|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Did you know this thread was about Weeden and competition for the job?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,406
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,406 |
My biggest concern with Mallett is what it would take for us to get him here, especially since we don't have a second. With the Carson Palmer/RG3 trades, that premium for QBs scares the hell out of me.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
If I were to guess, I'd say other positions will be addressed before that one will be.
The QB position has already been addressed. There will be a competition for the job. It won't simply be handed to anyone. They'll have to earn it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 |
Quote:
Did you know this thread was about Weeden and competition for the job?
Yes, and I addressed that...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
Brandon Weeden's looking like the best alternative for the Browns: Bud Shaw's Sunday Sports Spin | cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/budshaw/index.s...t_river_defaultDefault or not, the Browns already have their starting quarterback for 2013. You know the saying about the backup quarterback being the most popular guy in a losing football town? We've officially jumped the shark on that one by trying to make the backup quarterbacks from other towns -- some of them also losing football towns -- into serious contenders for the starting job in Cleveland. If you felt let down that Matt Moore and Brian Hoyer are now off the list of competitors and possible replacements for Brandon Weeden, lie down and put a cold compress on your delusional head. If you find yourself reading stories that suggest the Browns might consider a quarterback at No. 6 overall, have your doctor check you for malarial fever. We have reason to believe Mike Lombardi, if not Joe Banner, too, thinks the Browns of Mike Holmgren and Tom Heckert reached when they drafted Weeden. OK, let's say they did. What then makes sense about fixing that situation by reaching for Geno Smith or Matt Barkley? Weeden might need a Ouija board to lead him to the dead spots in an opposing defense. Or he just might need a year under Norv Turner and Rob Chudzinski. Either way, he is looking more and more like the best alternative to what's out there and it's not that close. There's a dynamic that says if you have a certain number of sports talk hours to fill and a sizable number of national football pundits and writers shoveling opinions, you'll eventually get around to considering anybody not named Brady Quinn as a viable candidate to push Weeden. Chase Daniel, that's your cue. As the backup to Drew Brees in New Orleans, Daniel has thrown for 55 yards in his NFL career with no touchdowns. But, hey, no interceptions either and what about that 92.3 QB rating? Not many quarterbacks would play ahead of Brees obviously. But that's not the point. Using him as an example of the crazy buzz about where the Browns might turn next, someone please tell me what about his career suggests he'd start ahead of McCoy, let alone Weeden. He was undrafted out of Missouri, in part because of his height (6-0) and because he spent so much time in the shotgun. The Redskins signed him, then released him. The Skins moved on to speed dating quarterbacks until they fell head over heels for RG III. Once Alex Smith was off the Browns' radar, you could've pretty much thrown a blanket over the other quarterbacks. (Some wouldn't have done any better avoiding the blanket than Weeden did the American flag, by the way). What you have is a group that poses more of a threat to McCoy's status than to that of Weeden. So what's the point? There were serious concerns about Weeden's first season as quarterback. He didn't put anyone at ease about his NFL future. But the best answers to that right now are Chudzinski and Turner and an offense that makes use of a strong-armed quarterback. Not a bunch of other backups who haven't played enough to raise their own red flags.
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: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
With the Carson Palmer/RG3 trades, that premium for QBs scares the hell out of me.
The Carson Palmer trade is known to be ridiculous. You can thank HueJack for that one. If anyone bases their offer on that trade they should be laughed at.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 |
Quote:
But the best answers to that right now are Chudzinski and Turner and an offense that makes use of a strong-armed quarterback.
I'm on board with that statement. I do, however, like the idea of bringing in DA or Mallett as either competition or to add depth...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
My biggest concern with Mallett is what it would take for us to get him here, especially since we don't have a second. With the Carson Palmer/RG3 trades, that premium for QBs scares the hell out of me.
Valid point.
The Carson Palmer trade was mind boggling and I don't think that would happen again. The RGIII thing was different because of highly touted he was in college.
However, Mallet might command a decent price. Let's look at Alex Smith. He had much more success--if not the physical tools--than Mallet. He was traded for a 2nd and a conditional.
