Lotsa talk about leaving 4 for Buffalo at 12 & 22.

With the Jets move to 3, we're all but guaranteed to have all 3 STUDS available to us in Chubb, Barkley and Minkah.

DO WE WANT TO GIVE THAT UP?

Denver at 5 is viable if they think Miami, Buffalo or Arizona is hot on 4. Moving down to Denver STILL nets us one of the Top 3. Cool with that move.

Buffalo is the ONLY team that has 2 First Rounders at 12 & 22.

Looking at Jerimiah's Post Combine Top 50, WHO would we possibly target at 12 & 22? Ward's GONE in the Top 10. So who?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...18-nfl-draft-20

I'm NOT seeing any combination of 2 players that outweigh just sitting at 4 or moving to 5 and taking the #1 NON-QB player on our board.

Who are the 2 players you'd want at 12 & 22?

We gave up taking Deshaun Watson for the #4 pick this year, lets not outsmart (sashi) ourselves, lets take our QB at 1 (whomever that may be) and the top quality player of our choice, Chubb, Barkley or Minkah, have a beer and high five everyone for a first round well done.

If the Browns end up with pick #22 they should trade out of it just because. But seriously, I agree with your premise, we shouldn't drop past #5 and I only deal with Denver if they assure me they're going QB at #4.

As long as it's not a QB, i don't see such a big deal with the 22 pick.


But I agree. Trading down with Denver would be optimal. For all else who want to trade for the 4 pick, the premium should be very very high.

More than likely we'd be giving up an opportunity to select the non-qb in this draft of our choice. That's a big thing to give up.



I haven't thought much into who I'd want at 12. QBs aren't an interest to me. I guess Derwin James or a Corner. Maybe Calvin Ridley?

Honestly, this class seems very top heavy. It'd really take a lot to get me to want us to trade down very much. I like Bradley Chubb and Saquon Barkley a lot.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of trading 4 for 12 & 22. The draft value chart says it's a slight overpay from Buffalo's perspective; recent experience suggests the Browns could get more (see Colts/Jets trade for example.) Or, just draft an impact player.

Also as a general rule, I prefer a future first instead of a late first in the current draft. This goes against the general guideline that a pick in the next draft is worth either the last pick in that round, or even a pick in the next round, but nothing says that the Browns must follow this.

Remember, this #4 pick we are talking is the result of a (once) future first. Watt and Watson got injured, along with other starters for the Texans, and their season imploded. Things happen. The final first rounder conveyed in the RG3 trade ended up being #2 overall. The Rams wasted it on Greg Robinson but it was the second pick nonetheless.

I'm there with ya!

Take our QB at 1. At 4 we still have the pick of the litter (assuming QB goes #2)....take either Chubb or Barkley at 4 and don't look back. We walk out of the 1st round with QB and Barkley/Chubb. That to me is a mega win, however way you cut it.

I actually think Bills will be targeting a trade with the Giants for the #2 so they can leapfrog the Jets and get their guy.

IF Denver wants Mayfield then I'd make them pay regardless of one spot in the draft or not.

I think I would go for it if we get 12, 22, and next year's 1st. Maybe try to get 65 back too. They are starting the 3rd or 4th QB drafted, or AJ McCarron. I'd think the pick has a decent chance of being top half of the 1st.

Then try to trade 12 and 64 or 65 and get back up to get Ward around 7 or 8.

I would do it for 12+22+next year's 1st. Hard to pass up that kind of package for a (non-QB) positional player.

Also about Buffalo: while they were a playoff team this year at 9-7, they also had a -57 point differential in the regular season. They've already downgraded their starting QB and LT. That future first would be pretty enticing, even if they don't have the freakish injury luck that the Texans did this past season.

i hope denver gets nervous at 5 .. offers us a 3rd round pick to move up to 4, we slide back one slot and still get Chubb/Barkley

This would be a great result. Either that, or leverage that into a bigger deal described above. Want your quarterback? Better get him before Denver does (at #4 or #5.)

We should keep trading down until we own all the 7th round picks for the next ten years.

This is probably wishful thinking though. A Denver perspective: https://www.milehighreport.com/2018/3/16/17131318/case-keenum-contract-broncos


Seems like they could just sit back at #5 and take Barkley.

I'm talking about adding an additional two first round picks to move down! Nothing about 7th rounders.

I get that trading down gets a bad rap here. But a lot of this has to do with past GMs simply doing a lousy job with the picks they do make. Leaving franchise QBs on the board when you need one is another mistake, but we are talking about the #4 here, not the #1. I'm kind of working on the assumption that we go QB at #1.

The thing is that teams, in recent years, have been rather aggressive in making large deals to move up to get their QBs. The Colts got three second round picks to move down from 3 to 6! How do you pass up that kind of deal when your team isn't in the market for a QB?

Dion Dawkins played LT most of last year as a rookie because Glenn was hurt and was pretty good. He isn't really a downgrade, especially considering Glenn's injury history.

Please do not trade down. We need premium players. We have 3 second round picks, if anything trade up. Tired of always dropping and watching teams get top players while we high five each other for trading down and taking inferior players

Stay at four. The Browns have the opportunity to take the best player on their board (Chubb, Ward or Fitzpatrick) after QBs likely go 1,2,3.

Do not try and be the smartest guys in the room. Time and again that strategy ha failed.

No need to overcomplicate the situation.

Tired of winning the draft instead of on Sundays.

Since 2010 every draft pick selected at #4 has been selected to the Pro Bowl except for Sammy Watkins in 2014.

(I could handle a trade down with Denver and only Denver).

Yeah, I don't see the need for Denver to swap picks with us, if they want a QB they know we're not taking one. If they're afraid we're going to take their player why would we trade down? For more picks? We don't need them, we need impact players. They only way I would consider a trade with Denver would be one that included a ridiculous haul like 2nd rounders for this year and next, and a guarantee they're not taking our player. That's likely not happeneing.

Again, we don't need more picks. That's the point. I wouldn't trade with Buffalo because that means we've given up our shot at Minkah/Barkley/Chubb. That is stupid given all the picks and young players we already have, IMO.

#12, #22, and Buffalo's 1st round pick next year could be 3 impact players.

That's a ridiculous haul and I'd take it every time for #4. That said, it's not an offer likely to be made, so you probably don't have to worry about it.

My question wasn't about whether we agree to moving down to 12 & 22.

It's about IF WE DID, who would be the picks and would those 2 players outweigh the ONE STUD we'd get at 4 or even 5.

I say NO.

This is a Top Heavy Draft for STUDS. I for one do NOT want to bypass a Barkley, Chubb Or Minkah-Fitzpatrick.

Furthermore, I'd bet anything that at 33 & 35 we're going to have TWO players on our Top 25 Board sitting there.

That's like FOUR 1st Round Talents according to OUR BPA board.

I already said that I wasn't fond of trading 4 for 12 and 22 (even though this is already overpaying from the Bills perspective based on the draft value chart.)

It's the addition of the future first on top of 12 and 22 that does it for me. Again though, this is an unfair trade (clearly in the Browns favor) and I don't even think we'll have the option of taking it the first place.

Look back at past drafts. Players bust at the top of the draft all the time; studs fall to later in the first round and beyond. It's not as simple as being guaranteed a stud vs being guaranteed just a few guys.

Yeah, I don't see their next year's #1 coming into play.

The only deal would be Denver. Knowing another QB is going at four.

I see no rational that would make me not want the top guy at any position that is not a QB.

We need players like Chubb, Fitz, Barkley, Ward or whoever they like.

Immediate impact pro bowl type guys.

Dropping to 12? Not interested.

