|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Does anybody think we may trade up from the 26th pick since we have 8 other picks we can package?
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
Quote:
Quote:
If we trade down from 4 we are Idiots. IDIOTS! The best draft class in a decade, with a ton of picks already and we're going to trade down.
If we trade down to acquire a long-time needed franchise QB - are we still idiots then?
We have the ammo to move back UP! There is no reason to move down from a spot where we can get an elite prospect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If we trade down from 4 we are Idiots. IDIOTS! The best draft class in a decade, with a ton of picks already and we're going to trade down.
If we trade down to acquire a long-time needed franchise QB - are we still idiots then?
We have the ammo to move back UP! There is no reason to move down from a spot where we can get an elite prospect.
If you can move down, get say another 3 and a 1 next year, We then have the ammo to move ANY of our picks up, in this draft class you refer to as so deep...
I don't think we need 10 rookies... So i expect some moving up (but still maybe down) to be had...
Example.
Clowney is there at 4 as is multiple guys you grade out evenly. Atlanta calls and offers their #2. How do you pass up another #2 to move back two spots and still get a guy you want?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
Quote:
Quote:
If we trade down from 4 we are Idiots. IDIOTS! The best draft class in a decade, with a ton of picks already and we're going to trade down.
If we trade down to acquire a long-time needed franchise QB - are we still idiots then?
Trade down to acquire a franchise QB? If a franchise QB is sitting there when you are on the clock, you take him. You don't trade down to take him later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
If you feel the needs of other teams aren't relating to 'your guy', then why not? I don't mind moving down a few spots in the first round to get their guy if the front office has their so-called potential franchise QB in mind, and obtaining more picks that can be used to get as many people in camp to be able to have a decent selection at the positions we need to fill. Personally my only point is if we trade down, I won't label the staff "idiots".
I've lobbied to trade up and acquire Teddy Bridgewater personally, but I have a vibe the front office isn't looking at QB at #4 so trading down could also be helpful/beneficial.
Just an opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
If Clowney is there, I take Clowney. I would not move down at all, there is absolutely no reason for it. Anyone we want to "Move down for" we can use our 26 pick to package and move UP for them.
No more waiting for next year. I am sick of going to games, spending hundreds of dollars to watch a crap team get their ass kicked with the hopes of "Next years draft".
Every other team is going all out and we're hoping for next year...again, I'm sick of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Well I guess the difference is, I don't want Clowney...
And New England has been aquiring future first round picks for years, are they "waiting for next year" too?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
Quote:
Well I guess the difference is, I don't want Clowney...
And New England has been aquiring future first round picks for years, are they "waiting for next year" too?
They make the playoffs every year while we're picking in the top 10 every season. Come on man, you know there's a difference.
I'd trade down every single season if I could make the playoffs every year like the Patriots. Trading down is not how they got there, it's a result of being there that gives them the luxury to keep doing it. We're not the Patriots, heck we're not even the Bengals!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
They got there by lucking into a franchise QB in the 6th round.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Does anybody think we may trade up from the 26th pick since we have 8 other picks we can package?
I think we will be very active. Not sure where as we have so many opportunities.
We could trade down from #4 a little to bank some extra picks and then use our lower picks to improve those and end up with as many as 6 top50 picks? Or 5 + a 1st round next year? Hey, why not.
Or just improve from #26 to make sure we get Evans or Lee or Ebron or Clinton-Dix perhaps?
So many possibilities.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
Quote:
They got there by lucking into a franchise QB in the 6th round.
and at the time they had a #1 overall QB and a bunch of top picks like McGinest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
They got there by lucking into a franchise QB in the 6th round.
that and they also surrounded him with playmakers for the most part. And they did play to his strengths as well. So it was more than luck
#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: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
They got there by lucking into a franchise QB in the 6th round.
that and they also surrounded him with playmakers for the most part. And they did play to his strengths as well. So it was more than luck
Playmakers? I hope you are referring to the past 5 years or so... Because for the longest time Brady's WRs sucked, his best receiver was Kevin Faulk for like 3 years...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,701
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,701 |
I don't really want to trade down, for the same reason as someone posted above. We already have a bunch of picks.