That makes me think that Mallet might be available for a 3rd and a conditional. Maybe even a 4th and a conditional. Is that too much? Perhaps? He hasn't proven anything yet. However, I really do like a lot of his skill set and I think the Pats have been impressed w/him. That's not an easy accomplishment.
It's a tough call, bro. I imagine if those who like Weeden will think that we shouldn't make the move. Those who don't see much in Weeden might lean to bringing in a Mallet. We'll see what happens.
Last edited by Versatile Dog; 03/10/13 08:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 |
Quote:
Quote:
He hasn't proven anything yet. ....
It's a tough call, bro. I imagine if those who like Weeden will think that we shouldn't make the move.
Agreed, Vers. With Mallett's skimpy resume, it's difficult to establish his potential and thus his value for trade purposes. Although I like Weeden's potential, I recognize that there exists a possibility like he is not our "franchise" QB, and that bringing in Mallett gives us depth...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
just wondering what everybody thought about nick foles. he only played a few games last year but i saw enough to think he would be a perfect competition for weeden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
The Browns should have drafted Foles instead of Weeden last year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
ya think he's worth checking in to? that is if we're truly looking for someone to compete.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
He (Foles) wouldn't seem like a good fit for Philly's new Offense. Interestingly, their new coach was rumored to like Colt McCoy when he everyone thought he was coming here. Maybe McCoy and a lower round draft pick for Foles?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
ya think he's worth checking in to? that is if we're truly looking for someone to compete.
Philly has been reported that KC tried to get Foles from Philly but that they weren't willing to deal him. KC then went to Alex Smith route and gave possibly two 2nd rounders for him. How much were they offering to get Foles that Philly turned down?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
He (Foles) wouldn't seem like a good fit for Philly's new Offense. Interestingly, their new coach was rumored to like Colt McCoy when he everyone thought he was coming here. Maybe McCoy and a lower round draft pick for Foles?
I think that Philly would put a trade premium on anything dealing with the Browns. It would cost us two firsts and a conditional pick to boot or something silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
i think philly has about maybe 4-5 QB's on their roster now and foles is the black sheep if i'm not mistaken.
you know i was wondering if we couldn't make some kinda deal with colt also. he would sure fit their offense better than foles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
How much were they offering to get Foles that Philly turned down?
that would be tampering wouldn't it?  i don't know if KC was that serious anyway. i think they were looking more of bringing in a true starter and that's alot different than just competing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
Quote:
I think that Philly would put a trade premium on anything dealing with the Browns. It would cost us two firsts and a conditional pick to boot or something silly.
i don't think it would be too silly. foles was drafted in the 3rd and he didn't do anything to boost his stock.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
How much were they offering to get Foles that Philly turned down?
that would be tampering wouldn't it?
No. Foles is under contract with Philly.
Quote:
I don't know if KC was that serious anyway. i think they were looking more of bringing in a true starter and that's alot different than just competing.
Well, I think that they had a legitimate interest as Andy Reid is the guy that drafted Foles and he's the new head coach in KC. I think Reid didn't expect to get fired from the Eagles at the time of the draft last year. He expected the Eagles to make the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
my mistake x2. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
As stated, the thing that I fear the most about Mallet, is the expenses involved to even get NE to want to TALK about dealing him...
If we acquire him, it'll be a risk-and-reward gamble with high expenses, or it'll be another failure QB that we've seen behind a Cleveland Brown's center that was either selected high in the draft, paid a decent amount, or whatever the case is...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
i don't worry about the expenses. that's why we have billionair owners.
mallet would definately be great to bring on for competition but i'm almost seeing the same thing in tyler bray and we can get him in the draft. they both have great mechanics and arm but a little lonely between the ears. mallet has had a few years to mature though.
tradition can only carry you so far, then you have to start winning again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,406
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,406 |
I hear ya, man. The only other thing that I'm thinking of that would factor into a trade with the Pats is that they look to buy low and sell high. So I'm thinking they would want at least a third and a conditional.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
i don't worry about the expenses. that's why we have billionair owners.
mallet would definately be great to bring on for competition but i'm almost seeing the same thing in tyler bray and we can get him in the draft. they both have great mechanics and arm but a little lonely between the ears. mallet has had a few years to mature though.