I like the idea of trading with Denver too. Move down a spot, pick up an extra pick, grab the guy we were going to take at #4 all along. Bonus points for saving some money on the contract.

What's in it for the Broncos? They just signed Case Keenum to a pretty substantial 2 year deal, with significant guarantees into the second year. They've already shown they can sign QBs in the past (Peyton Manning.) I don't think they are so desperate for a QB that they need to give up a good pick to move up one spot. If somebody jumps them for the 4th QB they can just take Barkley.

Not enough compensation probably for only moving one spot stay at 4 and get the player you want. We still have plenty of picks.

j/c

I do not see the sense in following the same pattern that we've used in the past that has done nothing but helped us to lose on Sundays.

I absolutely think there's a need for Denver to trade up to 4. If it's a QB they are after, they'll trade up. A year ago the Bears traded 2 3rds and a 4th to move up one spot to draft Trubisky.

If The draft goes Darnold-Rosen-Allen, then that 4th pick is HOT HOT HOT. I still can see where we trade back with the Bills or Dolphins and then use draft capital to move back up in the draft. This might net us the same player we covet plus an additional pick (or a move up in the draft).

Sometimes I think these trade discussions would be more fruitful if both the teams (err, fans of both teams) were represented in the discussion. Trade scenarios are almost always presented in favor of one's own team, sometimes laughably so.

This thread is actually not so bad. I went with the idea of 4 for 12, 22, and next year's first from Buffalo. I think this is a lopsided trade in the Browns favor, and most are against it. I get the reason behind being opposed to it, and it's understandable.

A couple not so reasonable ideas:

I went to TwoBillsDrive, and one poster had this ingenious idea:

- This anonymous poster wanted to trade up to #2 with the Giants. He correctly deduced that this would cost a large amount of draft picks, and wanted to recruit the Browns as part of a 3-way trade. The Browns would contribute either a second or third round pick so the Bills could move up, with the understanding that the Bills would take a QB, the Jets would take a QB at 3, and the Browns could take Barkley at #4. That's it. The Browns wouldn't actually receive anything else in exchange for their 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Not to be outdone, I went to JetNation. Here, a poster suggested that the Browns would take Darnold at #1, the Giants a QB at #2. The Jets would "call the Browns bluff" and take Barkley at #3. This would send the Browns in a panic, and the Browns would send Darnold and a 3rd round pick for the rights to Barkley, who this poster believed the Browns were counting on to be there at #4.

These were actual posts made on those forums. I couldn't pick up on any sarcasm, nor were they made in purple.

Exactly. I guess trading down is fun for some as far as discusion on this board but I would think we would learn from past Browns history.

Time for quality over quantity!

Think about where a team like the Patriots drafts. The first pick is in the 30s every year, the second one in the 60s. They got a second round pick for Garoppolo.

I think we've kind of lost sense of how valuable an 'ordinary' first round pick is. In an ideal world, we won't ever even get a crack at the #12 pick again, unless it's from another team.

We're talking about trading the #4 pick-- a pick which was once a "future first", probably valued as a second round pick at the time the trade was made-- for #12, #22, and another future first (from the Bills, who while they went 9-7 this past season, haven't exactly been the model of consistency.)

I guess I'm just surprised at how much people are against such a trade. It's not like picks in the top 5 are sure things. We've had our misses there as well including our own "can't miss" running back prospect.

The trade proposed is arguably even a bigger win than what the Colts got from the Jets in that trade.

You can't compare a team like the Patriots to the Browns. That's apples to oranges. Let me explain.....

BB and the Patriots have had the same HC and system for many years. As such you can bring players into a pipeline. Into a process that's been working for what seems like forever. You're not pressed to start a rookie right away. He will have time to work and grow into the system that's long established. You can attract the FA's you choose at a bargain price.

It's a situation that has nothing in common with us. We haven't established squat. Thus far we don't have a successful system. Once we ever get to that point, it will become much easier to accomplish a continued success in the manner you are suggesting.

There's a reason why the worst teams draft early and better teams draft late. Because you first must build success before you can continue success.

I've seen some people say that NYJ traded up to 3 and will select Barkley ... that's laughable IMO. They didn't trade all of those assets for anything but a QB

I agree with all this. I also don't think it's very relevant to this particular discussion.

Time for action! As David Gilmour sang..

"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you."

It's time to start...

Agreed. This is only logical.

It's basically the same logic I'm applying here, only the inverse. You don't put together a massive package unless you need a QB. And you don't turn such down a massive package unless you need a QB.

The first part is pretty much obvious. It's the second one that people need to come through on. I'll keep working at it.

There's no way they made that trade for Barkley, when they have no idea if he'll actually be there.

"IF" we traded with Buffalo you can throw the draft chart away, at that point Buffalo is over anxious and will pay a lot more "IF" they want a QB. I would say 12, 22, 56, 65 and next years 1 anything less and I send the card in ...

yeah, as someone said yesterday: a trade up for a QB has its own trade chart

I see no reason why Denver would be inclined to move up one spot unless they think we would want to trade down with Buff, which I do not want to do.

Denver knows we wont be taking a QB at #4(assuming #1 is our QB pick). SO they can it at #5 and get the same available QB, either way.

Key Phrase: "unless they think we would want to trade down with Buffalo"

Trades are tricky.

You have to have willing partners. There are no guarantees.

I have zero desire to move down to #12 and #22. We have spent enough years building a roster with quality players. It is time to get a few elite players

I'm not thrilled about it either unless Buffalo offers us a kings ransom or we can get Denver to give us a 2 to move one spot ...

Deleted

I must be getting Brain Dead.

IF THE BROWNS moved down to 12 and 22, WHO WOULD BE REALISTIC PICKS?

This isn't a WOULD YOU DO IT thing.

Derwin James/Calvin Ridley/Marcus Davenport/Da'Ron Payne/Mike McGlinchey/Vita Vea/Sam Hubbard etc...

I would move down from 4 for 12, 22, and 56.

That would give us 7 of the top 64 players in the draft. That is a lot of shots at the apple, and also could be a chance to trade a pick or 2 for future picks.

My bad. I jumped too quickly to what I thought the thread was going to be.

And helped us be where we are with draft picks. I don't think the plan was to go win less last season to get the 1st pick.

Each trade option is one in and of itself. What happened last year has nothing to do with this year.

That said, I have liked Chubb as a pick for this team. Even started a thread that maybe we take him at #1.

If he is there, it would have to be a pretty good offer. It's hard for teams to double team both edge rushers.

/thread

That seems like a big if. I mean if we were going to trade with Buffalo or Miami, why would we trade with Denver instead? And why risk trading down only to trade back up. Sounds like the stupid moves we've made in the past. And again, we don't need picks so I'm not understanding your logic. What am I missing?

The thing is none of us know which player any team is targeting.

Trading back with Denver assures us getting the same player we would get at 4. For instance, if Barkley is the target and the choices are to trade with Denver, Buffalo, or not trade at all, what do you do? Trade with Denver. We are still going to get Barkley. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. Teams also trade up one pick all the time. Chicago did it last year. We've actually done it 3 times since 2004.

In fact, this entire scenario that you seem to think is so far fetched happened 4 years ago when we traded (ironically) to the Bills then traded back up for the player we wanted.

Also, two years ago the Titans traded out of #1 with the Rams to #15. Then traded back up to #8 for Conklin.

They aren't stupid moves. It's all a strategy to build draft capital and get the player you want. It's how you build a franchise.

I'm not privy to all previous draft trades, but I'm sure it's happened more than twice.

