I have been thinking about the trade downs that Sashi Brown made when he was in charge of the team a lot with regards to how they benefited the team (or not).

In 2016 we started off with the #2 pick, we traded that pick for picks 8, 77, 100, the Eagles 1st round pick in 2017, and their 2nd round pick in 2018. We then traded 8 and 176 (or own pick) to the Titans for picks 15, 76, and their 2017 second round pick. We also traded pick 77 (which we acquired from the Eagles) and 141 (our own pick) for picks 93, 129, and 168. We also traded pick 100 (acquired from the Eagles) for picks 114 and 154 (from the Raiders). So we started with pick #2 and ended up with picks 15, 93, 129, 114, 154, and 168 (along the Eagles 1st in 2017, the Eagles 2nd in 2018, and the Titans 2nd in 2017).

In 2017 we had the Eagles first round pick which turned out to be pick 12. We traded pick 12 to the Texans for pick 25 and their 2018 first round pick.

Here are all our selections made with the picks just from the trade downs:

15 Corey Coleman
93 Cody Kessler
129 Derrick Kindred
114 Ricardo Louis
154 Jordan Payton
168 Spencer Drango

25 Jabrill Peppers
52 DeShone Kizer

4 Denzel Ward




Not great. So we could have had just (A) Carson Wentz. Or we could have had (B) DeShaun Watson along with Corey Coleman, Cody Kessler, Derrick Kindred, Ricardo Louis, Jordan Payton, and Spencer Drango. Or we could have (C) what we have now (Baker Mayfield, Denzel Ward, OBJ (who we got for Jabrill Peppers) etc.). Which choice would prefer, A, B, or C? Knowing the players skews the results.



My greater point is this, if we were even league average at picking players under Sashi Brown (we were well below average) then these trade downs would be considered a massive success. One could probably argue they are even a massive success from where we sit right now. More picks is better than less picks.

As far as the 2020 draft goes, I would trade down and get more picks to build cheaply for the future if my preferred player wasn't available. Trading down is a sound strategy. It is a huge market inefficiency especially if you pick the correct players.

I think the only real problem I see with your above scenario is the use of the phrase "my preferred player". I don't believe a draft board is made up that way. I'm no expert at building a draft board, but what I can say is you have players ranked on your board. You have a list of players you feel are worthy of the #10 pick. If a player you have ranked at #7 falls to #10, that player is worthy of that pick.

By contrast, if you get to the #10 pick and have several players ranked very closely out of the players left on the board, you can trade down and get a player you have rated almost exactly the same a few picks down.

Draft picks are the best way to build cheaply. As has been shown many times, the odds of hitting on picks later in the draft are much less than earlier picks. The odds of hitting on impact players goes down drastically the further down you pick.

Sometimes more isn't actually more when you end up with less.

I think trading down is a good strategy at times. I certainly prefer to trading up.

With that said, I think the Browns have a window to win and that window is now. I truthfully think this team could win big this year. The main factor is how Baker plays. If he sucks again, the Browns won't do well. But, if he improves, this team can be very, very good.

We have some very good players on rookie contracts. We have outstanding talent in other guys like OBJ, Landry, Bitonio, Schobert[hopefully,] Tretter, Richardson, Hunt, etc.

I think the push should be to try and win now. I seriously doubt that Haslam will be patient enough to bypass winning and building for the future again.

I think when Wentz, Watson, Mahomes are on the board and you THINK they have a shot, it’s worth it to just draft them as opposed to trading down.

Of course, we didn’t know they’d be THIS good. But it’s demoralizing to see us trade back for crap and see Watson take off

The problem with this thinking is that people assume players would have been as good here as they ended up being where they were drafted.

Situation is often as big a determining factor as talent. If we'd drafted Michael Thomas instead of Coleman most people would probably think they'd have liked the Wentz trade more. But, we don't know that Michael Thomas would have had the same success with Kessler and Hue that he had in NO with Payton and Brees.

If we'd drafted Wentz he could have been an injury prone failure throwing to Kenny Britt and....Pryor?

Hopefully we do better evaluating and provide a better situation going forward. The two tie together, and I think we overemphasize the former.

I think that sounds like a fine rationalization for not drafting talent.

I've been watching the draft coverage and there is some talk about Tua at #2. Pretty much everyone agrees that you always take the qb if you think he can be the guy. It was a huge fail when we didn't get a qb when we had a chance. With that said, I haven't given up on Baker yet.

Okay, so you believe that the picks acquired from trade downs was below average (agreed), but you would be okay if this current staff was to do the same. (and I understand, and even agree with this philosophy),

But I am not okay with this current GM and FO, till which time (if ever) they prove capable of pulling it off.

An illustration of such a possible scenario.

1--Bengals
QB Joe Burrow

2--Dolphins
(From the Redskins)
QB Tua Tagovailoa

3--Lions
DE Chase Young

4--Giants
OT Mekhi Becton

5--Redskins
(From the Dolphins)
OT Jedrick Wills Jr.

6--Chargers
QB Jordan Love

7--Panthers
CB Jeff Okudah

8--Cardinals
OT Tristan Wirfs

9--Jaguars
LB Isaiah Simmons

10--Browns
Trade down

I'm glad that you are agreeing with me. It's nice when people are rational.

This what I meant by preferred player.



The probability of making successful picks is greatest at the beginning of the first round (around the top six picks). After that it starts to level out a ton. Having more picks allows you to increase your probability of having success. I'd much rather have a 25% chance on hitting on a pick three times instead of one time.

I believe trading down allows you to build for now and the future.

For example:

Trade down from pick #10 to pick #22. Draft the best player available. Pick up a first round pick for next year. The 22nd pick is nearly as likely to contribute on the same level as the 10th pick.

Getting future firsts are basically a lottery ticket. It's the reason we have Denzel Ward.

I’d be good with Thomas there

I think one thing you have to do is take the whole draft into account. The makeup of the pool of players coming out now vs coming out in the next year or two. As we've seen, even in just the last year or two, drafts can be heavy at certain positions, or be really good/suck in general. I think having a good understanding of where the current draft is and what's coming down the road can inform a good decision on whether or not to trade down, especially in the first couple rounds.

