|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
IMO
Best move for the Browns is to stand pat at #4 and take BPA....
this team needs talent all over its roster...if this was year 5 of Heckert's Program i would probably feel better about trading up to get a QB....but trading this year seems like such a waste...
Heckert was stock piling picks to add more talent to our roster so we can compete on a regular basis....throwing away alll those picks for 1 player just doesn't make sense to me when we have some of the the worst depth in the NFL
We need to add quality players....pulling pokers out of the fire (trading picks) just hurts our chances at improving the team overall....again its just my take....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Quote:
Quote:
If they're only looking for 2 1sts, a 3rd and a 5th and we're set on taking RGIII, I don't see how we could lose. Only way is if someone comes in with a "we'll give you our entire draft for the next 2 years" type situation.
Ok, so do you offer our 2 firsts, third and 5th this year.. or do you try to keep our #22 first this year and offer them our only first next year?
Just curious... because if we can keep the #22 pick, we could also add a pretty good WR this year.. then next year be without a first.
Not gonna sift through all the posts(that what happens when the security settings at my job lables this site as GAMES..GMAB)..The Browns should be willing to use the 22nd pick plus a 3rd or 5th to get er done..why ..well the 22nd has more value this year,the Rams know where it is unlike next year when they wouldn't know where that first rder will be..
Next years draft is also gonna be a good one so if I'm Heckert I'd use this years to secure Griffith..more value..plus what the Rams don't want to let out ,they don't want to drop below 4..if they go further they lose their guys..Kal-el,Claiborne/Blackmon..thats who they want.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
IMHO...The rams are trying to pimp the #2 pick. The Browns are the key to their strategy. Like Attack said... If they don't trade with us they will lose who they are targeting. I would not trade with the Rams at all. Force them to trade with someone lower or not at all. Either way we will still have one of our target guys on the board at #4. That is not a guarantee for the Rams if they trade with Miami or Redskins. If the Rams dont get a trade then either RG3, Kalil, or Blackmon falls to us. That is not a bad scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
Shall I agree? Naaay. 
Even in that vacuum, I'm not handing blind trust over to Holmgren, not again.
When we drafted McCoy, I said I didn't like the gamble, but would sit on my proverbial hands for no other reason than it was Holmgren, who had a spotless track-record of knowing QB's. Well, at least with me, his one mulligan is gone, and so is my one personal offer of blind trust.
What QB(s) did he draft in Seattle that did anything?
He drafted several late .... maybe Wallace .....?
not that they did anything but this is who the seahawks drafted during Holmgrens tenure as either coach or coach/gm
2005
3rd 85 overall David Greene Georgia Seattle Seahawks
2003
4rd 110 overall Seneca Wallace Iowa State Seattle Seahawks
1999
3rd 77 overall Brock Huard Washington Seattle Seahawks
1998 Green Bay
6rd 187 overall Matt Hasselbeck Boston College Green Bay Packers
Sounds to me that he's been involved in one hit *(hassleback) and one journeyman (wallace) and several misses.
and that's it.
i give holmgren credit for two QB's that I think he helped make while he was HC.,, Favre and Hassleback As an OC, he sure helped Young and by that time, Montana was what he was..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
Quote:
IMHO...The rams are trying to pimp the #2 pick. The Browns are the key to their strategy. Like Attack said... If they don't trade with us they will lose who they are targeting. I would not trade with the Rams at all. Force them to trade with someone lower or not at all. Either way we will still have one of our target guys on the board at #4. That is not a guarantee for the Rams if they trade with Miami or Redskins. If the Rams dont get a trade then either RG3, Kalil, or Blackmon falls to us. That is not a bad scenario.
Yeah, this has been my thought all along. The rams can not drop below 4, or they lose out. Here is the thing though, if they can't work out a trade they probably take Kalil. They need to protect Bradford.