Money can't buy you draft picks, and NE will surely want at least a 3rd round pick to even talk turkey with us. They may even want nothing less than a 2nd round pick, and we don't even have one to deal with if that's the case.
We have spots to fill on this team, it'd just suck passing up on a more "sure thing" that we "need", for another question mark at the QB position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688 |
i think the FO understands our pick situation more than you or I. i'm sure they have already targeted who ever they think will benefit this team the most. we will know in a few days. until then all we can do is throw different names out there. 
tradition can only carry you so far, then you have to start winning again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
There may be all kinds of speculation about going and getting Mallett and the Browns might even be feeding some of it to the media, I don't think any of it is serious though. The could never think that the Browns would be giving up anything substantial for Mallett's services and it would all be future picks (say a 4th next year) that would be conditionally a 3rd if he played half the snaps or started half the games for the Browns. That's about all I could see. And that's because options like Smith (who were traded to KC) and Matt Moore (who re-signed with Miami) didn't really make themselves available to the Browns in free agency. So, the Browns were intending to look at those options, their choices are now more limited and it's not any fault of their own. In my view, the Browns could make some waves by trading away currently signed players (some could be popular players) to acquire draft picks. For example, I could see the following players (contract status in link - click name) placed on the 'possible trade' column. 1. D'Qwell Jackson (FA in 2017) 2. TJ Ward (FA in 2014) 3. Ahtyba Rubin (FA in 2015) 4. Chris Gocong (FA in 2015) 5. Shawn Lauvao (FA in 2014) 6. Colt McCoy (FA in 2014) 7. Alex Mack (FA in 2014) In terms of draft picks, what could the Browns reasonably expect to get in return for these players?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
If New England would want a third and conditional, it would have to be future picks, nothing this year. If the powers that be for the Browns made that move with picks this year, I'd color them as stupid as the last group. I just don't see it happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,552
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,552 |
David Carr drawing interest from two teams Posted by Josh Alper on March 10, 2013, 1:22 PM EDT David Carr AP David Carr has thrown three passes for the Giants over the last two seasons and hasn’t started a game since 2007, but that hasn’t stopped him from drawing interest from other teams early in this year’s free agency process. Jenny Vrentas of the Newark Star-Ledger reports that two teams have been impressed enough with the way that Carr holds a clipboard that they’ve expressed interest in signing him since the 87-hour negotiating window with free agents opened on Saturday. According to Vrentas, Carr would like to sign with a team where there is at least a possibility of competing for a starting role. He won’t be getting that with Eli Manning in town and may feel like this year’s weak quarterback class in free agency and the draft offers him a shot at getting such a shot. It’s not clear which of teams have reached out to Carr, although there were reports earlier this month that the Buccaneers were interested in bringing him on board. Their offensive coordinator Mike Sullivan worked with Carr with the Giants before moving on to Tampa, which might help their chances even if Greg Schiano recently moved Josh Freeman into safer category under center after earlier comments made it seem like Freeman would be competing for the job. Carr and all the rest of the league’s free agents will be free to start signing with new teams on Tuesday. web page I think Carr is the type of guy vet that Lombardi brings in. Behind this OL, he could surprise. He just has suffered from battered QB syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
I don't think that David Carr is in the Browns' plans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
I could see them potentially trying to trade away a couple of players ....... but what would you get for them?
Chris Gocong is coming off an injury. Colt McCoy has yet to be an effective QB. Lauvao is a decent Guard. What would we get for these players? Conditional 6th/7th round picks?
As for the rest, would we receive appropriate value for them? I doubt it. Why make trades just to trade away valuable players?
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 2013
Posts: 181
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 181 |
Why would it be stupid to trade a 3rd this year but not next? IMO I would "color them stupid" if they were willing to trade Mack. Hes one of the best C in the NFL and we would be trading him for a unknown commodity. I also dont see anyone trading for Gocong and that contract. I dont follow the logic of creating more holes by trading players at spots we dont have depth in, Jackson, Ward, Mack. It would be one thing if Mack or Rubin came out and said they dont want to be here and want to be traded, but they havent to my best knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
I don't think that David Carr is in the Browns' plans.