No trading down. Our GM said we're playing to win this year. It's time to cash in the chips we've been stockpiling for God knows how long. We don't need more chips, we need elite players from the top few picks in the draft. We have enough youngsters with potential. #4 isn't the same as #22 or whatever.

at this point, we don't need to keep stockpiling picks.

Exactly , it is time to cash in on these years of tanking

No more " wait until next year"

I'd guess if Barkley is there at 4, we take him.

Otherwise,....

We are trading down with Miami.

Bank on it.

So the more and more I think about these scenarios, the more I want to trade the #4 pick to Buffalo, if and ONLY if they offer us 12, 22 and either 2nd rounder this year or their first next year. Anything less, I am not interested. But if this is offered, here is my dream scenario.

Pick 1: Take the best QB

Pick 12: Trade 12 and 64 to someone in the 7-10 range. We then draft whoever falls between Chubb, Fitzpatrick or Ward. One of them will have to be there.

I then take picks 33 and 35, and trade up into the 15-20 range, and take either Connor Williams or Mike McGlinchey.

At 22, I take either the best edge rusher (Harold Landry, Marcus Davenport, Hercules Mata’afa) if we took Ward or Fitzpatrick. I take best cornerback if Chubb was pick (Jackson, Hughes or Oliver).

If we got the Buffalo 2nd rounder, I take the best RB there. Possibly try to trade up and get a higher spot to take one.

If we got Buffalo first next year instead, I trade whatever later picks I have left (maybe even a 2nd or 3rd rounder next year) to trade up and get whatever RB we are gunning for.

We walk away with first round QB,LT,CB,DE and a RB. I am not interested in adding more "quantity" young talent to develop. We have enough of that. It is time to trade up and get as many first round talent players that we can!

Oof, there's a lot of scenarios that you're hoping for there.

I dunno about that.

I prefer the safe route, especially now that the Jets traded up. I mean, you don't know the compensation to move back up to 7-10. And you don't know if we could do it.


I guess it's something you have to consider. But you're possibly giving up the chance of getting the player with all out super-star potential

I know that is a lot of wheeling and dealing, and a lot of moving. But even if just the first 2 happen. We get 12 and 22 (and 2nd rounder or 1st next year). We then trade whatever it takes to move from 12- 7,8,9 or 10. Even if it takes our first 2nd rounder.

We still net getting 22, and still likely get one of the players at 4 we wanted. That is incredibly huge!! The rest after that is all just MY dream scenario. But, there are plenty of options.

I hope we either trade w/Denver and move down one spot or stay at 4. Screw all the other crap.

We need impact players. We pass on guys like Wentz and end up Corey Coleman and hope. Pffftttttttt...

But that is kind of my argument for trading with Buffalo. By making the trade and one more trade, we can get one of Fitzpatrick, Ward or Chubb at 7-10, and still net another 1st rounder.

I fully agree that we need impact players, and by making 2 moves we still get that same impact player. This is not the year for the Browns to sit still with all these 2nd round and later picks. This is the time to move up, attack, and get as many impact players as possible.

I agree. With 3 2nd round picks we have enough picks to fill needs. #33 and #35 will more than likely be players currently projected by some mock drafts as 1st round picks.

We disagree on the value of the players, but that's cool. You seem like a really good dude. Different opinions are going to occur and it helps make things interesting.

I do have a question for you that isn't related to any of this. I'm curious about your opinion on good LSU's OL was this year and last. Any info you would supply would be appreciated.

Their offensive line was actually pretty good. Losing 2 starters last year hurt them. But they generally have a pretty good group.

The problem that hurts them every year is the same problem the Browns have every year. It is the quarterback. When teams don't have to worry about the QB making great plays, they can key in on the run/pass rush and drop less in coverage.

I assume you are asking, in reference to Guice. My view is still the same, that he will be overdrafted because of what Fournette was able to accomplish. In no way am I saying Guice is no good. But he is not a first round talent, and truly, had Fournette not gone ahead of him, I think we would be talking about him as a 3rd round possibility. Still good. But not a game changer to me.

My biggest argument against him, other than just watching him with my eyes, is when Coach O would use him. When it came down to 4th and 1, or any goal line situations, he would generally put in a different back. This speaks volumes to me. In my opinion, in 4th and 1 or goal line situations, you put the back with the best vision, decision making, and power in to get that yard or 2. The fact that he was subbed out tells me that in LSU's case, this wasn't him.

Thank you, sir. Guice was exactly the reason I was asking. You're pretty smart.

I think Guice is overrated. I don't think he stinks or anything, but I don't see why he is rated so high. I started a thread about Evaluating and Ranking the RBs and I did a report on Guice. I was not very impressed. Well, I was somewhat impressed, but not first round impressed and I think there are other backs in the draft that are better. I have a 3rd round grade on him, as well.

I just wanted your take because I suspected that LSU's OL makes backs better than they really are.......just like Alabama's.

On a side note..........it is rather amazing at how LSU has had such great talent for a long time and have had less than average QBs. Hard to fathom at times.

JK

So moving down should only go as far as the number of players left in that tier allows you to without leaving that tier. Here are my players in that top tier of non Qb's:

Bradley Chubb
Saquan Barkley
Minkah Fitzpatrick
Denzel Ward
Quinton Nelson
Trumaine Edwards
Roquan Smith

That is a list of 7 players. After this list, you get a bunch of players that are pretty interchangeable down through probably the mid 2nd round.
If we count 4 Qb's that would allow a drop to #11
If we go to #12 then we would be dropping to the next tier.

Of course that is my list. If your list list is longer then moving to #12 would be okay. If your list is the same or shorter then you would be against the trade down.

It really is amazing! And with the talent all around. Great defenses. Great offensive lines. Wide receivers like Jarvis Landry, Odell Beckham, Rueben Randle, Dwayne Bowe, etc. Runningbacks like Leonard Fornette, Jeremy Hill, Spencer Ware, etc. But the best quarterbacks to come out of the school are Mettenberger and Jarrett Lee

I am not sure what it is. There are a lot of QB prospects that come out of Louisiana, and LSU is a big enough school to pull some out of other territories. It is amazing at the ineptitude they have at the QB spot. Something we as Browns fans can definitely relate to!

Agreed.

It's not that hard to figure out. It's a cycles thing. When defenses are hard wired to stop the pass it gets easier to have success running the ball. When teams gear up to stop the run it gets easier to pass.

That and when you have a great running game all you need is a QB who is accurate and gets rid of the ball fast. Once they put in that pass defense you just go hurry up and burn them out on the D-line by running it like crazy for a series or two and then as the defense is gasping you throw some bombs to really wear them out and go back to pounding them again.

With Tyrod if we land Saquan we will be in a similar situation.

What did Matt Flynn do to deserve this?

I stand corrected. But to me, he is the most ultimate *yawn* quarterback. Very easily forgettable. But you are correct. List him in front of Mettenberger. But my point still stands.

That's where I'm at.

I DO NOT want to go past 5. I want our QB and one of the 3 Blue Chippers at 4 or 5.

Ward would be gone by 12, so we're looking at guys like LB Roquan Smith, DT Payne, WR Ridley, SS James.

At 22 Davenport, Vea, Kirk, Alexander, Guice.

Not really impressed considering what we would be passing up at 4 or 5.

I'd rather package 33 or 35 and something else if one of our Top 15-20 guys fell below around 25.

Alexander?

Good list but I would add Calvin Ridley, I think he will go 8 to the Bears and Derwin James who is under rated ... JMHO

I hate suggesting a trade back... but what if we don't want Darnold or Rosen and would rather have Mayfield or Allen (heaven forbid). Consensus seems to think Darnold is the #1 pick, and Rosen is the #2 pick...

