Never too early to talk about the draft. Should the Browns make a trade with the Detroit Lions for their 3rd pick in the 1st RD and take Tula?

I’m not ready to give up on Baker, despite a poor year and downward trend. Give him a stud OT and good coaching and see what happens

I still think Baker can be a very good QB. Even good enough to get us deep in the playoff.

I can't see an injury plagued QB surviving long here. Especially, if we're using picks on something other than OTs.

No.

What's a Tula?

Sorry. couldn't resist.

The price would be too great.

Oy vey.

While we're talking zany ideas, let's go for broke...Trade Mayfield, our 1st this year and in 2024, OBJ, Chubb, our 2031 3rd round pick, a conditional 7th in 2028 for Joe Burrow (aka the #1 pick in 2020).

Next, we fire Stefanski (mistakes happen), name Tressel and Meyer Co-GMs, hire Cowher as the HC, Bernie as OC, Joe Thomas as OL coach, get Bill Belichick to come coach the D because he's bored in NE. Have Josh Cribbs coach ST.

Super Bowl.

Nothing is going on with Baker until Stefanski gets to work with him.

We could use a backup is all.

Let's see what Baker can do with a real HC and a good O-line.

Stupid is as Stupid does.

NO if I trade up to 3 its because Chase Young is still on the board, or the best OT is on the board ...

I don't do this trade. If anything, I may be tempted to trade down with the Dolphins for their #18 and #26 (for our #10). Don't know whether I'd do that deal or not...would depend what else was thrown in.

No.

No.

I think we use FA more or trades with it. We gave away some decent people that we refused to use anyhow. Just because you can make something happen doesn't mean that you should.

Let's figure out what we most need. We seemed pretty scatterbrained last year IMO. But it is OK to be relentless and right.

First, do no (more) harm.

I would never trade down. All you do is pass on good to great players for average to crappy players..I think there will be a very good OT there at 10.

Then a very good S in the 2nd round.

What if a trade down is the difference between one good tackle and one crappy tackle or, option number 2, two above average tackles?

I'm not advocating for it, but, if it included getting 2 first rounders in return, I would have to consider it.

I think there could be very good OTs still on the board at say 26 (and 18).

Devin Bush (10th) got about a $19 million total contract.

Garret Bradbury (18th) got about $13 million total.


Montez Sweat (26th) got about $12 million total.

Anthony Castonzo got over $11 million for just last year.

Free agency is expensive.

Got to think about roster building, and the guys we're going to want to pay 2nd contracts to. Why overpay for worn out veterans?

Of course, we'd have to find a partner.

All depends on how the board sets up and the draft plays out.

That isn't true. You are fixated on a LT. Maybe the team is looking for another player at another position? My preference is to stay put and a top LT prospect is sitting there.

People like Becton. He is a manhandler for sure. He also got up to 370-380. He has shed some weight, but to me he has motivation to do so, the draft. Once he no longer has that motivation and has been paid, I am afraid he will blob out again. I would steer clear of him. Maybe in the 2nd round if there.

Connect the dots. You made it too easy, Grimm...

Having a LT that heavy with known weight issues would worry the hell out of me.

Orlando Brown Jr. worked out pretty well for the Ravens.

Don't look solely at the numbers, watch the tape. Watch the interviews.

Still look into the "weight concerns," but he might just be a genetic anomaly, though.

Agreed.



Outside of the top few picks the success rate of first round picks is basically 50/50 (or worse). Knowing that, it is better to have more picks rather than less picks.

Just because the Browns have been historically bad at drafting doesn't mean trading down is a bad strategy. Smart teams, like the Patriots and Seahawks, trade down almost every year.

The type of blocking scheme you plan to run has a lot to do with what type of LT and RT you need. A zone blocking scheme is not conducive to the "pancake, big boy" type. You need more agile blockers.

...you don't say?

I'll repeat again, watch the tape.

You'll see Becton pick up athletes in space.

Agile blockers are fine. Giant, agile freaks with length who can bulldoze people when needed are (can be) better.

I'm not saying Becton is the guy. But he's not a simple eval.

Think Orlando Pace potential.

He's not there yet, but that's the kind of clay an OL coach could be working with.

Miami may be coming after Tua, so I would make them pay their 18th, 26th, and a 3rd or 4th for our #10 only if these players aren't on the Board ... In This Order ..

