|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
We have two options at QB.. one is to spend a bunch and risk a lot to go get a highly touted prospect.. the other option is to keep making smaller investments in the position hoping one of them turns out to be super... what should we do?
The Browns have to discuss it..they know they have needs..if they evaluate and take the risk and leave the holes open,or do they strengthen the team and take another guy they need ?
I'm listening to MH right now on 97.1The Fan.
If we keep filling holes and getting better, isn't only going to keep getting more and more expensive to move up and get the franchise guy if that is the route we go?
No,it gets easier..if you fill your holes,then you have only one postion of need to get,you can do whatever it takes..
Everybody keeps talking about the risk.. everybody in every draft has risk.. Manning had risk (both of them).. Rivers had risk, etc.. so when is a QB going to come into the draft without risk?
<ßont color="orange"> When U have to give virtually your whole draft to get him..
How much better do you think our current talent might be if we had a strong competent QB to lead them?
Still the same..a QB doesn't make a safety better,or the LB's better..if the receivers suck they aren't going to get better either..
U need to get better players around the QB too..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 602
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 602 |
Just curious as to what happens if Bradford does not go to St. Louis? Say that they take Suh?, I know that almost everyone has them taking Bradford, and I think that they should, buuuuuttttttt..........crazyier things have happened. Let's just say they do take Suh....then what happens? 2. Detriot has Stafford, no way they take Bradford 3. Tampa? Maybe, but supposedly they really like the kid they drafted last yr.? 4. Washington, they are shooting themselves in the foot for trading for Donovan, but do they still take Bradford to sit behind him for a yr. or two...Doubt it. 5. Kansas City, again maybe, but doubtfull as they seem to like Cassell alot. 6. Seattle, they just traded for Whitehurst, again maybe....but doubtfull. 7.  here we are. Now I know those phones are burning up ahead of us, but how far up would we be willing to go??? and how much would we give up?? Again......I know I am probably peeing into the wind here....but what the hay.....it's the draft.....and speculation is fun 
Born and breed with OSU, App. State alumni, but bleed orange and brown.
Go ARMY......Beat Navy!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
In the incredibly rare instance that the Rams do not take Bradford and assuming no one trades up, there is no one in front of us who needs a franchise QB. Or at least would draft him.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
You know, I was thinking the same thing. What if the Rams passed on Bradford? Like you said, might as well speculate while we can.
I have to think that someone between 2 and 6 would trade down because some team will give up a ton to move up and get a guy that everyone thought would go no. 1. Heck, we might be that team.
I have to say that the people in spots 2 - 6 could demand a king's ransom.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,341
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,341 |
i'd be shocked if they don't take Bradford. I figured the Bulger release pretty much sealed it.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
i'd be shocked if they don't take Bradford. I figured the Bulger release pretty much sealed it.
Oh, I agree 100%, and I think the poster above me agrees, too.
All we're doing is filling the time with "what if"?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,341
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,341 |
yeah I knew that, no worries, just expressing my thoughts and adding tremendous insight to this discussion.
gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
But, what if they have Butch Davis running the show, so they take Suh?
What do you think happens in picks 2 - 6? Who needs to have a QB, what do they offer, etc.?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
In the incredibly rare instance that the Rams do not take Bradford and assuming no one trades up, there is no one in front of us who needs a franchise QB. Or at least would draft him.
I disagree.
The Redskins went way out of their way to get McNabb. They aren't going to suddenly decide that Campbell is their future.
The above means they have no guy in place to take over in two years when McNabb will be 35. I think they would snatch up Bradford in a moment if he fell to them.
It's worth noting that had the 'Skins believed they'd have a good shot at getting Bradford in the first place, they'd have not gone after McNabb.
Anyone that wants Bradford is going to have to trade up to get him. If the Rams don't want him, they'll open a bidding war. Will the offers be unreal? No, but they'll still yield a helluva price because Bradford is that well thought of.