I don't know what the Jets have left to deal, but it might be important for them to get ahead of the Giants.

I see the need to try to gather additional picks but I'm all for taking our guy at 1 without having to worry about what anyone else is doing.

or just go:

1. Browns - Darnold
2. Giants - Rosen
3. Jets - Mayfield
4. Browns - Allen


Play TT for a year ... see how Darnold/Allen develop, or dangle one for assets haha

With these things in mind:

Seeing what the Jets gave up to get into the top.

Signing Hyde.

Signing Randall.

Teams in position now (Us, Giants, Jets, Us) and the likeliness of all taking QBs.

... I'm getting intrigued about possibly still grabbing the player we wanted at #4, but with trading down and gaining additional capital. I don't think we could trade down much, even one spot ahead if Denver wants to move up and feels we might trade out to someone else and they lose their guy, for one example...

Don't get upset, I'm just having a conversation. It's not a personal attack on you or your thinking.



There are no assurances in this scenario. What if they want Barkely? They've signed Keenum to a 2 year, healthy contract. There's nothing saying they would absolutely take a QB. We potentially get boned for a later round pick.



I realize that. I'm saying it doesn't make sense this year.



I realize that too, we don't need draft capital at this point, IMO.

The only place I move down to is #5 or #6, and I need a healthy return to even do that.

We have moved down enough, it's time we move ahead, and upward.

If Saquan is gone at 4 and not a Brown then I am fine with trading down with Buffalo for their first round picks. Pick 12 can still be a great pick to have.

It may go against better judgement, if the "best" player in the draft has "bark" in his name,

Shouldn't we take him at #4 ?

If we did move out of #4 I'd love us to pick up Josh Jackson and Guice with the Bills picks.

Jackson is someone I'd like as well. I also see us targeting a RB with that 2nd round

I tend to agree...it just depends on 2 things.

The first is how many players do we have rated as "elite" players? We know a few QB's are going to get drafted, so can you drop to 5-6? 7-8?

The second is how many players do you have rated as true 1st round value? No doubt there are 32 players taken in the first round, but in any given year you might only have a true 1st round grade on 20 or so. If we can place a true 1st round grade on 22 players, the trading down with buffalo comes in to play. If now, trading with the Bills starts to lose value.

One thing I do know is that with all the FA pick-ups and trades we made, every guy we draft probably won't make the team.

Well, they might due to the FO change. You know, out with the other guys players, in with yours, even if it is simply switching one marginal player with a new marginal player.

It makes a lot of sense to get as many "elite" or high rated true first rounders and not simply flip flop players of marginal status.

That's what I was initially talking about.

What 2 players outweigh the loss of Barkley, Chubb or Fitz.

Jackson CB and Guice?

Ridley and Alexander CB with RB in 2?

THIS is what Dorsey needs to weigh.

At this point I wouldn't rule out anything in the way of trades I think Dorsey gets that.

The goal IMO has to be to come away with 2 blue chip players, who will bring the game altering scenario. My dream if you will is we get 3, don't laugh I think we could.

If the Browns for instance are comfortable with SD or JA and the Giants make a sizable offer to move up one spot, I do the deal. The key here is do they think both or either will be franchise material. At this point I think the Giants likely feel pretty comfortable with either selection so IMO a deal is unlikely and I don't see the Brown's moving almost no matter what.

That takes us to the #4 pick with 4 potential franchise QB's up for grabs this is the last opportunity to get one of them for a host of teams. Miami, Denver, certainly Buffalo.

I wouldn't do a deal with Buffalo simply because I want players outside of a QB from the very top of the draft 12 and 22 will be to late IMO. But that doesn't mean that Buffalo couldn't do a deal with Indy, or Tampa Bay, then deal up with us, remember they have a ton of picks to throw around and if their hell bent to get one of these QB's they just might?

I try to work a deal with Denver only going back one spot is my preferred choice, if Denver shows an interest that can only mean one thing I may throw our 1st next year and 2 or maybe even all three of our 2nds and or whatever Denver offers up to move up 1 spot at Indy to move into the #5 and #6 spots and take Chubb and Barkley.

Anyway this goes the Browns will not be in this spot next year our 1st next year will be at best be a mid 12-20 pick so I would gladly trade off the 1st next year for a shot at a top 10 player this year.

Man I have kicked this around a lot I want Chubb and I want Barkley and of course the best QB in the draft, and I think we can get that done I really do.

If left with the choice of Barkley or Chubb, I have to take Chubb elite pass rushers are near impossible to find, and while I understand the gap between Barkley and the rest of the backs its not as momentous as the gap between pass rushers.

I would add that this pick will make Garret pay even larger dividends and at the same time make it so Chubb pays off as well. Its a no brain er IMO you take the elite pass rusher, and don't look back.

In one short month will find out, but man this is the draft that absolutely will change the Browns fortunes, FINALLY ah?

This assumes any of those players will be there. You can't just say I'll take Fitz & Ridley (for example). If you trade down you run the risk of losing the player(s) you covet and you're basically saying I'll take two players who are left when I get there instead of the potential game changer I really want. Not saying it won't happen or that we can't get two good players but the draft is hit or miss enough as it is so why risk missing out on the player that is graded highest and is closer to being a sure thing/potential 8-10 year starter?

They're saying this draft has only about 20 player worth a first round grade as is (depending on the teams' boards). We've drafted enough first round busts to know we could easily lose out on a trade like that. I hope we stay at 4 and take Chubb, Barkley or Fitz.

JMHO

Don't know. Is that how we ended up with "Bark"evious Mingo at 6?

No team would want to give up what I would be asking for the 4th pick. The best player in the draft is going to probably be available. It would cost them dearly.

There are no amount of draft picks they could offer if Barkley is there at #4. That card turn in would be instant.

If any GM gave up what I was asking I’m pretty sure it would get them fired!!

I would die of windburn, terminal third degree, turning that card in. Still trying to convince myself that it is even plausible, much less possible.

Look at what Dorsey has done in free agency this off season. He solidified Qb, Wr, Rb, O-line depth, Cb and S with solid vets. There are no giant holes on this team, except perhaps LT.

He has set up up to draft the best players that will have the biggest impact on this team regardless of position. I think he will stay at or close to it (maybe drop 1_2 spots) andd take the player with the most talent and perceived impact for this team.

Was it that or Banner/Lombardi using their logic of, ‘well his name sounds like a dawg’?

Stand and deliver!

I think there will be a good auction for #4 and the last of the top QBs, Josh Allen will be there after we take Darnold, Giants take Rosen, Jets take Mayfield. I would have to say Denver and the Bills would be the two teams looking to get there. Obviously if we can pull a 2nd rounder from Denver I would do that deal over multiple picks from Bills. But us picking at #5 and still getting our choice of the first positional player is gold. Rather than dropping to #11 and getting the 7th best positional BPA.

Us getting picks 33, 35 40 and 64 would be a bonanza of a draft!

jmho

I agree. A nice little trade down with Denver would be great. I dunno if they'll bite though. They gotta know that, to us, being able to pick our first non-qb would have its appeal verses a big trade down with Buffalo.

Is what it is.



Honestly, Buffalo can probably get a good QB at 12 with Lamar Jackson or even Mason Rudolph.

Although, I'd definitely take Jackson ahead of Rudolph. He's an intriguing pick. Not the guy I want, because I want our QB at 1. But Lamar Jackson is an NFL QB and further along than he gets credit for.

A lot of folks, probably myself included, have given the perception that some of the later guys in our rankings are bad picks. Don't think they're bad picks, just a few levels below (and therefore not the ones for us, as i'm terrified of screwing this up).