I really hope the Redskins and Trent work things out so that this doesn't happen.

As a lot of people do here, I think trading down can be a good strategy, in the right situation. For this year, I think trading down would not be the best move. The trade down/ get more picks is better for a team totally bereft of talent. Which, I think is not the case with the 2020 Browns. We are getting to the point where a draft consisting of three good picks is enough to get the team well on the way to more success.

Like I said earlier, I believe in trading down at times. It depends on your board. I am not a fan of trading up, unless you are a qb away from being very good.

Didn't we get Ward when we traded the 12th pick for Watson? And didn't Watson tear his ACL as a rookie? I don't think we get Ward if Watson doesn't get hurt.

I am not saying what the Browns should do because I don't know what their board looks like and who will be available. However, I don't think it's very intelligent to go into a draft planning to trade down.

I don't think this is true. Teams like the Patriots and Seahawks trade down almost every year.



Are you more likely to make three good picks if you have more picks or less picks?

It depends on who is doing the picking.

Even the best drafter is barely hitting at a 50% rate on first round picks.

It depends on the location of the picks. You have a better chance of getting talented players with higher picks. So three top 15 picks will probably get you more talent than 5 second and third rounders.

Obviously having many high first round picks would be better than having more more later round picks (as you said).

But having the tenth pick versus having the, for example, 22nd pick is not much different especially considering the value of the extra picks you would get from trading back.

We too often draft with fear...fear of making the WRONG pick and being ridiculed by the media. Hence, Myles Garret over Patrick Mohomes. Garret will never win a SB for us, Mohomes already has. Enough said.

Draft the damn player you WANT...enough of this BS trying to score more picks.

Patriots are the masters of the draft....follow their lead.

I think, for this draft only, staying put would be the better plan. Simply because our need dovetails with the top ten slot. In another draft, sure, I agree that value always warrants at least a hard ponder.

I think one lesson from our recent past should be to NOT assume that more picks are better than fewer picks.

The trades were good the picks were bad.

If we had Will Fuller, Justin Simmons, Tyreek Hill, Halapoulivaati Vaitai, Derek Watt, and Anthony Brown instead Corey Coleman, Cody Kessler, Derrick Kindred, Ricardo Louis, Jordan Payton, and Spencer Drango in 2016 people would love trading down.

Or because there are so many good tackles a quality one will fall lower in the draft and we would be able to get one if we trade down.

I don't mind a trade down if I feel I can still get a really good player, but in the case of Sashi, I think we dropped too far. But it was a bit different then. We were looking to add picks.

I don't think that is the driving force today. We have a team with some talent on O and underachieved last year. My feeling is we are in build mode. That doesn't mean we can't or won't trade down where it makes sense, but we do need to add good players who can step in and help.

I fully expect we will draft one of the top OT's and probably follow it up in the 3rd with a interior Olman. Maybe another
tackle.

We are close on O. We are miles away on D. Even though I am a build the D first thinker, Dorsey wasn't, so the smart thing to do in my mind is finish what Dorsey started on that side of the ball. Scoring more points next year is going to bring us more wins because the D is going to give up points.

Free agency will determine much

That sums it up. The strategy wasn't flawed, the people we selected were.

That is what scares me, cause when Sashi was here he said he what let the Scouting Department and Coaches do their jobs and that he would only step in if there was a disagreement on a player so unless there was a lot of disagreements those picks were on Berry.

Trading down is only appropriate if you have extremely competent talent evaluators like John Schneider in Seattle. Belichicks strength is his ability to get players that fit his systemand his excellent coaching.

Teams like the Browns should never trade down because frankly there hasnt been 1 GM in 20 yrs that has proven they know what they are doing

Agreed. I think it's a huge concern regarding the drafting ability of the new FO. It's not like we don't have any history on them.

Hell, last year I didn't even follow the draft because I just trusted that Dorsey, Highsmith, and Wolf would do a good job.

I haven't been following it this, either. But, that is mostly because I am already taking blood pressure pills and don't want jeopardize my health after the draft.

I like Herbert the QB from Oregon. Hes a great athlete. Good passer. If hes there at 10, the Browns should consider drafting him, unless they wanna tank for Lawrence next year

I watched enough of Herbert to not want any part of him. Christian Ponder 2.0.

Trading down in the late 20's + pick range (ala Patriots, Seattle) is much easier than when you're in top 10, because the available talent difference tends to be much less.

I think the talent drop from ten to twenty two is much less than the talent drop from two to ten.

Herbert is a dud.

That’s my gut feeling too to be honest. I think he’s gonna be a bust

If the guy is going to trash Baker, he shouldn't counter with Herbert. My goodness. I am as down on Baker as anyone, and I take him all day, everyday, and twice on Sunday compared to Herbert.

Goodness gracious. Some sanity would be nice.

Agreed. Then again, the discussion that Higgins is better than OBJ and Landry is even more preposterous.

Agreed.

I missed this. Where is that happening?

I am not sure how one can determine that the strategy of trading down was good in the specific case that it results in the selection of poor talent. "Winning the draft strategy" by trading down is of absolutley no interest to me if we do not come away with players so that we ultimately end up winning games.

Of course, if we picked better players after a trade down then the strategy would have been a winner. However that is the case whether we choose to trade down or not. Perhaps I am missing something.

Go Browns!

Sorry. I agree that Higgins isn't better than Landry or OBJ. Not sure where or who is saying otherwise.

Got it.

I think Vers was trying to spin some group narrative or something.

Shocking.

Giggity.

If their tackle is there, they will grab him. If not, I think a trade back is a serious consideration.

Or Simmons (which I doubt). I expect our FO to play this draft conservatively, but still impart their approach. If our guy is not there at #10, sure, trade down a bit. I do believe it is quite likely that we trade back up into the bottom of the 1st using our 2nd and one of our 3rd's...

versatile, if you could direct me to that conversation I would like to put anyone who thinks Higgins is better than Jarvis and obj on my ignore list. thanks

Fl, if we pick there at 10 we get either a starting left tackle (Thomas) or a starting d tackle (brown). I do not see how we can pass that up.