I really think Kalil is the guy the vikes want, if he is gone, they will be in trade back mode. This is where some of the teams in the middle of round one would then have a shot to come up. I don't see the vikes as zoned in on Claiborne- and after him they could go several directions. They have alot of needs- and more picks would sure help out. Seattle or the mystery team would have a legit chance of moving up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
It could just be that the Rams get greedy by asking for too much and end up being forced to stay at 2. The question is whether the Browns and Skins are willing to force that to happen. As mentioned, the Rams really can't afford to drop below 4.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21 |
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ss..._medium=twitterReport: Cleveland Browns aren't willing to give Rams their No. 22 at this point Published: Sunday, March 04, 2012, 9:24 AM Updated: Sunday, March 04, 2012, 10:01 AM By Mary Kay Cabot, The Plain Dealer Will the Browns be willing to give up their No. 22 pick to move up to draft RG3? CLEVELAND -- The Browns aren't willing to surrender their No. 22 pick at this point as part of a trade package to move up to No. 2 with the Rams to draft Robert Griffin III, league sources told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The paper reported that Rams would like to have an agreement in principle before the big-name free agent quarterbacks such as Peyton Manning and Matt Flynn hit the market Mar. 13. A trade can't be executed until that day. And although the Browns (No.4) and Redskins (No. 6) are still considered the frontruners, the holdup with the Browns is that they're unwilling to part with their second first-round pick along with the No. 4 overall, the sources said. The Browns acquired the No. 22 in last year's blockbuster draft day trade with the Falcons. The Browns, as a matter of club policy, do not comment on trades before they happen. The Post-Dispatch reported that in addition to the Browns being unwilling to give up the No. 22 right now: • Washington (No. 6): The Redskins would give up their No. 6 this year and their first-rounder next year, but aren’t willing to surrender their second-rounder this year, which could make it a deal-breaker. • Miami (No. 8): The Dolphins aren't eager to deal with the Rams after losing Jeff Fisher to them in the head coach sweepstakes. Thomas said this one is "dead in the water.'' • Seattle (No. 12): The Rams don't want to ship RG3 to a division rival, which kills this option. Same for Arizona, which picks 13th. Browns coach Pat Shurmur said at the Greater Cleveland Auto Show Thursday night that the Browns have some flexibility with their picks and that anything is possible. "We'll approach it from a position of strength,'' he said. But Shurmur also spoke highly of Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill, who'll be on their radar if they decide not to spend multiple high picks on RG3. © 2012 cleveland.com. All rights reserved.
Last edited by JMcCurry08; 03/04/12 11:15 AM.
Browns draft wish list: RG3, LaMichael James, Devier Posey, Bruce Irvin
FA Wish List: Mike Tolbert, Pierre Garcon, Mario Manningham, Demetrius Bell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Report: Cleveland Browns aren't willing to give Rams their No. 22 at this point
Go Browns.
I've been telling you guys, if we want to acquire Griffin, it won't be nearly as expensive as everyone wants to make it. And we might not even have to trade up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21 |
Quote:
Quote:
Report: Cleveland Browns aren't willing to give Rams their No. 22 at this point
Go Browns.
I've been telling you guys, if we want to acquire Griffin, it won't be nearly as expensive as everyone wants to make it. And we might not even have to trade up.
I agree, I think if Manning goes to Washington. No one else can be competition to us to trade up and RG3 will fall to 4 and be ours
Browns draft wish list: RG3, LaMichael James, Devier Posey, Bruce Irvin
FA Wish List: Mike Tolbert, Pierre Garcon, Mario Manningham, Demetrius Bell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
Quote:
Quote:
Report: Cleveland Browns aren't willing to give Rams their No. 22 at this point
Go Browns.
I've been telling you guys, if we want to acquire Griffin, it won't be nearly as expensive as everyone wants to make it. And we might not even have to trade up.
I'd still be ticked if we gave up anything earlier than the 4th (obviously we'd swap picks 2 & 4) this year or earlier than th 3rd next year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Report: Cleveland Browns aren't willing to give Rams their No. 22 at this point
Go Browns.
I've been telling you guys, if we want to acquire Griffin, it won't be nearly as expensive as everyone wants to make it. And we might not even have to trade up.