This is a deep draft class. Jackson and Rudolph stand a chance to be decent NFL QBs. Although I'd take Jackson before Rudolph any day of the week. In the right situation, if Jackson can protect himself out there, he'll be an exciting player to watch. And he'll win football games.

The can get...its not a buffet line.

Usually teams will fall in love with a certain player and they will want HIM and not look to just fill the position with another...oh n did miss spoke on them having #11 instead its 12??? That would be the 8th positional player rather than 7.

Denver I think will fall in love with Allen and if we play our cards right and let them know we are looking at a lot from the Bills to move us, they just might pull that 2nd round payment.

Hey its all pretend at this moment...lol for all we know the Jets are looking at Allen and not Mayfield.

What is important is QBs go 1, 2, 3 and us taking what we consider the best at #1. At this point that is all I'm concerned about. The rest is just pretend stuff.

lol, well hopefully they aren't reading this message board. Cause we seem to have it all figured out, and we want to trade down with them only, but want them to think that we're willing to trade down with someone else also

I think you 2 are missing something here Buffalo is on the move get them to come up to say Indy or the Bucks then use that for leverage on Denver.

Just let Buffalo know we can't swing a deal and go back so far in the draft which means they need to work their way up the board without our help. I feel certain Buffalo is talking to everyone who has a spot they would covet, the Browns hold the key Buffalo knows that. I sure hope their listening can't wait until we have our QB in place and #4 is on the clock!

If we take a QB at #1 and that is an IF and Saquan is there at #4 there is no trade that justifies not taking him. I mean just drafting our future QB and stud HB is a perfect draft and I don't even care what else happens in the draft because it's just pure gravy after that point.

lol. I dunno man. I think QBs are going 1,2,3. And I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Bradley Chubb goes to us at 4 (or we trade down)

I'm all for Barkley FYI. He's who I want at 4. But I certainly don't expect it. I'd be willing to bet if we don't trade down, and it's between Chubb and Barkley, we go Chubb.

Even if Chubb's gone, there's a good chance we go Minkah Fitzpatrick.

So prepare yourself

If chub is there that's my pick,,, either way I think it's gonna be hard to screw it up if we stay put

There are so many crazy scenarios right now. The thing is I can see it playing aout a lot of different ways and be justified in doing so.

For instance, we could be baiting the giants to move up to 1 so they will take darnold. We get say a 2nd round pick to exchange picks when they didn't want Darnold anyways. Now the Bills want Rosen and the Browns are scared of his injury history or maybe something got flagged with whatever. So we take their first picks this year and next. Pick 3 is probably Mayfield.

QBs 123 like you said. Browns are happy to have Tyrod as their starter and surprise all of us. That includes me. We now have 3 first round picks this year and 2-3 first round picks next year.

Pick #4 We take Barkly

We then take 2-4 second round picks and swap our 22 pick for denver's 5th pick. We take Chubs. At 12 we draft Mason just ahead of the Chargers who want him. denver only did the trade because the QBs are already gone and they can take Lamar or Allen at 22 before the Steelers get to pick.

That is my draft day crazy scenario.

I think we end up with Darnold at 1 and Barkley at 4.

1 is Darnold
2 is Rosen
3 is Mayfield
4 is Saquan

IF Giants take Saquan then Bills and Denver fight it out for pick 4 as team fight to get either Rosen or Mayfield. If we take Denver's deal we take Chubs at 5. If we take buffalo's deal we take a CB, Vea, or the ND guard at 12.

It could be a very interesting Day.

Sorry about last night. Didn't mean to rag on your opinion. We'll I DID but I shouldn't. Lol.

This is CRAZY stuff this year. Soooo many possibilities, it's insane.

Peeps need to stay awake for the ENTIRE first round. With what we have in round 2 it would not surprise me in the least if we end up in the first round again to get that 5th year option on someone we have Top 20 ranked.

I'd be okay with going Darnold at 1 and then trading back (no further than Buffalo) if we can get a good haul ... as long as we're targeting secondary guys (Fitzpatrick or Ward)

its cool we all get a bit hot sometimes myself included

Well staying with the move down to 4...I think we could get a decent return from the Broncos so they can draft Allen who possibly Elway is Gaga for. It would be great to get their 2nd round pick #40. We still get the first positional play at #5.

I strongly think that pick would be Ward. 4.32 speed is very seductive for a CB. His vertical leap is ok as he is a tad under 5'11"

I am pretty sure that in Dorsey's draft history he has a tendency for picking "SPEED" which actually is the way to go with the NFL, speed kills especially on D.

jmho

Buffalo has pick #12 right?
Let's say that 5 Qb's go before then as does Barkley, Chubb, Minkah ,Ward and Nelson.

That is a list of 10 players. Who are the next 2 that you would be satisfied getting?

We've heard for years about a lack of impact players and now we have our chance. If we trade out and a good distance down I don't want to hear a thing about impact players again! I realize there are decent players at lower picks but not very often does the chance to have two of the top four setting in your lap present itself.

Personally, I would prefer to trade back and then attempt to trade up to picks 7-10 to get one of the ones listed. However, if we did trade back and had no takers, the names I like in the 12 and 22 spots are as follows:

Maurice Hurst - The exact type of rushing, slicing, penetrating big man that Williams loves. He was diagnosed with a heart condition at the combine. Assuming he checks out, I would happily take him at 12! Before the heart condition he was being projected as a top 7 pick.

Harold Landry - May be a better pure pass rusher than Chubb. He had a stellar 2016, but 2017 was hampered with injuries.

Derwin James - Possibly the best overall athlete in the draft. Again, injuries hurt his stock, but if you give a guy like this to Gregg Williams, you just let him create!

Mike McGlinchey or Connor Williams - These two guys will be starting left tackles for years to come. They both have concerns and things they will have to prove with time. That is the only reason they are not projected in the top 10. Both are fantastic athletes, and will likely have long successful careers.

But this is assuming these are the 10 players taken. There are always surprises and slips. Jonathon Allen was said to be a top 3 LOCK last year, and the great debate was whether we should draft him at 1 instead of Garrett. He fell all the way to pick 17. So, 12 is not the worst spot to be. No, you do not have the buffet of choices you have at 4, but the added bonus of 22 plus either a 2nd rounder or 1st next year may make the pot too sweet to pass.

I’m with u ... im very comfie with the Donks at 5 ... other than that ... i’d Pass .....

If i did do something .... id be comfie going as far down as the bears at 8 ... thats about it ... we can get one of Ward, Fitz or James there ... but i’d rather stay at 4 or go to 5 ...

Thats really it ... just like at 1 ... GET OUR GUY ... dont get cute ...

Franchise QB hopefully and a major difference maker .... LETS GOOOOO ....

Derwin James for sure. The OT McClintchy (SP) ... that's worst case scenario obv.

Well played

Ok we ARE taking a QB at #1 that's what Jimmy said when he introduced John Dorsey, that he is here to find our franchise QB, so lets end that discussion. Now #4 WHO Barkley/Chubb/Fitzpatrick/James or Trade Down I myself have been thinking it would be nice to get our top QB and Barkley, but I have this strange feeling that we get such a huge offer from Miami/Buffalo/Arizona that we end up trading out of #4 ... I am on the Barkley bandwagon now, but I will trust Dorsey ...

lol, I really don't wanna move down that far.

We've got our choice of guys at the top of the draft. I'd like Saquon Barkley. But Chubb or Fitzpatrick would be great too.

I want an elite player. I don't want to move down, then try to move up or whatever.

Give me an elite guy.