I could easily see a situation where we trade for picks for next year. If our guy isn't there at our first pick (whoever it is), I could see us trading back a few spots and getting some additional picks for next year.
I think that the plan is for us to trade up 1 or more times after our first pick. We didn't amass as many picks as we did to take that many guys.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
I think the general idea of trading down AND up is a possibility...
If you can move down and grab another 2 or 3...
Then take some of your 3s 4s and 5s and move up...
All while possibly still getting extra picks for next year...
I think that's a swell plan. Again, I don't think theres any way we come out of this draft with 10 rookies...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Does anybody think we may trade up from the 26th pick since we have 8 other picks we can package?
That was my thought. If you want a pick in the early teens, you don't trade down from 4, you trade up from 26.
This is a tough draft to predict because the QB situation is so volatile.. almost all of them at the top tend to be losing favor and sliding while those in the second tier seem to be moving up creating this log jam of QBs with late first to early second round grades.... but you know some will get overdrafted because of need so how long can you wait?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Are they really "losing favor" though? Do we KNOW that?
Mike Zimmer of Minnesota puts out that Johnny Manziel has a lot of "flags" so OBVIOUSLY theres noooo way Minnesota is ganna draft him at 8...right?
See what I mean?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Playmakers? I hope you are referring to the past 5 years or so... Because for the longest time Brady's WRs sucked, his best receiver was Kevin Faulk for like 3 years...
Kevin Faulk was a RB/FB option for them, although he did catch a lot of balls for that position.
Their best receivers were the likes of Troy Brown, David Patton, Deion Branch and David Givens. Branch and Givens were their top guys for a good while. And their TE's (before Ben Watson) were Christian Fauria and Daniel Graham.
Now Tom Brady did get the most out of these guys, and Kevin Faulk was important to the team. But it's not like he was their best receiver at any point in time.... That's quite an exaggeration. Givens and Branch both did very well with Tom Brady, but they were no slouches. If i'm picking a player, if it's the right system, I'd take Branch over Faulk any day. Faulk's a good 3rd down RB, great blocker, good catcher, and he can run for some power between the tackles when needed
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Their best receivers were the likes of Troy Brown, David Patton, Deion Branch and David Givens.
That was my point...
I was just hyperboling it a bit with the Faulk talk...
Man everybody else gets to do it... 
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Quote:
Their best receivers were the likes of Troy Brown, David Patton, Deion Branch and David Givens.
That was my point...
I was just hyperboling it a bit with the Faulk talk...
Man everybody else gets to do it...
lol, well I lived in New England. So I saw this and said, "He cannot be serious"
Those guys weren't bad receivers. They fit a system and a QB well. I get your point that they weren't stars, but they weren't slouches either. And they were as at least as good, if not better, players than Kevin Faulk.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
Those guys weren't bad receivers. They fit a system and a QB well.
That's a pretty easy system and QB to fit.
None of those guys did anything in the NFL without Brady.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They got there by lucking into a franchise QB in the 6th round.
that and they also surrounded him with playmakers for the most part. And they did play to his strengths as well. So it was more than luck
Playmakers? I hope you are referring to the past 5 years or so... Because for the longest time Brady's WRs sucked, his best receiver was Kevin Faulk for like 3 years...
You may need to check your facts
2001, SB Champs
Troy Brown had 101 Receptions for 1199 yards
Kevin Faulk had 30 receptions for 189 yards
2003, SB Champs
Troy Brown, 40 Receptions for 442 yards (must have been injured only 12 games)
Kevin Faulk, 48 Receptions for 440 yards
2004, SB Champs
David Givens, 56 Receptions for 874 Yards
David Patten, 44 Receptions for 800 yards
Deion Branch, 35 Receptions for 454 yards
Kevin Faulk, 26 Receptions for 248 yards
Troy Brown, 17 receptions for 184 yards
That's just the 3 Super Bowl years... I really don't feel like looking anymore up But statistically, Faulks best year was 2008 where he had 58 receptions for 486 yards. He played 3 more seasons for the Pats ending there in 2011 and wasn't even close to that again.