Because no one actually knows if either of those players will be good in the NFL.

I think it all depends (obviously) on who is on the board and what the offer is.

Basically it boils down to something like - which improves the team more? And then you have dozens of potential scenarios:

- Thomas -or- Josh Jones & Patrick Queen ?
- Thomas -or- Delphit and Kinlaw ?
- Thomas -or- Austin Jackson and Queen and Chinn ?
- Brown/Thomas -or- Ezra Cleveland, Winfield and Jonah Jackson?


There was an argument made that our OL last year was not as bad as most thought ... we have 1 huge upgrade at RT. If we added an interior upgrade like Jonah Jackson with a 2nd round pick .... and then got the 6-7-8-9th best OT who might be better at run blocking than pass protection .... I think it's fair to say that OL is going to be light years ahead of what we had 2019.... and it gives us a ton of options at 10 including trading down.

Just talking out loud as I'm very intrigued by all the directions we could go in.

I wouldn't trade up. If a player we have highly rated is there at #10 then take him. However, if the players we have rated high are not there at 10 then I would trade down but no lower than the 20-25 range. It all depends what our board looks like and how we have guys rated.

There's a difference in how the OL played as an overall unit and how each position was measured. Both of our OT positions were horrible. IMO the worst of all was LT. The best of the worst of them was Gregg Robinson. And if that's the best we had, that should speak volumes in how much an upgrade is needed there.

The problem is, we have nobody to play that position now. It's not like we have a couple of years to develop a guy into becoming a starter. There are a couple of options out there. I mean a 38 year old Jason Peters is out there. People may disagree with me, but at 38 I'm not even sure he will be any better than Robinson was.

Then you have Trent Williams. But man, that's going to take a lot of money and assets. No, something has to be done to address a starting LT.

Agreed, good sir Agreed.

We can't just look at it as the draft assets, we also have to look at it as financial assets and future financial planning

j/c:

A reminder. The Browns were ranked 17th in pass blocking by PFF last year. That's not great. However, it is not as awful as board members make it out to be.

j/c:

Eh, i'm not a huge PFF guy. A lot of what i go by is what i see.

The offense as a whole was a mess. But our tackle positions needed to be upgraded.

One has been done. The other, needs to be done.



I am fine with the RG situation. I dunno why people bring that up. I liked Wyatt Teller. And i'd like to see what Drew Forbes can do


EDIT: That hit Bud Dupree put on Baker in the second Steelers game was enough for me. It was against Justin McCray, but still. I saw that and said, okay that can't happen again. In all the years of Joe Thomas, i never saw our QB get blindside hit like that. I've seen Colt McCoy knocked out by James Harrison, but that was on the other side verses like Kevin Schaffer or something.

I wonder if we think Thomas will be taken ... or we prefer a tackle that we know will be available in the teens

At this point, I think it is just doing due-diligence.

Talk to everyone, find out what you can get from them for trading down, then sit and wait for the Draft and see who falls to you.

I think it may hint that we don't view there as being 4 or 5 Top 10 Offensive Tackles, though. I think we perhaps see two that are Top 10 worthy and the rest are, well, lower.

The obvious right strategy every time.

I agree with that - they see 2 and both may not be there (Thomas and Wills, I think). Trade back, pick up some more draft capital and trade back in.

Just get the picks right.

That is absolutely wrong.

If you are drafting #10, and there is a big dropoff between the top 10 players and everyone else, you take the top 10 player. 2 average players do not make up for losing out on an elite player.

The problem with this is thinking you know if a player is elite or not.

Exactly - you are assuming #10 is Elite.

Depending on your definition of an 'elite' player, seldom, if ever, do you get a truly elite player at #10. I'm generalizing here, but each draft has only approx 5 players that can be considered elite. From there down to the end of the 1st round, the quality goes from very good descending to solid starter. There is not a big dropoff once out of the top 10. There of course will be an exception or two that 'fall', but do so for a reason. This is my opinion gleamed from many years of following the draft...

Hopefully that's a smokescreen and they realize the window is now. Talent over bodies matter at this point.

I agree. We are no longer starting a massive rebuilding program, but rather we are at the point of needing to fill/upgrade a few positions. At this point, I'll gladly take 2 quality starters over 6 good-to-journeyman types...

Interesting to note that Seattle has not picked in the 1st rd since 2012. (I heard this on NFL Network this morning and have not confirmed it). Talk about trading down...

I’ll believe it when I see it.

When you suck at evaluating talent like our FO did before Dorsey took over, trading down is probably a good idea because you're most likely going to make a terrible choice anyway.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.ph...nd-#Post1753217

This thread is more you speed.

Everyone sucks at picking players. If you go by the whole draft the league has something like a 30% success rate on picks. The top of the first round is better (around the top eight) as far as hit rate but it's still only around 50%.

If you know you are going to miss on a certain percentage of picks then having more picks is better because you are increasing your chances at drafting a quality player. It's simple probability, you'd rather have three 30% chances instead of one.

As I've said many times I'd trade down every year if I didn't need a QB and there is not a QB I like available. I'd especially trade down if offered a first round pick. Getting those first round picks is so valuable (as we saw with the Texans pick that we got). They are basically a lottery ticket that can turn into a bonanza. Imagine we traded down with the Vikings (who have the 25th pick) and then Kirk Cousins got hurt. They then have to start Sean Mannion and we get a top five pick. We then take a great player with a higher hit rate or trade down and get a boatload of picks.

It seems every year there are 7 to 10 really good to great draftees.After that the drop-off is steady.If we have a chance at a really good to great player then take him. All this trade down crap is 6-10, 7-9 BS.

NFL Network said Denver may trade with the Browns trading #15 for #10 ... NO NO NO

How do you know if you are getting a good to great player?

How come the Patriots always trade down if it’s 6-10/7-9 BS?