I'd still be ticked if we gave up anything earlier than the 4th (obviously we'd swap picks 2 & 4) this year or earlier than th 3rd next year.
We'll almost certainly have to do more than that.
I could see 4 and our 2nd this year, and either a 1st or 2nd next year. Maybe a 4th/5th pick or 2 this year and/or next. I think that the principles of the deal will be 2 firsts and a second though.
Who knows though .... things seem to change almost daily as far as reports on interested/disinterested teams.  lol
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,356
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,356 |
From an article in St. Louis; The Rams seem to be using as their model the 2004 draft day trade between San Diego, which had the No. 1 pick, and the New York Giants, at No. 4. In essence, the teams swapped first-round picks, with the Giants also sending San Diego a third-round pick in ’04, and first- and fifth-round picks in the ’05 draft. Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/...l#ixzz1oB0POH5U
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513 |
Quote:
From an article in St. Louis;
The Rams seem to be using as their model the 2004 draft day trade between San Diego, which had the No. 1 pick, and the New York Giants, at No. 4.
In essence, the teams swapped first-round picks, with the Giants also sending San Diego a third-round pick in ’04, and first- and fifth-round picks in the ’05 draft.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/...l#ixzz1oB0POH5U
No way we'd give up that much - not moving up as high as first overall - maye washignyon will offer that much but I don't see the browns doing it
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
This is what I expected to hear from Browns camp.
I've said all along, that we don't need to part with the 22nd selection, even in a trade up scenario.
I'm not sure we can take this as gospel, but it's interesting to note that Washington is said to not want to forfeit the 2nd round selection..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21 |
Quote:
Quote:
From an article in St. Louis;
The Rams seem to be using as their model the 2004 draft day trade between San Diego, which had the No. 1 pick, and the New York Giants, at No. 4.
In essence, the teams swapped first-round picks, with the Giants also sending San Diego a third-round pick in ’04, and first- and fifth-round picks in the ’05 draft.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/...l#ixzz1oB0POH5U
No way we'd give up that much - not moving up as high as first overall - maye washignyon will offer that much but I don't see the browns doing it
you wouldn't give up 4, 22 and future 3rd and 5th
Browns draft wish list: RG3, LaMichael James, Devier Posey, Bruce Irvin
FA Wish List: Mike Tolbert, Pierre Garcon, Mario Manningham, Demetrius Bell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Report: Cleveland Browns aren't willing to give Rams their No. 22 at this point
Go Browns.
I've been telling you guys, if we want to acquire Griffin, it won't be nearly as expensive as everyone wants to make it. And we might not even have to trade up.
Conversely, any organization in the NFL would be complete incompetents if they put their best offer on the table now.
I'm not saying we absolutely will have to give up #22 (though I believe it to be a very strong possibility) but I am saying we aren't offering them our max yet. It even says so right there with the quote "at this point."
Also for the record, I think any team that would give them THREE #1 picks are also a bunch of idiots. I never bought that from day one. And since I'm going on the record, if I'm going to talk, I should give my opinion (unlike some people....*cough* MAC *cough* ) so when it's all said and done, I had thought the max it'd cost would be our two #1's and a mid-rounder. Could that be high? Sure, but that's about the ballpark I had been thinking.
Just for the sake of table-conversation, Steve, do you believe we'll have to trade up to get him? I 100% feel any team that wants Griffin will have to trade up. I'd just like to know, if I put a gun to your head and said what you think will happen, will we have to do it?
***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: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
For now I will take with with a grain of salt just because Free Agency hasn't begun. Right now the Redskins aren't willing to give up that 2nd round pick but wait till they miss out on Manning or Flynn or whoever they have targeted in FA.