So if the Browns want Bradford, they'll have to trade up. Essentially, ANY team that wants Bradford will have to trade up, except of course for the Rams.
The odds of anything else happening are beyond remote.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
In the incredibly rare instance that the Rams do not take Bradford and assuming no one trades up, there is no one in front of us who needs a franchise QB. Or at least would draft him.
I disagree.
The Redskins went way out of their way to get McNabb. They aren't going to suddenly decide that Campbell is their future.
The above means they have no guy in place to take over in two years when McNabb will be 35. I think they would snatch up Bradford in a moment if he fell to them.
It's worth noting that had the 'Skins believed they'd have a good shot at getting Bradford in the first place, they'd have not gone after McNabb.
Anyone that wants Bradford is going to have to trade up to get him. If the Rams don't want him, they'll open a bidding war. Will the offers be unreal? No, but they'll still yield a helluva price because Bradford is that well thought of.
So if the Browns want Bradford, they'll have to trade up. Essentially, ANY team that wants Bradford will have to trade up, except of course for the Rams.
The odds of anything else happening are beyond remote.
I seriously disagree with you on the Redskins. They will not draft a QB with their first pick. McNabb can easily play for 2-5 more years for them. Drafting Bradford would be a huge mistake.
However, we do agree that someone will trade up for Bradford. There is a 0% chance he'd make it to 7.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I seriously disagree with you on the Redskins. They will not draft a QB with their first pick.
Well, my opinion is that it would depend on which QB is there. Clausen? No. Bradford? I'd be certain of it. So I both agree, and disagree, with you.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,356
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,356 |
It seems to be just rumor at this point but WPXI in Pittsburgh has the story at the link below that St. Louis is offering the #1 and a first rounder next year for Ben. Seems like an awful lot but that would definately shake up the draft. http://www.wpxi.com/sports/23136434/detail.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
It seems to be just rumor at this point but WPXI in Pittsburgh has the story at the link below that St. Louis is offering the #1 and a first rounder next year for Ben. Seems like an awful lot but that would definately shake up the draft.
http://www.wpxi.com/sports/23136434/detail.html
Both Peter King and Adam Schefter have said there is absolutely no truth to it.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827 |
Quote:
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
What if the really like Colt McCoy? They take Suh at #1 then trade up back into the 1st round to make sure they get McCoy. Certainly not probable but definitely not implausible.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Two things.
1. If Holmgren thinks that Bradford is the next Kurt Warner (that's who he reminds me of) then I have no problem mortgaging the future.
2. How does this site know that I like cougars?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 602
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 602 |
Quote:
What if the really like Colt McCoy? They take Suh at #1 then trade up back into the 1st round to make sure they get McCoy. Certainly not probable but definitely not implausible.
McCoy or even ..........Tebow (que peen ).
Look, as I said, I don't think it's going to happen, but I don't think it's that far fetched either.
And yea, I also agree that if in the odd chance it does happen, someone will pay to get ahead of us........just having fun is all, that's what this board is for right.
As for getting a vet. to let them break in their QB, I believe that the Redskins have a QB that they would probably let go for a mid round pick, say maybe a 4th? That is the 1st pick of the 3rd day, so it may be worth a little more than years past?
Born and breed with OSU, App. State alumni, but bleed orange and brown.
Go ARMY......Beat Navy!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Well to be honest we should be hearing that contract talks have started. The only plausible scenario I can see is the Rams can't get a deal in place with Bradford and do get a deal done with Suh.
If this Happens we are trading up with the Lions or Tampa Bay no doubt in my mind. I wouldn't be surprised to see that we are in discussions with the Rams about trying to get up there.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 260 |
Lost in all of the Bradford/Rams talk is the Detroit Lions.
They have a great young nucleus in their franchise QB in Stafford(age:22), a stud #1 wr. in Calvin Johnson (age:24), TE Brandon Pettigrew (age 25), Safety Louis Delmas (age 23), LB Ernie Sims (age 25). Kevin Smith if he can recover is 23.