1. Andrew Thomas OT Georgia
2. Isaiah Simmons OLB Clemson
3. Tristan Wirfs OT Iowa
4. Mekhi Becton OT Louisville
5. Derrick Brown DT Auburn
6. Grant Delpit S LSU

Miami also has the fifth pick.

I'm not seeing it. Becton is carrying a lot more weight than Pace did coming out for the draft.

Trading down is how the Browns got to be the Browns.

I do agree on becton. A guy that big is scary to me. He could balloon after a few good paydays. I'm not fixated on a left tackle. If there is not a great to very good LT there at 10 then we should get a good to very good player at another position. Say safety or LB. Not trade down for a couple of maybes.

Daniel Jeremiah Mock Link

He's the first OT taken at number 4 to the Giants here.

Trading down is also how the Patriots got to be the Patriots, the Seahawks got to be the Seahawks, the Colts got to be the Colts, . . .

Trading down is the right strategy. Unless you are going to hit on every pick. But if you are going to hit on every pick you'd probably want more picks and then you should probably trade down.

Addendum:

If there is a player you have ranked highly available at your pick then you should not trade down. Take that player.

Becton, Wills, Wirfs, and Thomas in the top ten.

And that's the issue with listening to people like Jeremiah. There have been so many times they've gotten it wrong in how the NFL evaluates players. If they were right a lot of times, players wouldn't have been sitting in the green room most of the night.

I like to "cherry pick" the analysts that agree with me when linking in threads.

I rarely take what they are putting out and accept it wholesale.

I hope occasionally people might place a higher value on an analyst's opinion when they might otherwise ignore mine.

Really just want people to have open minds and be willing to take multiple looks at players while trying to let go of preconceived notions.

Here's what Becton has been up to getting ready for the draft:

The draft process is the biggest interview these guys will ever face. They all do their very best to make the best possible impression they can.

I think the game film and college careers as a whole is the largest factor in the process. During his college playing days his fluctuation in weight has been an issue. It's obvious we aren't going to view this kid the same way.

Delpit will be available at 10. Likely at 18 and 26 too. When he's on, he's great. When he's not, he's not. He wasn't on much this year.

No.

Get some tackles later.

In the end I hope we set our board and stick to the board. If a player is there that we like and don't consider a reach, take him. If not and we have a trade down option that makes sense, do that.

There is no single strategy.

Way to many factors at play. Each year the characters and draft positions change.

So do a teams "needs". Even though most sing about BPA they are looking for BPA to intersect with highest need.

If you have your quarterback trading up early is super costly and not often done.

If you have late picks in the rounds moving around can work out.

Strategy plays out as the draft plays out.

Washington and Cleveland have made big changes.

This article raises some interesting options.

https://www.espn.com/blog/washington-red...ng-for-redskins

I have not looked at the draft yet. So I have zero input on the tackle prospects.

At this point BPA at ten could go a number of ways.

If Williams could be had for a second rounder he could hold that position down for at least two years. Leaving that ten pick open for other areas.

If however, at ten they saw a low risk LT that they felt could be a ten year starter then that changes things.

Yes the analytics say no quarterback in the past 20 years with 3new offensive coordinators has won 1 superbowl.

We would have to give up multiple 1st round picks and probably 2nd round as well. For a position we already have.

So a resounding NO for me.

Investing highly in a QB with a bad OL in front of him worked so well every time we've tried it before. Why not put a good OL in front of the QB we've already invested 1-1 in?

If MIA was interested in Tua, wouldn't they just pick him at #5?

Maybe they have so many needs and Tua could be there at 10 and they could get their QB plus another great player ... Just speculating its that time of the year

My guess is that if MIA thinks he is their QB they take him at 5 and not screw around.

No

Maybe... definitely if Chase Young is somehow still sitting there.



Not just No, but Hell No.

Just got back from being banned again , so I sat around thinking about OTs.You're right. That Becti is a Brute. I could see him at right T and a good FA at LT. Podesta and the GM would have to do some serious homework on this Kid (BECTI)I'm not sure i would trust them to really find out Becti's story.

I wouldn't touch Tua in the 1st round personally. Too many injuries and I am far too uncertain about how his hip will heal. In addition to how likely future dislocations will be.