I HOPE he isn't in the Brown's plans...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,341
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,341 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think that David Carr is in the Browns' plans.
I HOPE he isn't in the Brown's plans...
+1
John 3:16 Jesus said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Chris Gocong is coming off an injury.
But he's inked through 2014.
Quote:
Colt McCoy has yet to be an effective QB.
He's been as effective as Weeden and he's younger. Also, he might fit a team's scheme.
Quote:
Lauvao is a decent guard.
Maybe. In my view, he's certainly expendable.
Quote:
What would we get for these players? Conditional 6th/7th round picks?
Alright. Even if it were 6th round players, we'd get something in return. I actually think you could get higher for most of those players.
Quote:
As for the rest, would we receive appropriate value for them? I doubt it. Why make trades just to trade away valuable players?
Ask yourself a couple questions. 1. Why would any team trade for something they saw no value in? 2. Why not get the best value you can for the players on your team before they lose their value? Case in point, Josh Cribbs. When his value was the highest, the Browns extended his contract and saw diminishing production returns. Now they'll lose him without getting anything in return.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Why would it be stupid to trade a 3rd this year but not next?
Because you already are short a selection in the upcoming draft in April.
Quote:
IMO I would "color them stupid" if they were willing to trade Mack. Hes one of the best C in the NFL and we would be trading him for a unknown commodity.
I agree about Mack, but his contract is up after next season unless he agrees to an extension. So, you either have to sign him long-term or risk losing him without any return. It's not about him in any way, just his contract. I would prefer to get him signed, but if they can't then you should be willing to trade him for picks.
Quote:
I also don't see anyone trading for Gocong and that contract.
I tend to agree. That's why anything you could get for him would be at a reduced compensation.
Quote:
I dont follow the logic of creating more holes by trading players at spots we don't have depth in, Jackson, Ward, Mack.
You know that there is an NFL draft coming up and free agency is underway, right? We're going to fill holes at some of these locations and add depth at others even as things are right now.
My problem with how many Browns fans think is that we tend to hold onto players too long. We look with reverence on the kicker! No offense to kickers, but you rely on your kicker to win or keep you in games as much as the Browns did, it shows how shallow the rest of the talent on the team is.
Quote:
It would be one thing if Mack or Rubin came out and said they don't want to be here and want to be traded, but they haven't to my best knowledge.
And this is what I mean. This is part of the whole 'hold onto these players for too long' approach.
During to the lead-up to the draft last year, so many Browns fans (on this very message board) were clamoring that we had TOO MANY picks and that we couldn't realistically use all 13 selections that we had on players that would make the team. Now, you and others are talking how we have so many holes to fill and no depth.
We lack depth because we traded away a slew of picks last year. Just to move up one spot, we gave up a 4th, 5th and 7th rounder. We could have had anyone we wanted at #4, including Richardson. For the record, I wanted Doug Martin instead of Richardson anyway. The former regime got played and I think it played a part in their firings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 181
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 181 |
Really there is a draft in april and free agency is this year? Wow I thought that happened only on leap years. Thanks for the info.  My point is why trade a guy from a position of strength when we have no depth. So we should trade Ward because we are afraid we might not be able to resign him and then need 2 starters at S? IMO teams shouldnt trade valueable players because were afraid we might lose them 2 years from now. Mack for instance, say we dont resign him this year and his contract is up we still have the right to franchise him for another year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
The Browns are a team in need of quality players. Trading away quality players makes absolutely no sense.
Colt McCoy is an unproven backup QB who has never produced, has lousy physical skills and size, and who will make almost $2.4 million. Why would anyone trade for him? Chris Gocong is coming off a major injury, and still has some guarantees to come IIRC the details of his contract. Again, why would anyone want to trade for him now?
If Lauvao is "expendable", then whet do you expect to get for him?