Because why?

Take the pick at 10. Sheeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Because why? 1. Why would we trade down? or 2. Why would I not want to trade down?

1. I think this FO would trade down for the right price, and if they like a LT further Down I guess I would be ok with it, but that means no Andrew Thomas ...

2. As for me not wanting to trade down, I want the best LT we can get, and I would be more willing to trade up than down to get Andrew Thomas ...

Sure, we should keep trading down. We can get our starting Left Tackle in the 2nd or 3rd round. Why take a 1st rounder at all? We can build an entire team with low round picks as long as we take 500 of them. lmao That philosophy has worked out SO well here...

If a tackle that fits our scheme is there at ten you RUN to the phone and TAKE him! You don't get fancy and try to out-think everyone. If your starting LT for the next ten seasons is available you don't play Russian roulette with the pick. You take him and consider yourself lucky. IF the tackle that is there at #10 is NOT a fit and no other player there fits what you want to do... THEN and ONLY THEN do you talk about trading down. I find it hard to believe that not one single player left at #10 would really help this team. If this front office gets cute and messes this up we will be right back looking for another staff this time next year. Take a quality player at #10 that can help us and then do so in the 2nd and 3rd. If they do that I will be happy. 3 really good players from this draft and I'll jump for joy.

Pats have BB and are usually in the 30s. Oh and a guy named Tom Brady.

That doesn’t answer the question at all.

Also, you didn’t answer the other question.

Teams don't know if players are good when they draft them.



Are you more likely to select three really good players with more picks or less picks?

how do i know we are getting a good to great player at 10? We don't for sure but the.. odds are a hell of a lot better.

Should we have traded down on Joe Thomas and picked up a LT in the 3rd round?

Our roster is pretty strong. We don't need a bunch of average players. Go get the really good ones, but we won't because Cleveland loves their Draft picks

And this one is more your speed.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1732412/son-of-goofy#Post1732412

Read an interesting article today looking back at the 2015 draft, and it just re-affirmed my belief that it is usually the smart move to trade back if possible.

Only seven 1st round players are still with the team that drafted them, and only one out of the top 10 (Scherff), and he got moved to Guard.

The top 10 picks:

J. Winston
M. Mariota
D. Fowler
A. Cooper
B. Scherff
L. Williams
K. White
V. Beasley
E. Flowers
T. Gurley

I see 6 bust, 3 hits (but most not with the team that drafted them), and 1 just ok (Beasley).

That's the problem...no one knows who is going to be good. It really is a crapshoot with most of the players, especially with injuries that can pop up.

It is definitely better to give yourself more chances, period.

I'm okay w/your opinion, but using that particular draft seems fishy. Why 2015 and not 2016? Or 2017? Or 2008? Or 1997? I have no idea how any of those other drafts worked out, but using one draft class sends off warning bells in my head.

I will also say that we have traded down before. We didn't get Wentz and ended up w/Corey Coleman. We passed on Watson and ended up drafting a box safety in Peppers. You can find a guy like that as a late round or even in an undrafted free agent signing.

I think there are times to trade down. I would rather do that than trade up. However, I think we should be able to get a very good player at 10 and we want to acquire impact players while our young nucleus are on their rookie deals.

Of course, those things are just my opinions.

Better than what? How much better?

(Hint: The difference between the 10th pick and the 15th pick and the 25th pick isn't that great.)



Depends on a deal we would have been offered. Also, the third overall pick is very different than the tenth overall pick. You are probably picking the second best non-QB in the draft if you are picking third.



Drafting really good players is hard. A team will have a better chance drafting really good players if you have more picks.

I agree. That doesn't mean you can't trade down.

Every situation is different.

Like I said, it was just an article I saw recently looking back at that draft, and the takeaways from it.

I think it's interesting to look back 5 years at a draft and see where all the players are at now, since all 1st rounders get a 4-year contract with a 5th-year option. The Browns aren't they only ones that can't hit on draft picks...actually, the 2 Browns picks that year (Shelton and Erving) ended up at least doing well, but after they left the Browns.

Here is the article

J/C

I'm not a fan of trading down right now, in general. I think, where the talent level of the team is right now, we need a couple better players than a platoon of good players. We have a couple very specific holes vs an overall team talent issue. I think this situation lends itself to less, higher draft picks vs more lower draft picks.

In this particular draft, I think our chances of landing a very good to elite level player at 10 (and at a position of need, at that!) is pretty good. I think if we trade down, then that will mean picks 1-9 worked out perfectly against us, and I will be very disappointed. I'm rooting for as many QBs to get picked before us as possible.

I absolutely agree. Only way i think we should consider trading down is for something like a 1st rounder

I sort agree with both posts - with this caveat: If Simmons or Brown is there, don't trade down. If they are not there and the "best" OT on the board is Becton/Jones/Austin and the other BPA are WR or CB then trade down.... There are a couple of very good LB's and Safeties that will have a major impact for the team - and they should be available in the 20's. I'd rather trade back and take one of them than WR,CB,Becton,Jones,Austin at #10. . . . in fact there are 2 safeties and 2 LB I'd be happy with in the 20's so odds are high that you can drop back and still take an impact player for the team.

I spent a significant amount of time yesterday doing my own little evaluation of Becton. Barring information that we just don't have, I'm comfortable with Becton at 10.

He's still number 4 in line for me. But closer to Wirfs than he was before. So my rankings haven't changed, just, Becton is a solid pick at 10 for me.

Guy's a beast. And Callahan would be a great coach for him.



I must say, while we haven't seen any games and i'm not familiar with Van Pelt and Woods, I have a lot of faith in Stefanski. He just seems organized. Berry does too.


I really hope we give them a real shot. They seem to have their stuff together.



I do think the Williams talk is a contingency plan. I think that's what Berry wants, contingency plans. He seems very organized. Preparation is key. Every decision thought out. Never wants to be caught off guard. That's good.

But, this might be just because he does a very good interview

J/C...