If they add Suh to that. They really are developing a nice team.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
They need an o-line. Rob Sims isn't nearly enough there. But I like what the Lions are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
They need an o-line. Rob Sims isn't nearly enough there. But I like what the Lions are doing.
Absolutely. And that is why you and I have been in a great debate about #2pick. As great as a player Suh is, the Lions could very easily draft the top OT and slide Backus inside. I know you don't see the merit in that.
The Lions draft this year reminds me a lot of what Charlie Casserly went through when ESPN wanted the Texans to take Reggie Bush and he went against the grain and was slaughtered in the media for taking Mario.
I don't think the Lions can go wrong with Suh, and their defensive line will be much improved. However, they cannot keep neglecting the LT position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Quote:
Quote:
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
But, what if they have Butch Davis running the show, so they take Suh?
What do you think happens in picks 2 - 6? Who needs to have a QB, what do they offer, etc.?
If Suh goes to the Rams, every team beginning with Detroit will be trying to trade out to let someone else select Bradford. The most likely teams engaged would be Seattle, Cleveland and Buffalo.
No way he falls past Seattle. Carroll would take about 1 second to turn in the card for Bradford.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
2. How does this site know that I like cougars?
Same with me.
And a while back I was getting Harley ads too. Creepy.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
You never know with Carroll. The guy is a nut.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
Quote:
Still the same..a QB doesn't make a safety better,or the LB's better..if the receivers suck they aren't going to get better either..
U need to get better players around the QB too..
I think the QB makes the safety better, the lb's and the Cb's, Just look at the last year of Charlie Frye, and What happened the first 10 games of Quinn, ... the fact that the Quarterback couldn't move the offense meant that the defense had to make arouind 14 stops a game, instead of 7 or 8 stops a game.
Even if the defense gives the Qb a short field if he throws an int in the end zone then the defenses effort was made void, and
Every defense would rather play with a lead than playing while trailing, because they can take more chances, and they can get the wolfpack mentality
The Bottom line is, If you can get a Quarterback who can give your team a lead, then the opponent has to take more chances as an offense and makes more mistakes.
The Bottom line is the Quarterback, makes your defense better, or worse.
Your Offense, makes Your defense better or worse.
It is all about the offense. It's also a little bit about the pass defense, but defense won't help without an offense.
The best thing they can do to improve the defense, the very best thing the Browns can do to improve their defense, is to Improve their Offense !
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232 |
Quote:
I see us either trading up with the Rams to get Sam Bradford or taking Colt McCoy with our 2nd rounder.
With all of our needs, I don't see us even considering a trade up for Bradford. Too much of a luxury.
I go with your thinking of McCoy in round 2 and like it!
Ooooh rah
Nobody ahead of us in the second has a need for a QB. Odds dictate McCoy will be there from everything I've see.
McCoy gets to learn the system in year one with a clipboard then we have JD to help mentor him when McCoy starts in 2011.
Sounds like a sound game plan to me.
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: 9,827
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827 |
I see you prescribe to the theory that the best defense is a good offense. I think to some degree that is true. If you control the ball with long drive your defense is on the sideline. Hard to give up a TD when you are not on the field. And great point about playing with a lead. If you can get up 2 TD's (sometimes even just 10 points) offenses tend to give up on the run. This allows the rushers to pin their ears back and go. Increased pressure on the opposing Qb and more mistakes on his part.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
CLEVELAND -- Browns general manager Tom Heckert admitted today that the Browns have talked to the St. Louis Rams about trading up to No. 1 to acquire quarterback Sam Bradford.
"We're playing a little phone tag,'' said Heckert. "But we've talked to them.''
Browns President Mike Holmgren admitted it would be difficult to pull off such a trade. "He's a coveted young man,'' said Holmgren. "You'd have to mortage the ranch. In the real world, we're probably going to go in a different direction.''