I didn't look at TE's at all, but there were a couple of years that I can think of where they had Hernandez and Gronk and they made a lot of plays but then that fits in with your thinking of the last 5 years of so.
Links to the above info:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2001.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2003.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2004.htm
Then I just googled Kevin Faulk for the career totals including 2008..
Basically, I think you are assuming things that aren't accurate.
#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: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
I don't really want to trade down, for the same reason as someone posted above. We already have a bunch of picks.
For this year we do, but trading down to pick up more picks for next year isn't a bad idea is it? I'm one of those that thinks we'll not bring in 10 drafted rookies..
#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: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't really want to trade down, for the same reason as someone posted above. We already have a bunch of picks.
For this year we do, but trading down to pick up more picks for next year isn't a bad idea is it? I'm one of those that thinks we'll not bring in 10 drafted rookies..
I am one of them as well, I just see us using those picks to move around, not defer to next year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
I think you missed the part where I said I was talking in hyperbolic terms.. Exaggerating one point to prove another... Etc..  The whole idea of Brady vs Manning for the first 5 years was that Manning had Harrison and Wayne while Brady "never really had anyone" until Moss and Welker came... 
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
If we trade down from 4 we are Idiots. IDIOTS! The best draft class in a decade, with a ton of picks already and we're going to trade down.
So we don't want more picks in the best draft class in a decade? How does that make sense? Also, if we traded down we would still be getting a very talented player.
I am not sure I see the logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
We lose out on the BEST players, in the best class in a decade. So we are settling for left overs. Trade down from #26? Sure, #4? Absolutely not.
There are 4 maybe 5 elite prospects in this draft, why would we trade down and not select one for picks in next years draft or a lesser guy in this draft? You want the best players, not 2 extra guys from the list of what's left over.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
There is not much difference between the fourth best player and the fifteenth best player.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
There is not much difference between the fourth best player and the fifteenth best player.
I think there is a difference between the best available player by position at 4 or 15 and best available athlete at those positions. That is why teams have to do so much preparation for the draft. You could also target biggest need by position depth at 4 and 15.
Last edited by Millcreek Dawg; 04/03/14 05:21 PM.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,117
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,117 |
If I have done due diligence and have a great player, nail it then. I am willing to play around later. I have said, pick the #4 you most need/want. We have picks to move up later in one, and every round for that matter. But picking in the top 5, get yours. I am okay with collecting other picks, but that one first one, no. Bird in MY hand. 
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
jc.
why do we always want to trade down?
why can't we finally start taking elite playmakers with the picks we have? i want elite 1st round and 2nd round talent who can push to start day one. i'm personally sick of the trading back game for next year when we still suck THIS year.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
jc.
why do we always want to trade down?
why can't we finally start taking elite playmakers with the picks we have? i want elite 1st round and 2nd round talent who can push to start day one. i'm personally sick of the trading back game for next year when we still suck THIS year.
While I don't necessarily want to trade down, if we get offered too good a deal to be true, I'd be willing. I mean, no matter what, I'd always be willing to listen to any offers.
But I agree. We have the 4 pick in the draft. There's some good players. If possible I'd like to pick our QB of the future. If he's not there, there'll be 3 other guys who should be able to play pretty well. Clowney, Mack, Robinson, Watkins (my favorite). Those aren't bad options. Watkins, Gordon, and Cameron would make a formidable threesome. Mix those three with Ben Tate, and we have a bonafide offense for Hoyer, or whoever is at QB, to work with.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Does anybody think we may trade up from the 26th pick since we have 8 other picks we can package?
We could. I expect, if anything, that we could possibly trade back from the #26 spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
What if somebody offers you a #2 and a #1 next year? I love hypotheticals... I HATE that they moved the draft... 