I'm pretty sure we have around 3 guys that we are targeting. If it doesn't go our way then I can see us trading back as possibly the one target left is a person that will be taken at the end of the first round rather than top 10. We aren't going to "SETTLE"

I'm so happy all of you know how our draft will be going and how successful or in many cases UNSUCCESSFUL it will be. Wish I was as clairvoyant as you all...smh

To compare us with previous regimes is unreliable as there has never been the combo of Berry (experienced) along with Stefanski and DePodesta. These are our think tanks for the draft.

Our board is made and we won't be fishing like all these mock draft experts have us doing. Either our guys are there.
And I think our Top guy is Wills. If not we might trade back to a spot where we know the next top guy on our list not taken will still be there.

jmho Berry is doing his due diligence to know what is out there just in case when we pick the most advantageous scenario is a trade back and he has it all lined up.

I don't know about Becton. The size is a double edged sword and might help him to be a beast - it might hamper him if he gets nicked up etc... and the improvement he needs sort of reminded me of Ereck Flowers in the Link Orange posted. I don't think we need to risk anything for what might be "great" if we can get a safer "really good" .... But I have seen mocks with Becton as the 1st OT off the board so who knows?!

I agree with these last 2 points 100%. No idea how Stefanski is going to be as a HC - but he most certainly seems like his level of preparedness is very high, including having as many contingencies covered as possible.... and yes, until we play Sundays, it could simply be that he's a good interview

Main reason I consider trading down is I really like Winfield, but think he's gone before our second pick.

I think the top OTs also might be overhyped some. Would have loved to see Chase Young matched up against any of them. I don't think the top 4 are bad. I think they may be benefiting from teams finding what they are looking for, rather than just seeing what's there.

I could see the Browns trading back not once, but twice in the 1st round, if our top 3 are not available at #10.

Trade back with Denver to #15 and trade back again with PHI to #21. Pick up another 2nd and a 3rd, hopefully more. If all the Ezra Cleveland rumors are to be believed, it is quite possible the Browns would trade back to #21 and take him, much to a lot of posters chagrin, ostensibly. Be advised.

We should trade do to #22 and take a QB.

It's worked so well in the past.

:The sound of fingernails on a blackboard:

LOL.....that was funny!

I dinno bout this Purp character sometimes.. wonder if we can trade him to the squealers board?

The answer is less picks.
I bet many thought the answer was more picks.
I'm 100% right and if anybody thinks opposite I suggest they open their thinking to understand how my statement is right.

Sigh, (I don't think people are going to understand, let me start to try to explain.)

See, really good players don't happen until they stick around a while, and nobody sticks around a while if they keep getting another version of a prospect to take their place in the development process of becoming a "really good player",
So If you only get 1 player, and actually develop their abilities to play winning football in your team over a course of maybe 3-4 years, and do that three years running,
then in about 5 years you'll get 3 really good players,
But
If you draft 30 players in 3 years and all of them as prospects don't get developed into "really good players" then you just have,
well, what the Browns do, usually. ( Zero really good players)

I'm so glad we have the system that brought the Browns DeShone Kizer as a Starting QB for a whole year, with little to no other options. NOT!

Or am I clearly wrong, and these (aren't) the guys and system that did that?

ok ok, as long as all remember this only rings historic if they somehow pick somebody early, in a pick before #22, and then trade some how back UP to pick #22, being the teams 2nd pick in that respective draft. (Just for clarification)

I guess I see our situation differently than a lot of other posters on this board.

We have talent on this team, and a lot of it is locked up for the next 2-3 years for cheap. After that, things are going to be a lot harder as we begin to resign some players to their 2nd contracts.

I know our record was poor last year, but our window to win is now. The way I see it, all these OTs will have a learning curve, especially in their first year, save Thomas, and I think his ceiling is the lowest of the 4.

I would much rather have Trent Williams for the next 2-3 years, since that is our window. Now, whether he would sign a 2-3 year contract, that is another question.

If you trade for Williams, Baker then has no excuses. He has arguably the greatest supporting cast in the NFL. Makes our decision on offering him a 2nd contract very easy; either he puts up numbers, or he doesn't.

And then it gives us options at 10. Simmons or Brown fall to 10? You take them. Want to trade back, pick up some draft capital for next year, and get a LB? Yes please. Maybe we get creative: trade 10 to Washington, who now needs an OT, and take their 1st round pick next year (could be pretty high again), along with Trent and their 2nd round pick (just an idea, don't kill me). The options are endless...I just hate being pigeon-holed into needing an OT in the draft.

Get Trent on the cheap and finish the offense. Don't bet on a rookie that is a crapshoot when your window is open now. Use the draft to bolster the defense, which is desperately in need of an influx of talent. That would be my plan.

There are probably a few more than you might think that think like you on Williams ... including me.

Me too

I am coming around on trading for Williams, mostly because I am not sold on any of the LT candidates. They might end up being great, but I think all have question marks.

I was against trading for Williams last year because Washington reportedly was wanting a first round pick and more for him. Plus, his salary demands were going to be a negative.

I proposed trading our second round pick [I think it is 41st overall] to Washington for Williams and their 3rd round pick [which I believe is 66th overall.] They do not have a second round pick.

I've gotten some feedback on the proposed trade, but I'm still uncertain if it would work for both teams.

It’s looking more and more likely that Thomas and Wirfs will be off the board ... at that point, I’m not reaching for Becton or Wills or Cleveland.

It also means Okudah or Simmons is there ... OR a QB/WR is there that makes a trade likely

If we decide to do the latter, trading for Williams becomes more appealing

At what cost? Pluto had a good article he just posted up. I agree with him, I just go with Jason Peters on a 1-2 year deal, trade back, then select a 2nd tier tackle who could sit behind Peters for a year or so. We don't have to give up anything for Peters. Just some money.

I don't want to select the 3rd or 4th tackle on our board at #10. That would be a reach, and reaching at #10 is stupid. Trade back a time or two, gain some extra for this year and next, then select a tackle if that is the desire. Josh Jones is a good tackle, and we can get him in the teens. Heck, Becton might still be on the board.