Or truthfully Shannahan may really like Tannehill nearly the same as Griffin. Only time will tell.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Not sure what Steve has to say about it, but I'll say that if the Rams truly want to trade out of the spot, they'll find someone who will give up at least a little something. The Rams might then use that ammo to try to trade back up. Not maybe the most logical thing in the world, but I could see it happening.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Yup, and we may know nothing until they are on the clock. Everyone holds their hands pretty close, and everything that you hear can be smoke and mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Just for the sake of table-conversation, Steve, do you believe we'll have to trade up to get him? I 100% feel any team that wants Griffin will have to trade up. I'd just like to know, if I put a gun to your head and said what you think will happen, will we have to do it?
The answer I think is strictly based on what Washington does.
I think if Washington signs a QB in FA, we can sit still at #4 and take Griffin regardless of what happens with Miami or KC or SEA or anybody else. I really can't see the Rams moving all the way down to #8 and losing out on the only blue-chip WR, the only blue chip OT, and the only blue chip CB in the draft. Maybe the Jets 1st, next year's second, and Revis would entice the Rams enough to move down, but I don't think the Jets would be willing to offer that.
If Washington doesn't sign a QB in FA, they have to go all-in for Griffin I think. In that case, We will probably have to do 4 + 22 + 68 + whatever our 5th turns out to be. I don't buy for one minute that they'd be interested in Tannehill at #6. Maybe after a trade-down of their own if Miami gets Manning or Flynn, but I would believe STL if they said "we have X-deal" on the table from WAS. The above is the max I would offer for #2.
***edit*** All that being said, and to give you a definitive answer your are looking for, I don't think we will have to trade up. Washington would be fools to go all-in into what they know will be a losing battle (i.e. a bidding war with us.)
Last edited by CleveSteve; 03/04/12 04:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
I'm not saying we absolutely will have to give up #22 (though I believe it to be a very strong possibility)
Why?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Not answering for Toad, but IMO, the Rams likely recognize (just like many of us do) that being able to get 2 starters in this draft instead of maybe just 1 (assume for the sake of argument that only 1st rounders are starters) is the better way to go.
We don't want to give up 22 because we can get 2 quality players this year. The Rams want 22 because they can get 2 quality players this year.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Not answering for Toad, but IMO, the Rams likely recognize (just like many of us do) that being able to get 2 starters in this draft instead of maybe just 1 (assume for the sake of argument that only 1st rounders are starters) is the better way to go.
We don't want to give up 22 because we can get 2 quality players this year. The Rams want 22 because they can get 2 quality players this year.
JMHO
I understand that, but why? in what scenario would we need to forfeit the 22nd selection.
There is no team selecting in the top 10 that can offer a 2nd first round selection and any other selection would still be higher then any other could offer. I can think of but one scenario that we might have to include the 22nd selection ... and that is if Washington or another is also offering players as part of their trade package. Otherwise the Ram's are SOL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
They can offer next years 1st as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
They can offer next years 1st as well.
so can we 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
j/c
I think it is excellent news that the skins are digging their heels in a bit and are not willing to send #39 in the trade. That really has to swing the advantage to the browns. St. Louis dropping to 4 should still have Claiborne, Kalil or Blackmon.
I am becoming more of the mindset that RGIII will not be there at 4. If we want him, we will have to move up. IF the rams can't deal out of #2, they take Kalil. The vikes just lost their man. I think they would be willing to move way back in the draft for the right package- just like the browns did last year. So in this scenario, we would have to give up something to the vikes- probably #37 and a fourth or fifth. A cheaper trade then dealing with the rams, but costly just the same concidering just flipping spots in the first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
If you've resigned yourself to feel you want to or can afford to give up two 1st's for Griffin, you have to ask yourself, is #22 going to be higher or lower than our 1st next year.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
I know, but you said no other team could offer 2 first round picks....my point was a team could beat us offering 1 this year and 1 next.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
that's a good point. I would venture a guess that next years first would be higher then #22. So with that thought- it is expendable, but then #37 is off limits- and the rest of the package would include mid rounds picks. No future second or third rounders.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826 |
Personally, I would rather give up the #22 this year than next year's 1st. Our #1 next year will likely be way higher than #22. If it isn't then we made the playoffs and I would be happy and not really worry about where we are picking.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
If you've resigned yourself to feel you want to or can afford to give up two 1st's for Griffin, you have to ask yourself, is #22 going to be higher or lower than our 1st next year.