I think that we agree that Mack, Rubin, and Ward are all upper level players at their positions. Why would we dump them for middle round draft picks? We have every chance to resign them when their contracts expire in a couple of years. They are already working on an extension for Mack from reports. Rubin is probably our best DL. Why would we move him out? He has proved that he can play in any defense.
I don't see us getting anything for some of the players you mentioned, and I don't see the value to the Browns in trading some of the others.
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 2013
Posts: 15,341
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,341 |
Quote:
The Browns are a team in need of quality players. Trading away quality players makes absolutely no sense.
I think that we agree that Mack, Rubin, and Ward are all upper level players at their positions. Why would we dump them for middle round draft picks? We have every chance to resign them when their contracts expire in a couple of years. They are already working on an extension for Mack from reports. Rubin is probably our best DL. Why would we move him out? He has proved that he can play in any defense.
I don't see us getting anything for some of the players you mentioned, and I don't see the value to the Browns in trading some of the others.
+1
John 3:16 Jesus said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Really there is a draft in april and free agency is this year? Wow I thought that happened only on leap years. Thanks for the info.
And you know that was sarcasm in response to your post about 'creating more holes'. We'll fill some of those holes and add depth anyway in free agency and the draft.
Quote:
My point is why trade a guy from a position of strength when we have no depth. So we should trade Ward because we are afraid we might not be able to resign him and then need 2 starters at S?
Well, I don't necessarily agree that Ward is a strength. And I'm not saying that we should just trade him because we might not be able to sign him. I would certainly try to extend Mack's contract before the season starts but if you couldn't, I wouldn't object to trading him for picks and using those picks to draft his replacement and try to fill more holes.
Quote:
IMO teams shouldn't trade valuable players because were afraid we might lose them 2 years from now.
I'm not saying that I'm afraid of losing players. I'm just saying that you can try and trade them before they lose value or get to the point where you cannot get anything of value if they are going to walk. Try and sign your quality players long-term before they're in a free agency situation. It was done for Joe Thomas.
Quote:
Mack for instance, say we don't resign him this year and his contract is up we still have the right to franchise him for another year.
Sure, we do. Players don't like to be franchised because it limits their security. Franchised players are also less likely to ever sign a contract with the team that franchises them. That's one reason why we'll lose Phil Dawson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
The Browns are a team in need of quality players. Trading away quality players makes absolutely no sense.
It does if they're already at their prime and will be going down the other side of their careers if you keep them.
Quote:
Colt McCoy is an unproven backup QB who has never produced, has lousy physical skills and size, and who will make almost $2.4 million. Why would anyone trade for him?
We've already gone over all this garbage in the past. I'm not going into it for the 5th time.
Quote:
Chris Gocong is coming off a major injury, and still has some guarantees to come IIRC the details of his contract. Again, why would anyone want to trade for him now?
I don't think the injury is a particular problem. His contract is a problem though and that is the real obstacle to moving him. Restructuring his contract might make him more marketable.
Quote:
If Lauvao is "expendable", then whet do you expect to get for him?
Well, I wouldn't expect much for him although some team might give you a 4th or 5th rounder.
Quote:
I think that we agree that Mack, Rubin, and Ward are all upper level players at their positions.
I would agree that Mack and Rubin are quality. I wouldn't be so sure to agree about Ward.
Quote:
Why would we dump them for middle round draft picks? We have every chance to resign them when their contracts expire in a couple of years.
We would get more than middle round draft picks for Mack. It's likely that we could get a 2nd rounder or even several picks for Rubin. We could probably get a 3rd rounder for Ward.
I'd rather lock up Mack long-term but that might not be possible. Rubin is making a boatload of money! Get rid of that now before it blows up on you!
Quote:
They are already working on an extension for Mack from reports.
I haven't heard that anything is set yet.
Quote:
Rubin is probably our best DL. Why would we move him out? He has proved that he can play in any defense.
I already mentioned his contract. Maybe you can find another team to take it on.
Quote:
I don't see us getting anything for some of the players you mentioned, and I don't see the value to the Browns in trading some of the others.
Okay. Good. That's why I asked the question. To get opinions about it.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Weeden Prepares For Competition
|
|