Heckert said he's talked to all of the teams ahead of the Browns at No. 7 and teams behind them about possible trades. The Browns have five picks in the first 92.
Bradford did not come to Cleveland for a visit, but Holmgren said that would not stop him from drafting him.
Mary Kay Cabot, The Plain Dealer
Letting them know we're interested in case they have a change of heart.
I would love to get Bradford, but the price to move up to #1 is pretty steep. I think I would do it if it didn't involve next year's #1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Yeah, I see this as due diligence more than anything. I mean, what if St. Louis's price wasn't as high as we thought and it would be manageable to get up to no. 1? You don't know for sure until you ask.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
I think it would be expensive to move to #1, but I don't think it would cost as much as we all think.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
We should start hearing about contract talks between the Rams and Bradford. If you're drafting #1 overall, it's only smart to have the guy signed before the commish calls his name for you (unless you're the Raiders).
The closer we get to the draft, the more likely it seems that Berry will drop to us. I guess that's good news. Of course, you always have to be careful of getting what you wish for too.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
I think the QB makes the safety better, the lb's and the Cb's, Just look at the last year of Charlie Frye, and What happened the first 10 games of Quinn, ... the fact that the Quarterback couldn't move the offense meant that the defense had to make arouind 14 stops a game, instead of 7 or 8 stops a game.
This isn' the same thing..we're talking about the offense being able to sustain drives and keep the defense off the field.
That does not make individual players better than what they are.
If they are good they'll be good regardless of the offense..if they suck..well they will regardless of the offense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
We should start hearing about contract talks between the Rams and Bradford. If you're drafting #1 overall, it's only smart to have the guy signed before the commish calls his name for you (unless you're the Raiders).
Quote:
Sam Bradford to the Rams with the No. 1 pick in next week's draft has the feel of a foregone conclusion, but it's still not without its potential complications. A source close to the situation told FanHouse on Wednesday that Bradford is "not doing a deal, period, until he is drafted."
Fanhouse.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Nice find! Looks like I was about two hours late on my prediction.
That hurts his chances of being drafted by the Rams. Nobody wants a guy #1 overall that will be a pain to sign.
I'm not sure what Bradford's end goal would be for waiting....he's gonna get a crazy high deal either way. And since he sets the market, he's only playing off himself. And the more he acts like a diva, the less likely he'll get picked by the Rams (unless that's his specific goal).
Didn't Houston pass on Reggie Bush for this very reason a few years back. They took Mario Williams because of his willingness to sign a contract that day.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
I think I would do it if it didn't involve next year's #1.
NEVER EVER GONNA HAPPEN...It will guaranteed be our 7 and 2011 #1...PLUS...
Bradford is nowhere near what Vick was coming out...Homework tells ya' what it cost Atlanta...
Cap or no cap...Lock-out looming or not...I LMAO at u guys that think we can get to 1 without our 2011 #1 included...WE HAVE ZERO PLAYERS WORTH A CRAP...
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
MH said today they aren't in panic mode for a QB this year..that should dispell any myth they will try to trade up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
I LMAO at u guys that think we can get to 1 without our 2011 #1 included
Just to be clear. I agree with you that we will have to give up next year's #1 to move up to the 1st pick. I just wouldn't do it.
Also, the Falcons didn't give up their next drafts 1st rounder for Vick. They gave up their 2001 first-round pick to the Atlanta Falcons for first and third-round picks in 2001, a second-round pick in 2002 and wide receiver-returner Tim Dwight ( Link, go to 2001, scroll down to 4/21/01). My homework tells ya' you're wrong.
If that was the price this year I would definitely do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
So moving up two spots more would be the difference between a 1st rounder and a 2nd rounder? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
so how about this... if the Browns really want Bradford.. try this..
Don't even trade this years 1st round...
Trade 2011's 1st rounder, this year's 2nd round, and a couple 3rd round picks..
Then we could get Bradford and Berry.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Should it be Bradford/Clausen or
bust for the Browns?
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)