My thinking is we don't need the next Joe Thomas. You can never replace a guy like that but we can get a solid, competent player. You don't need the best. You just need good. I think about guys like Dieken and Paul Farren.

I think Diek made a few pro-bowl games, I don't think Farren did, but he did a good job protecting Bernies blind side. He started for 7-8 years and he was just a average Joe type player. We had good teams most of those years.

I'm with you on this (and Pluto) as far as signing Peters. Seems to make much more sense than trading for Williams. At least to me.

I'm also in the mood to trade back from #10 for more pick(s). It's the best and most logical move.

I am not being confrontational, but why do you think this?


On another note.........I am not sure how anyone can say it makes sense and is logical to trade down before they know which players are available.

I think there will be some surprises - possibly even before the #10 pick.... I don't think the media as such has a really good idea of who likes who. jmo - but for example, we have no idea which OT the Browns like. I have seen as many sports writers/mocks say Miami takes Herbert as Tua ... I've seen more and more mocks saying NYG will take a tackle in the last 5-6 days ... I think we simply don't know.

IF Simmons or Brown were to fall to #10 - both would have to be in play even without a deal for Williams in place. Glad we are so close to finally knowing and seeing this play out.

I agree. How can someone state we should trade down when we don't know how the picks have fallen ? It might make sense to actually trade up depending on how the picks are coming off the board. We are in a position to get impact players - our roster has a lot of talent and I think we need to add a difference maker or two as opposed to adding a quantity of average talent.

I want Simmons. I'm willing to trade up to get him if its a spot or two.

5 people liked that post...curious to which actually thought you were recommending investing in a QB for round 1 as opposed to liking the Joke of us targeting a QB at #22 a common occurrence in our recent past...lol

I actually don't disagree with you on Williams. I think he would be a good get, but the devil is in the details with bringing him in. What will Washington accept in a trade? What will Williams accept as far as a new contract? Where is Williams' health right now (this is minor, I assume)?

I have no problem putting together a stacked Oline for Baker and Chubb. But there's a cost involved, and I want to make sure we're not being taken to the woodshed by the 'skins and/or Williams.

I think in these long discussions sometimes the original comment or long explanation of the situation gets baked into the discussion.... you don't repeat on every single post "It depends" ... that becomes part of the equation.

I think that *obviously* if there is an impact player available at a position that helps the team at the slot you are drafting, and he's a target you wanted ... taking him is the preferred option. For me Simmons or Brown are two players I hope fall to us. If not them, and not the Browns first choice at OT ... then I am much more open to a trade down. If we can secure Williams and BPA is QB/WR/CB/OT ... then I trade down without doubt.

Some mocks see him getting closer to us at 10. Snatch him and immediately get the best remaining tackle. Or trade up for our best tackle choice and get back in for Simmons. Not looking for quantity to cut later. I am thinking impact that can cure under fire.

I agree in terms of [1] giving up too much in draft capital [2] messing up cap space for when contracts for young stars contracts are up .... but I am not worried about Williams potential high salary in the short term as long as the contract can be written so it doesn't hurt future cap space. I would also want it to be heavily tied to games played/started.

I'm a sucker for gambling on upside. I keep going back to Peters transitioning to Austin Jackson at LT, which makes much more sense after a trade down.

I'm not saying I'd actually do it if I were actually picking, but that's the temptation that keeps sticking in my mind.

Jackson's still young. He has dealt with a lot which I think uniquely prepares him for the random insanity that crops up in Cleveland. He's had a coach on the hot seat. He's had multiple young starting QBs in a season. He's had the health "challenge" after helping his sister. He's got all the natural talent and I think Callahan can train him up technically.

Having the experience of playing with a HC on the hot seat may serve him well if he is drafted by the Browns. At least history would indicate so.

I'm not completely against Williams, I'm just against paying through the nose twice for Williams. I don't care what anyone says - he's too old at the position for that.

So, if we can get him in trade for what amounts to chump change, I'm all for it.

If we wait for him to be a free agent, it's even better.


In the end, the only way I see us getting Trent is if we don't take a tackle at all. If we get Simmons and for some reason cannot land any other legitimate tackle, it is then that I think we'll go after Williams. It won't be the other way around where we do a trade first and then hope the draft falls the way we want it to.

If we do get a tackle at #10, I don't see us taking one we won't feel good about starting Day 1. In that case, there is little chance at all that we get Williams or Peters.

If we get a guy like Ezra that might be a starter part way through the season, or in season 2, then we're more likely to go with a guy like Peters than Williams.

I am one who "liked" that post and did it for the joke.
I would bet $1 that everyone else liked it for the joke too

My position for quite sometime.

Callahan coached him for four Pro Bowl years. He speaks very highly of him as a player, a person, and teammate.

He will be 32. He sat a year and according to reports is in very good shape. Williams at LT for the next two to four years IMO will be better than any of the big four.

Williams along with Conklin and our interior guys would make the OL formidable. Our run game could be dominate.

If Baker can't succeed with that in place along with our receivers; there will be no excuses.

If we get a shot at Simmons or Brown at ten. That is the proverbial deal you can not refuse.

If the Browns come out of this draft with Simmons and Trent Williams that the fastest road to success IMO.

We can then totally focus on BPA and development.

There are numerous players with the rest of the picks that can help improve the team.

just following some current team reporters. It seems like Thomas’ name has gained steam in the Miami/SD/JAX circles. Of course, it’s silly season so it’s all with a grain of salt.

I think the idea of a more plug and play OL is the safest bet for GMs

j/c,

Top 10 scenario

--Round 1 Pick (1) Bengals: 
Joe Burrow (QB) LSU

--Round 1 Pick (2) Redskins: 
Chase Young (DE) Ohio St.

--Round 1 Pick (3) Lions: 
Jeff Okudah, CB, Ohio St.