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Last years draft I thought there were no Tier 1 prospects and only about 12-14 that even had a first round grade. This year, I have a first round grade on about 42 players lol seriously. I have never come close to that, usually around 20, after 20 you start getting 2nd round talent being taken in the first. I want as many picks in those first 2 rounds as i can get. There are gonna be some major steals. Next years picks would be sacrificed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well I guess the difference is, I don't want Clowney...
And New England has been aquiring future first round picks for years, are they "waiting for next year" too?
They make the playoffs every year while we're picking in the top 10 every season. Come on man, you know there's a difference.
I'd trade down every single season if I could make the playoffs every year like the Patriots. Trading down is not how they got there, it's a result of being there that gives them the luxury to keep doing it. We're not the Patriots, heck we're not even the Bengals!!
You don't equate trading back with making the playoffs every year?
You see, New England trades back from a lower 25% of the draft to the top of the next round and acquire additional selections year after year after year.
San Francisco made 11 selections in last years draft. They made 7 in 2012. In 2011, they made 10 selections. In 2010, they made 9 selections. This year, they have 11 selections. Do you see a trend here?
Do you think that St. Louis traded away the rights to RG3 for extra picks because they couldn't use them? In the upcoming draft, the Rams go in with 12 selections (the most) and they're actively shopping the #2 overall selection to acquire even more (probably both this year and next). In 2012, they made 10 selections.
Curiously, the Browns in 2012 had 11 selections! Eleven! Those in white are no longer on the team.
1 - 3: Trent Richardson
1 - 22: Brandon Weeden
2 - 37: Mitchell Schwartz
3 - 87: John Hughes
4 - 100: Travis Benjamin
4 - 120: James-Michael Johnson
5 - 160: Ryan Miller
6 - 204: Emmanuel Acho
6 - 205: Billy Winn
7 - 245: Trevin Wade
7 - 247: Brad Smelley
That's 7 out of 11 selections that are no longer on the team. That's horrible! Absolutely horrible. It's arguable that Schwartz shouldn't be. Most fans thinking logically say that a replacement is needed at the RT spot, where Schwartz was anticipated to hold down the spot when he was taken. I take it back, the world 'horrible' isn't strong enough. It doesn't properly describe how bad it is. It's atrocious! It is actually an atrocity, bordering on criminal negligence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
If we can trade down and get future picks and/or more picks in the first three rounds of this draft we have to do it. This draft is deep enough where we should be able to get several starters.
Also, I'm not in love with anyone we would be taking with the fourth pick. It would be really great if we could trade to the 8-12 range and draft Gilbert or Dennard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
If we can trade down and get future picks and/or more picks in the first three rounds of this draft we have to do it. This draft is deep enough where we should be able to get several starters.
Also, I'm not in love with anyone we would be taking with the fourth pick. It would be really great if we could trade to the 8-12 range and draft Gilbert or Dennard.
I like Mack. I also wouldn't be upset with Clowney if he's there and Mack isn't. I wouldn't be upset with either of the OTs or Bortles either. If the Browns are sold on Derek Carr at #4, I can't say that I'd be upset.
I'd be a little shocked, quite frankly, if they drafted any QB at #4, but that's a different discussion.
I don't like any WR at #4. The class is so deep, you don't have to take one at #4. If you ask me, that would be a wasted selection.
I'd be quite satisfied if the Browns traded back. I'm going to state something that I'm sure everyone will disagree with (and I'll take some laughs over) and it doesn't bother me.
I wouldn't be so upset if they even traded completely out of the first round (yes, I know, they have two first rounders) and acquired more selections this year and next and even in two years out (or even three years). Pile those picks up. Acquire 15 picks this year, accumulate 15 for next season and even tack on some for two drafts out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
The only way you trade out of the first round is if you first trade down multiple times and then receive future first rounds picks.
I don't see that as likely or something I would want to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
The only way you trade out of the first round is if you first trade down multiple times and then receive future first rounds picks.
I don't see that as likely or something I would want to do.
I would not be against them trading completely out of the first round, acquiring a plethora of 2nd through 5th rounders this year and 1st through 4th rounders next year.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2014 NFL Season NFL Draft 2014 Report: Texans trying hard to
trade first-overall draft pick
|
|