A bird in hand is worth two in the bush ... think of it as reinforcements now! ... as opposed to later.
Next years first is not worth as much in a trade and that goes for any team.
Think in terms of a Phil Taylor with a years experience and off season under his belt. His value to the team is much greater, then when he was selected in last years Draft, when he was still basically an unknown commodity.
That's why I would rather we part with next years 1st, before the 22nd selection.
Just for the record I am opposed to trading up to # 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Just for the record I am opposed to trading up to # 2.
Just for the record, me too...
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Personally, I would rather give up the #22 this year than next year's 1st. Our #1 next year will likely be way higher than #22. If it isn't then we made the playoffs and I would be happy and not really worry about where we are picking.
I'm not so sure the Browns would agree with that. It's a likely guess, but then I think you could be cutting hairs too.
Regardless of speculation on next years record, the value in a trade is still equal to another teams next years first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
jc
I personally value our 2013 first rounder more than our #22 pick this year, even if that isn't the convention in trades involving draft picks.
We are still a young team and would possibly be starting a rookie QB vs a brutal schedule, including 3 playoff teams in our division and being matched up with the NFC east. We'll kindly say that it's more likely to be a top 10 pick than it is to be 23-32.
I don't mind waiting another year to cash it in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Not answering for Toad, but IMO, the Rams likely recognize (just like many of us do) that being able to get 2 starters in this draft instead of maybe just 1 (assume for the sake of argument that only 1st rounders are starters) is the better way to go.
We don't want to give up 22 because we can get 2 quality players this year. The Rams want 22 because they can get 2 quality players this year.
JMHO
If that's what the Rams are thinking, my response to them is "How does it feel to want? <laughing in their faces>" or "If you want to trade out, then it sucks to be you. <laughing in their faces>"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
jc
I personally value our 2013 first rounder more than our #22 pick this year, even if that isn't the convention in trades involving draft picks.
We are still a young team and would possibly be starting a rookie QB vs a brutal schedule, including 3 playoff teams in our division and being matched up with the NFC east. We'll kindly say that it's more likely to be a top 10 pick than it is to be 23-32.
I don't mind waiting another year to cash it in.
It's not often a team has two first round picks and the experience we can gain by next year is greater by having them now.
Your right though, we are a young team, but I for one don't want to stay a young team and I don't want to wait until next year to start filling other holes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826 |
To me, it is kind of like paying cash vs using your credit card: You can give me $10 (Pick 22) now and we will trade you #2 for #4 or you can wait and give us $50 (next year's 1st) next year.
I agree with hasugoher that next year's pick is much more likely to be top 10 than 22-32.
As an aside: How would you feel if that 2013 pick turned out to be the #1 overall?
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From an article in St. Louis;
The Rams seem to be using as their model the 2004 draft day trade between San Diego, which had the No. 1 pick, and the New York Giants, at No. 4.
In essence, the teams swapped first-round picks, with the Giants also sending San Diego a third-round pick in ’04, and first- and fifth-round picks in the ’05 draft.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/...l#ixzz1oB0POH5U
No way we'd give up that much - not moving up as high as first overall - maye washignyon will offer that much but I don't see the browns doing it
you wouldn't give up 4, 22 and future 3rd and 5th
They gave them a first the following year not a 3rd... but no I wouldn't... and from the latest rumor the Browns wouldn't either...
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I know, but you said no other team could offer 2 first round picks....my point was a team could beat us offering 1 this year and 1 next.
And there are two other teams that could do so. Cincy has two first rounders (their own and Oakland) and so do the Patriots (their own and New Orleans). Both teams could give up those to move up. Neither one will want RG3 (Cincy with Dalton and NE has Brady with Mallett backing him up and in the wings to be Brady's successor) and would likely target some other player if they were even considering a trade up.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) ESPN: Rams to trade #2 pick
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