--Round 1 Pick (4) Giants: 
Jedrick Wills Jr. (OT) Alabama

--Round 1 Pick (5) Dolphins: 
Tua Tagovailoa (QB) Alabama

--Round 1 Pick (6) Chargers: 
Andrew Thomas, OT, Georgia

--Round 1 Pick (7) Panthers: 
Isaiah Simmons (OLB) Clemson

--Round 1 Pick (8) Cardinals: 
Tristan Wirfs (OT) Iowa

--Round 1 Pick (9) Jaguars: 
Derrick Brown (DT) Auburn

--Round 1 Pick (10) Browns: ?
Javon Kinlaw (DT) South Carolina BPA?

Trade down in this scenario?

Top 10 scenario

--Round 1 Pick (1) Bengals:
Joe Burrow (QB) LSU

--Round 1 Pick (2) Redskins:
Chase Young (DE) Ohio St.

--Round 1 Pick (3) Lions:
Jeff Okudah, CB, Ohio St.

--Round 1 Pick (4) Giants:
Jedrick Wills Jr. (OT) Alabama

--Round 1 Pick (5) Dolphins:
Justin Herbert

--Round 1 Pick (6) Chargers:
Andrew Thomas, OT, Georgia

--Round 1 Pick (7) Panthers:
Derick Brown

--Round 1 Pick (8) Cardinals:
Tristan Wirfs (OT) Iowa

--Round 1 Pick (9) Jaguars:
CJ Henderson

--Round 1 Pick (10) Browns: ?
Isaiah Simmons

Trade for Williams and booyah, ready to rock.

If we got Simmons and don't have to give up the bank to get Williams, absolutely.

Otherwise, sit tight and take Ezra Cleveland or trade up into the back end of Round 1 and take one of the other 2nd tier OTs, then sign any ol' OT to take the reins for one season while the rookie gets up to speed.

Are you advocating taking Ezra at #10 ? Based on everything I see and read and watch - that seems awfully high. I also don't think he's going to be there at #41.

I'm still sweet on Josh Jones - but navigating a path to being able to take him at the right slot is hard to see.

I am wondering more and more if Becton is going to be the pick if he's on the board.

My perfect scenario would be to stay put and draft Thomas at 10 and stay put and draft Winfield at 41, though I dont think either is likely now

Because you don't think they will be there or because that's not the FO plan?

If I may, I think his scenario has the Browns drafting Simmons. The rest is how to fill the LT spot, 1) Trade for Williams if price is right, 2) Draft Cleveland with the #41, or 3) trade from #41 back into the 1st for the Tex or USC guy. After either 2) or 3), then sign a journeyman OT to fill the void till the drafted guy is ready to take over. That's how I read what Prp said.

because i dont think they’ll be there

I have a feeling Thomas will be available at 10. Becton and Wills are who might be off the board or who I am projecting to be off the board. But that's obviously 100% guess.

Oh, Godzilla, no! That should have been "sit tight in the 2nd round"

I think people will be shocked at how quickly Thomas comes off the board. I hope he's there at #10 but I think the player comes before the media buzz.

I'll be happy when it's Saturday and most of the crazy and uncertainty is done and we'll be able to start to see how things will be put together.

I agree with this. I doubt he makes it to #10. Too many teams before 10 have needs at OT - NYG, MIA, LAC, CAR, ARZ, and JAC. 6 teams which can all make a case for drafting an OT before the Browns and with Thomas being 1 of 2 which are LT only. Doubt he makes it to 10. I think Wills, Thomas, and Wirfs are gone before 10.

Maybe Simmons or Brown will be there at 10, but I could make a pretty good case that they and the top 3 OTs will all be gone as well. That leaves you with Becton, Okudah maybe. Would Kinlaw be in play?

That makes two of us.

I know I probably see this different than most people, but I actually feel that not having a crowd during the draft will make for a better experience for me sitting at home. I saw someone post this and thought it was pretty funny.... I wonder if Goodell will enlist his family to boo him before he announces the picks?

I'm not as sure about Wirfs. He was projected by most sources I saw to transition to G or RT in the NFL. That was before the combine. Once people saw his numbers and performance at the combine, all that changed.

I guess we will get an answer as to whether the NFL sees the combine as important as the media does. Or do they rely more on game tape which had Wirfs projected somewhere other than LT?

Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
·
39m
Sources: The #Dolphins have called the teams in front of them for a possible trade up from No. 5 and are gauging the price to come up to No. 3 to potentially take an offensive tackle. We could see a run on tackles in the Top 10 like never before.

I actually get the opposite message from it that Rappaport does. It seems to me that the Dolphins feel so strongly that their target is so much better than those below him they are willing to pay a hefty price to move up.

If all of these LT prospects are rated so highly, why would you pay a hefty sum to move up slightly for your pick of the litter?

If they do it I wonder of it means there going after Cam or Winston ... either that or the morons plan on sticking with fitz ...

The sources could also be the lions trying to raise the price of someone really interested in moving there ...

It could be either. You know how the silly season is. Rumors galore with all kinds of agendas as reason to plant a story. Only believe half of what you see and none of what you hear this close to the draft IMO

Because trading down gets you more value no matter who is available.

Oh dear Lord!

Someone should have advised Kansas City of that when they drafted Mahomes.

From earlier in the thread:

... . Total 'smoke'...just ain't gonna happen.

But that's the thing. You can't use hindsight to make that statement. If you want to use that logic then in the same draft then the teams who should have traded down is long: Bears, Titans, Bengals, Cardinals, Titans again, Tampa, Miami, Cleveland with Peppers pick, Falcons, Dallas, Cleveland with the Njoku pick and the 49ers with the Foster pick. . . . hmmm. that's a long list.

That would work, but I just dont see Justin Herbert going in the top ten picks.

Your so full of yourself and crap ...

In theory its a great strategy ... but reality doesn’t always line up with theories ... especially when your FO STINKS at drafting ...

The picks made under Sashi with the trade downs STUNK as far as i know ... and i know if I’m wrong I’ll hear it from u or one of your fellow sashiettes ... *L* ...

I know in draft #1 we got Coleman ... and Unless any of the other picks netted us Shobert or Ogbah .... Pfffft on the value all those trade downs got us ... good lord we traded down twice to get CC and got LITERALLY NOTHING IN RETURN ... a bunch of crap ...