Who I want, Barkley. It's too risky hoping to trade back up to get Guice (the only other RB I see as much of a difference maker to us). Give me Barkley. Let's get the offense some more firepower, and start making things exciting around here.

Bring back hte "Run Willie Run" rookie year, lol

It is so easy to fall into the trap that runners can be had later.

That you can use a committee of runners to accomplish your goals.

That runners have short careers. That great runners don't win championships.

All that talk goes out the window when you have a truly great back. A game changer. A guy who can beat you as a runner and receiver. Think Marshall Faulk.

Barkley is that kind of player.

As much as I would understand Chubb, Fitz, Ward.

When you can get a guy like Barkley 20 to 30 touches a game. Your whole offense changes.

A great receiver maybe on a good day catches 8 to 10 balls.
A great pass rusher maybe 3 sacks in a game.
A great DB two int's and some more defenses.

Believe me I know their impact is more than that on the plays they don't get stats from.

But Barkley on the field in 90% of the offensive plays causes big problems for any defense.

Dorsey most likely would take Chubb, Ward, or Fitz that is his MO.

Me, I 'm taking Barkley and for five or more years; I say "catch me if you can."

Let's look at last years class.

#4 draft pick, Leonard Fournette - 268 rushes for 1040 yards. 3.9 yards per carry. 9td's.

#86 draft pick, Kareem Hunt - 272 rushes for 1327 yards. 4.9 yards per carry. 8td's.

When you add in his receiving stats he accumulated over 1700 yards and three more TD's.

What does that have to do with Barkley?

Hunt did great and he was a late pick?

Fournette was a 4th and was not as good?

I can site all kinds of picks and when they were drafted vs their performance.

Elliot, Peterson, Faulk, Tomlinson.

Each case stands alone.

Of course "finds" at all positions have been found late. Has nothing to do with Barkley and what he brings.

Assuming we take our QB @1.
If Bradley Chubb is off the board, then by all means, I would be looking to field calls on trading back, but still try to stay within the top 9 picks if possible.
With FS Derwin James as my target and a top 10 talent in this years draft class.

I would not take Saquon Barkley @4. He has all of the physical skill sets, but his tape shows that he is mentally immature at the position and will often times not stay on schedule by not taking what the defense gives him, which is an indication of thinking in the moment, rather then the concept of the design play. I know some will think that I might be nit picking, but those mistakes he has on tape, will not be so easy to mask on Sunday's.

The talent at RB this year offers some good options later on.
I don't see a rookie RB taking 3rd down reps from Duke either.

Don't sleep on Nick Chubb.

In conclusion my first choice would be to take Bradley Chubb @4, but the only other player I might consider there would be Nelson and thats really off script for our needs.

"mentally immature" - brilliant.

In layman's terms...he has a low positional IQ. He does not press the crease before bounching out side. He is not adept at reading the blocks of his OL in respect to defensive positioning. His pass protection set is too wide and outside and he leads with shoulders and head down, before useing his hands.

In short he has the same tool box to work with as did some of the names being associated with him, just a few less tools to begin the job with.

It's quite simple my friend. The horse that is often the favorite doesn't win the Kentucky Derby. I'm not convinced in the value of Barkley at #4 given such a heavily laden RB draft class.

That along with the fact that it seems Dorsey did a fantastic job of finding more productive RB talent later in the draft. This isn't the QB position.

If you actually think he's the next Zeke or AP you may have a point. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing that. My take is a lot closer to Fl Dawg than most on this board.

Well maybe I am wrong about Barkley.

Because I believe him to be really good.

From what I have seen others have him as the best player in the draft. So I guess it is all a matter of perception.

It most likely does not matter. I seriously doubt that Dorsey takes him.

I'm going to skip the 4 pages and go with HELL to the NO! The Browns NEED QUALITY players. I think we can all agree that there WILL be quality available at #4. Stop screwing around and trying to outsmart everyone (because that has worked SO well in the past). Take the stud at #4 and don't look back. Period.

That's the fun in all of this. We all have differing opinions and only the future will tell how it works out.

The thing with Quan .. he breaks everything outside cause he is simply a better athelete and faster than everyone else ... he wasn’t forced to learn how to run inside and all that goes with it cause he NEVER HAD TO DEVELOP THAT SKILL ...

I am 100% on board with Fla. .. said it since the beginning .. its went over well so far ... ...

Who knows if he can or will develop that skill ... i have NO CLUE ... what i do know .. is hes not going to outrun everyone in the nfl ... NOT A SHOT IN HELL ...

I think whoever drafts him will be dissapointed ... but i been wrong before and more than likely will be again ...

Barkley is unique because there just is not another RB who is comfortably built at 230lbs and can run a 4.40 or better. With excellent hands. The combo is unique and can possibly make all other skill positional players on the offense better. Which is why he is being considered.

I do think it will be do we go Offense or do we go Defense. Haley vs. Williams as they will express their case to Dorsey.

Whoever we take and I seriously think its going to be between Barkley on the O or Ward on the D. I hope we don't trade back further than Denver's #5 pick.

jmho

I think it's more complicated than that. Diam and Fl. gave great information as to why I feel the selection of Barkley should be questioned. I also believe there are other storng considerations for the number 4 pick.

I believe a case could be made for both Fitz and Ward at #4. Much the same as you do Ward. Now I'm not saying that either of those two will be our selections. But what I am saying is I just don't think that it's the slam dunk of Bark or Chubb some people make it out to be.

The only people we are really hearing from are supposed draft gurus and media types. I don't put as much faith in that as some do.

For a good contrast to Barkley, take a look at the tape of both Georgia RBs' Sony and Chubb.
Both have high position IQs'.

Either would make for a great RB by committee for this team without giving up a #4 selection.

The media will have their darlings, year in and year out.

Why would we go Ward over Minkah Fitzpatrick?

Because he is the best CB in this draft !!!

With the signings of Currie and Gaines, I don't think drafting a CB is that much more valuable to us than a FS/Situational Corner (which is what I think Minkah is).

And I think Minkah is a better player.

As I see it, there's three top players that aren't QBs. Three guys who have elite level talent. 1) Saquon Barkley . 2) Bradley Chubb . 3) Minkah Fitzpatrick.

I hope we draft one of those 3 at 4. Denzel Ward looks pretty good, but I just don't think he's at those guy's level. I'm looking for elite

You didn't watch many Buckeye games I take it, you have a right to your opinion, but this guy isn't only the best cover CB but he is a come up and knock you out CB ...

I’m not sure what u think we got in Currie or Gaines ... but we can definetly use 1 if not 2 starting caliber cb’s ...

I’d much rather have WARD THAN CHUBB for that reason alone ... i still have no clue why folks want to draft someone that would amount to a situational player with us ...

Just like at QB ... we’ve IMPROVED by leaps and bounds but were still not there yet ... same thing at CB ...

I've seen a bit of video on him. He's definitely not afraid to hit, which I like. In that sense it reminds me of Joe Haden (who I really wanted for the Browns at 7).

If we were picking around 7, i'd be all for it. But this is the first non-qb we'd be taking.


I just think there are better players. Minkah Fitzpatrick I noticed before ever even hearing of him. He's a three year starter at Alabama. I don't think I like him as much as I liked Jamal Adams (another player who I keyed in on before reading about in draft anything), but he's still very good.

Minkah would be an awesome compliment to Jabril Peppers. He can cover TE's, cover the slot, be a stud in the red zone, and can play the deep zone need of FS's


I'm not sure why his name has sort of dropped a little lately. Minkah is a really good player. Nothing changed there. He ran the same 40 speed as Joe Haden about, so, it's not like he's slow or anything. He's a good athlete and a very good football player.

