would have to fall into place.

Very real scenario:

Browns win 6 games in 2026, they get the #6 draft pick again and Sanders looked bad, despite revamping the offensive line and WR room. The running game still wins us one more game than 2026. The one thing you need to improve is the QB position, without a doubt.

Say, Dante Moore, Arch Manning, Jayden Maiava, LaNorris Sellers and Julian Sayin all declare for the draft and ALL would be considered the #1 overall pick in any other draft. All have the types of seasons everyone looks for in a franchise QB. At the very least, the Browns would need to move up to #5 overall to get one of these guys, because they are going 1-5 in the draft.

Now, out of the top 5 teams, 3 need QBs, that means Two teams will be willing to move down into a spot to get one of the top NON-QBs in the draft. There will be multiple teams trying to trade with that team for their spot. If the Browns do not trade down in 2026 and obtain another 2027 first round pick, they may need to trade 2027, 2028, 2029 first rounders, possibly more, depending on who is in the mix to trade up to get the one they want.

Now, say you have a Myles Garrett sitting there, this team has it's QB, but their defense is lacking a playmaker and identity on defense and they don't have a top WR.

I know this is a lot, but looking at what is going on, it is all realistic.

Now, would you rather trade away the #6 overall pick, your 2028 and 2029 first round picks, and probably one or two 2nd round picks to move from #6 to #2 to get the second best QB, or possibly your top QB prospect in the draft or trade the #6 overall pick and a 32 year old Myles Garrett with 4 years left on his contract that he is going to want to tear up anyway?

IF that second overall pick team does have the QB in place, but needs players around him AND they get some of those players in free agency (look at the Patriots), that could be very enticing to a Myles Garrett to go play in someplace like Las Vegas with Fenando Mendoza and company to try to get them over the hump to a Super Bowl.

Again, I realize this is a lot to happen... but there are scenarios where is makes sense to do it.

The alternative could be that two other teams are willing to throw even more at these two teams ahead of you and you are stuck at #6 looking at five possible franchise QBs already off the board, a generational WR looking you in the face and STILL have no QB to throw to him if you draft him.

I'll be honest, I really really want Tate in this draft, but unless Sanders shocks me, he is going to be a very disappointing rookie simply because he doesn't have anyone to throw him the ball.