I get a good feeling about Minkah the same way I did about Joe Haden. Guys I've seen for multiple years stand out in the SEC. They just impress me

Another factor with Minkah - he's had mad props from Nick Saban ... has a s.m.a.r.t football mind. I'd love him at 4. I think more so than Chubb or Barclay - but I'd take any one of them.

https://www.seccountry.com/alabama/minka...ick-saban-smile

https://www.seccountry.com/alabama/nick-saban-alabama-football-minkah-fitzpatrick

Yup, I want one of them.

I want an elite player. Those three have the best chance of being elite.

Minkah could be a mix of Jalen Ramsey and Earl Thomas. Bradley Chubb would be a crazy tandem on the opposite side of Garrett, with Ogbah subbing in and out (although Ogbah might have to play LDE. Seems to be his spot. But it could be made to work)

And Saquon Barkley looks like a blue chip RB prospect. All-around great player. He's like a bigger stronger Marshall Faulk

From what I see the second tier goes to past 12 players, but the two linebackers wouldn’t have as much impact.

hi IQ, funny not one analyst, GM, ex GM, coach, ex coach has said so.

How bout Georgia had a well rounded team. Penn State wa a one man Army.

either or for the D I would be happy but my thought process on why the Browns would go Ward.

1. All Fitz tooters are proclaiming hes a FS, they dont get taken early.

2. Actually I am one of the few saying we take Fitz it will be to play CB not FS.

3. If that is the case I think Ward is the best CB in this class.

4. 4.32 Speed. Dorsey has a love affair for speed.

Well that is my thought process.

If you knew what they look for in grading a RB, then you might be singing a different tune.

Your opinion is based off of fan emotions, not actual scouting.

I’m in the boat to take Chubb at four if he’s there, he is IMO the best defensive player in this draft, I’m with FL_Dawg on Barkley, he’s got gifts any RB would want but the decision making concerns me, and you can get similar production later in the draft, plus Dorsey likes a “running back by vomited” approach, I’m also not nearly as high on Fitz as most are, I get that he’s smart and versatile, I just don’t see special there, something seems to be missing when I watch his tape, can’t really place my finger on it. But my choice at 4, assuming we stay, is a no-brained to me Chubb.

I agree, and conventional wisdom says; you don't pass on pass rushers in the Draft.

Agree with your opinions. We can get a good RB later on but not as good a pass rusher as Chubb. JMO

To me, I always try to break it down to production, what production will you get with the high draft pick vs. what you get with a second, third, or even fourth rounder. How does each draft balance out as far as what positions are deep and which ones are thin.

When Drafting a RB high in the Draft; you look for a player who can stay on the field on third down and thats when pass protection comes into view. It is less of a factor after the first round.

I agree, it just a question, how does that factor into the “running back by vomited” approach Dorsey has said he likes? I see them wanting to have Duke on the field on third downs in some capacity.

Absolutely, Duke fills that role, so another RB might not be projected, but for the early downs. This Draft has a number of prospects that can fill that role for us after the first round.

Another thing I've pointed out before. Dorsey found Kareem Hunt at pick #76 in round three who outperformed Fournette by a long shot. With that type of success, why would he suddenly be convinced to invest high on a RB?

Hunt averaged 4.9 yards per carry for over 1,300 yards and 8td's. He added three more TD's and over 400 yards as a WR. Well over 1,700 total yards of offense.

I know we're looking a for a bigger type back and Hunt doesn't fill such a role, but if you had that kind of success finding a RB later in the draft, I find it hard to believe he would just go in the opposite direction at the position.

I was pretty high on Hunt before that Draft, so I wasn't one of them that was surprised by his success.

I agree that it is a good sign for us going forward.

I find it odd that so many X football players, become analyst and fall for the same media darlings, year in and year out.

Many claim that we would be stupid to pass on Barkley @1.

Call me stupid

Didn’t Dorsey also fine knile davis and that othe rrb kc has?

Really? ... Nick Saban allowing him to be the FIRST and ONLY player to watch film with the coaches on Sunday

AND

His teammates saying Saban PRAISES NO ONE EVER in front of the team .... again NICK SABANS BLESSING ...

That shouldn’t count cause none of the draft experts are talking about it ... ...

WOW ....

Based on the results of FA.

Barkley
Chubb
Ward
Fitzpatrick

Before FA Ward and Fitzpatrick would have been flipped.

That would probably mean that one of them would be there at 8. Anything more would be really risky.

Jamal Adams plays safety. He went four last yer

There up front talented draft classes an there are some that are not.
Trub...would not be going #2 in this draft.
There is a lot to do with draft facts then say Joe Shmo went #4 last year. Well how was the overall talent in that draft class?

Nelson the OG would go top 3 last year. This year?

LB, RB (not named Barkley) FS, TE, OG only go top5 in up front weak draft classes.

Hope I explained this well enough...You're a smart guy I think you will understand.

BPA. I think Ward is a better player at a more important position. And i have Derwin rated higher then Ward.

Talk about making stuff up (I know it was a mistake)

But that High IQ statement was to FL Dawg who was stating compared to Barkley, Georgia RBs have a HI RB IQ.

Where do you get Fitzpatrick out of that I don't know but if it makes you feel smarter. Go right ahead.

Ooooops ... i thought it was Fitz cause thats one of his strengths ... a MAJOR ONE FOR ME ...

I apologize for that ...

I don’t come here to make myself feel smarter tabber ... i made a mistake and mistook what u said ... but u just coldn’t resist taking yet another shot at me ... your turning into quite the sniper tabber ...

There certainly are some positions more important than others. I'd say the biggest being QB, DE, and LT (although, i wonder if the LT position isn't viewed as such a big deal now that a lot of edge rushers are rushing from the LDE position).

I'm actually interested on your take on that. Would you say the LT position has dropped a little in value?

I mean, in 2017, the first tackle taken was Garrett Bowles like at 20. And in 2016, Ronnie Staley was the first tackle taken at 6. Now a bunch of tackles were taken in 2016, and Laremy Tunsil had the photo before the draft smoking pot with the gas mask, but still...... And 2015 Brandon Sherrif was the first tackle off the board at 5.



Anyway, I guess we value what Fitz does a little differently. Because, I think he can play the deep zone, but will also be able to go up and play the TE's that are creating these mismatches.

I think Fitz holds a lot of value



I guess, I'll disagree with you on both accounts. And I like Ward and I like Derwin.

But my elite guys are still Chubb, Fitz, and Barkley.


FYI I like all three a ton. I'd be happy with any of them. I just think that Fitz is getting knocked a bit. Ward I'd put in right behind those three. But he's behind. I just think those guys are the elite group

I guess, I'll disagree with you on both accounts. And I like Ward and I like Derwin.

But my elite guys are still Chubb, Fitz, and Barkley.[/quote]No worries everyone has their own views. Oh, and I meant to type I have Derwin rated higher then Fitz not Ward.
I like all these guys. I have Ward rated higher then both Derwin James and Minkah because of positional value. For me an outside CB trumps a Safety.


Who is/why do you think Fitz is getting knocked?

I'm sorry, I said it wrong.

Not that he's getting knocked. I just feel like he isn't getting mentioned, or he's getting forgotten, instead for some other guys.


Maybe part of it is because we're so focused on QBs on this board, and a lot of that in the media, period

No worries.

I study up on all these prospects. I'm a draft nerd like that.

I have Ward as the top CB in my book and James is the best S.

And I love Fitz as a prospect. Had a long discussion with rastaplan about him.

Actually I think the product of LT is just less coming available not the position itself. The skill set for LT is still a RARE skill set which in turns make the position valuable cause there just are not enough out there for all to have.

College has Orlando Brown playing LT, he just will never be a LT in the NFL he doesn't have the skill set.

In this draft its not the value teams hold on LT that will have none taken early, its the fact that there aren't any real candidates that stand out.

jmho

Agree 100% .... same with McGlinchy the kid from ND ... hes a RT at best ... his lateral movement is not good ... bad feet ... but man is he big ... *L* ..

Been looking at Buffalo's Message board and they think they can get #4 for as little as a 1st, 2nd and 3rd and no future picks lol ... They are saying Cleveland always screws everything up (which was true) but they forget we have a veteran FO guy in Dorsey now ...

We'll see. A lot of my confidence in this FO circles around this number 1 pick

Regardless, we won't know for 3 years. That first pick won't play in 2018, then he will have 2019 as a "rookie" progression year, then 2020 will be his make or break when we actually find out what he has.

Personally, I think Baker Mayfield is the only QB in this class to challenge Tyrod Taylor in 2019. Sam Darnold could be on par with Tyrod, but if that's the case, why not just extend Tyrod? Everyone else has a steep hill to climb in my opinion.

MOST people would disagree with that, who's to say who is right and who is wrong? We won't know until 2020..no sense in arguing.

If Buffalo is drafting at #4 Cleveland has really screwed up!!!

CBS.Sportsline Link

1. Cleveland Browns
Josh Allen, QB, Wyoming: It's a coin flip for me on Allen vs. Sam Darnold. Part of me keeps coming back to how Allen is a perfect fit for what John Dorsey had with Alex Smith and Patrick Mahomes in Kansas City.

2. New York Giants
Bradley Chubb, EDGE, NC State: Gettleman wants to see a gold jacket type of guy when he takes him at No. 2. Chubb is that kind of guy.

3. New York Jets (from Indianapolis)
Sam Darnold, QB, USC: It's pretty bananas that the Jets would trade here assuming they are fine with any one of three draft prospects and that will work for them. But here they are, getting Darnold at three.

4. Buffalo Bills (via mock trade with Browns (from Houston))
Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA: This avocado-toast-eating intellectual benefits from avoiding Cleveland and landing in a spot where he can win the starting job right away.

12. Cleveland Browns (via mock trade with Bills (from Cincinnati))
Mike McGlinchey, OL, Notre Dame: The trade down pays off nicely for the Browns because they find a replacement for Joe Thomas in this spot.

22. Cleveland Browns (via mock trade with Bills (from Kansas City))
Derrius Guice, RB, LSU: And here's the argument for not taking Barkley in the top five. Trade down, grab a bunch more picks and come away with a quarterback, a left tackle and a running back of the future. John Dorsey will have praise heaped on him from high.

I don't think we're taking Allen #1 overall, but that's not why I'm pasting, otherwise this would go into the Mock Draft thread. This has the Buffalo trade here.

Assuming we did get our QB #1 overall, McClinchey and Guice + a 2nd rounder this year or a 1st next, would that change anyone's opinion on the potential trade?

I still want Chubb at #4, but if he's gone, do you draft Barkley or trade down to get a tackle+Guice like above.

Throw in our #65 we gave up for Tyrod Taylor and I'm with you ... It's the principle of the matter to me ...

I'd cry if we drafted allen at #1 and they would NOT be for joy. I would honestly rather not draft a QB than draft him.

#1 Take saquan
#4 Take chubb

alternate

#1 take Saquan
#12 Ward, Courtland, or BPA
#22 BPA

Anything but taking Allen at #1 overall

-jc-

My opinion: Stay at #4 unless you get that offer you can't refuse.


The Browns are in a possible unique situation. We have the ability to sit at number one, do our due diligence to find out which (if any) of the QB's in this draft is a Franchise QB and draft him.

Picks 2 & 3 look to be going QB if you believe many of the mock drafts and pundits out there. So the Browns can sit at #4 and still get the best player in the draft and hopefully the Franchise QB.

All the years of trading down to acquire assets was for a situation like this. I see no need to trade down. #4 is going to help this team win this year and hopefully will also be a perennial ProBowler.

Chubb and Barkley seem to be the two names people throw out at #4. I lean more toward Chubb because you can find quality backs in the second round. The drop off of RB's from Barkley to the 2nd round is not as far as the next guys behind Chubb.

Chubb and Garrett on that line....we can start putting tons of pressure on opposing QB's with the two of them.

But I would not be upset with Barkley and his dynamic play making ability. Just don't think RB's are critical in the grand scheme of things. Philly just won a SB and they don't have that elite RB. Ajayi was pretty much thrown off Miami.

JMHO

I'd agree with that.

I agree with that strategy given those circumstances, although I disagree with those selections.

We still hold the cards either way...
I still think that QBs' will go 1,2,3.

And the media darlings are typically chosen based on stats and highlight plays... Barkley has a ton of both.

Yes,...
It's a shame that he didn't come out a decade ago, because he is one hell'va good KO returner.

Also they are not paid to be right...

...that is assuming that they have not always been right.

CBS should stick to golf...lol

The Chubb Barkley debate cup runneth deep. MG's injury history warrants needs to be accounted for. I think I take Chubb, maybe.

You cant teach Myles Garett athleticism, and you may not be able to judge motor in a Chubb.

We need to define safe pick, because #4 is more than important

With the amount of draft picks we already have, could we make an educated guess and say, we will not trade with Buffalo?

Fitzpatrict, Chubb and Barclay could all be there when we are on the clock at #4. We need impact players. I think it would be a huge mistake to trade down. History should have taught us this. More does not mean better. In our case it has meant average. We need to get playmakers not just players.

What if Buffalo trades #12 and #22 to Indy to move up to #6.
Now that want to trade their 1st next year and a 2nd this year to move to #4?

You are still guaranteed to get one on of Barkley, Chubb or Fitz.

There in lies the rub, I think a move down to #6 is the max play, I think we stay put at the end of the day.

We will see if he doesn't play this year. You seem to forget this is Cleveland. We get our QB's killed at a record pace. We can go from our first stringer to a guy off the street in a heartbeat. Kessler wasn't supposed to play his first season either... Or we could go 0-6 0-7 etc. Then starting the kid to get him some experience might seem like a better idea...

If Barkley is there I take him, If he isn't then if Chubb is there I take him, if both are gone then I'd take that trade. We could set our offense up for the next decade. Notice I said could... not a guarantee. But if it works out, having an elite running back in our division is a very good thing. If he is gone, and that is a possibility, then Chubb is a pretty damned good consolation prize. Bookend stud DE's is also a good thing to have. If it works out we could have a killer D line for many years to come. In our division that is a really good thing to have. Stuff the run and sack a lot of QB's. At #4 we are in the exact same situation as when we took Joe Thomas. It was a choice between Adrian Peterson and Joe Thomas. Either way you win... Both had awesome careers and both will be in the HOF. I think between Chubb and Barkley we will get one hell of a football player. Both seem to be into football and are excellent people off the field as well. I really don't want to trade back. It would take one hell of a package for me to say yes. The QB of the future plus either Chubb or Barkley? That is a winning draft right there. Then three more picks in the 2nd? If our new GM and front office people do their jobs right for a change we could get a lot better very quickly.

I still stay at 4. There is no guarantee I would get the player I want at 6. I might have to settle for my 2nd choice, I am tired of trading down and not getting my 1st choice. The Browns have a chance to get their 1st 2 choices in a QB and a positional player. This chance hopefully will never come again.

I could see something like that happening. I see 6 as the lowest we would go. Getting a 2nd or 3rd this year and a first next year and still get a quality player this year sounds great.