I really hope our Ivy leaguers understand drafting and trading down MUCH BETTER than u ...

U always get more value when trading down ... ... what a joke ...

Alex Mack may have been the only decent trade down we ever had, and even then we passed on Julio so it was a fail.

When the heck has trading down EVER WORKED for us

But that's the thing - if your organization stinks at drafting - and clearly the Browns since 1999 mostly have - even KJ who was leap years better than anyone else had some dodgy picks ... but if your bad at picking players ... more picks at least gives you more opportunity to land on a good player. Less picks and less talent evaluation means less chance of getting adding talent.

If you are bad at drafting, it doesn't matter one bit if you are staying put or dropping back.

The two are separate - one is a strategy to get more picks.
The other is a talent that gives you a result from those picks.

The trade down doesn't give you a result other than additional valuable picks. The picking of a player is what give you final result.

Trading down is just a tool in the toolbox; and a valid and valuable one at that because there ARE times where the players on the table in front of you aren't worth - to you - the pick you are holding. If you can then convince someone to give you their pick and a little more to take a player at that point for you, so much the better.


So, whether or not the person picking the players makes use of the tool at their disposal or not.... they still need to be good at picking players.

Trading down would signal that Depodesta is in charge of the draft and his pet project, playing MONEYBALL with the Browns draft is how Haslam wants to operate.

If the Browns stay at #10, they should be able land an OT to fill that OLine opening. BUT, the Moneyball folks do not have a good record when it comes to drafting OLineman.

The Boys drafted OT, Shon Coleman and OG Spencer Drango in 2016 and OT Roderick Johnson was drafted in the 5th round in 2017 but injured his knee and was placed on IR for 2017 and waived in June 2018.

Judging OLine doesn't seem to be a strong area of the Moneyball crew. Hopefully GM Berry and HC Stefanski can help Depodesta out when it comes to judging OLine in this draft.

If it was up to some of these experts on here we would keep trading down until we had 25 picks in the 7th round. More chances to hit ,right boys?

I'd actually rather have Peters over Trent.

However, Trent has had over a full year to heal.

Or just draft the best available LT.

Who knows. I change my mind on this every hour.

with the trade down to Coleman from #2, the Browns realized the following:

In the end, the Browns' Wentz trade finally finalized during the 2018 NFL Draft and the team had selected these 11 players with the picks involved:

Corey Coleman
Shon Coleman
Cody Kessler (Since traded for a late round pick)
Derrick Kindred
Spencer Drango
Ricardo Louis
Jordan Payton (Since released)
Jabrill Peppers
Deshone Kizer (Since traded, along with picks, for Damarious Randall and picks)
Denzel Ward
Chad Thomas

Said no-one - ever.

To some extent. But if you have a terrible talent evaluator, I'd rather he had 15 picks than 7. Probability says that the chance of the blind squirrel finding an acorn increases a little. And that was my point.

Anyone can draft select 7 players in the NFL draft. The key to the draft is to picking the right 7 players. Every round, every year, there are at least 7 players that are a star, stater, or important contributor on the team.

If a team is bad drafting would you rather have more picks or less picks?



The trades were good the picks were bad.



In terms of the picks themselves? Of course. You also have to actually pick quality players at some point. But you are more likely to pick more quality players if you increase the amount of picks you have.

What are the odds of selecting those seven players if you have seven picks?

What are the odds of selecting those seven players if you have twelve picks?

Just clicking.

Drafting is obviously huge, but it also takes coaching, player development and a little luck. Maybe more than a little, considering how many picks fail.

It also helps to have a QB, on which we spent many years.... trying to find one. Hopefully Baker is that guy, then we don’t have to chase a QB, and can address other issues in the years ahead.

I'd rather have John Dorsey because he was good at drafting.

This conversation is so dumb.

Anyway.......reading the report about Miami moving up for an OT.

I have a different take. I have thought they were going to move up to 3 and maybe even 2 for a long time now. However, I think they grab Tua and not an OT.

The trades were good ... BS ...

We passed on Carson Wentz and then one Mr. Watson ...

We traded not one but two franchise qbs ... ya, the only reason they were bad trades was cause they weren’t good at drafting ... ..

And even he whiffed on a bunch picks! Imagine if he had more picks!

(We don’t have to imagine.)

I knew but you were bad at math, had no clue your reading comprehension was near the same level ...

Here’s a quote from your fellow sashiette ... its not parsed or pulled out of a post ... its the entire post ....

Because trading down gets you more value no matter who is available.

I see no qualifiers there ... guess i missed them ... *L* ...

I get that What duty said was ludicrous but its no more ludicrous than cfr’s original premise ... its always better value to trade down ... the man just trashed KC for the Mahommes trade ... he’s saying trading Watson for more picks was better value ...

His absolute is no better than Duty’s absolute ...

Diam, I gotta agree with CFRS, at least for the most part. He has clearly stated that you don’t trade back if you don’t have a QB. You are right about those two drafts but so was he.

So we could have had just (A) Carson Wentz. Or we could have had (B) DeShaun Watson along with Corey Coleman, Cody Kessler, Derrick Kindred, Ricardo Louis, Jordan Payton, and Spencer Drango. Or we could have (C) what we have now (Baker Mayfield, Denzel Ward, OBJ (who we got for Jabrill Peppers) etc.). Which choice would prefer, A, B, or C? Knowing the players skews the results.

I’d take any draft with Watson in it with the players u mentioned ...

I did?

So we agree?

It’s very obvious you haven’t been following along. Or you have been following along and just forgot what people have said.

I never liked u anyway ... *L* ...

Stay safe my friend ...

PS. I didn’t see him say that ... it appears I’m once again talking out my poop shoot ... ooops .... guess I’ll keep going down my rabbit hole and have some fun with it ..

It doesn’t make any sense for them to trade up for offensive tackle. They would probably get to pick the second tackle in the draft which might be their best one.

If they trade up it’s for a QB.

I didn’t read where u said basically QB’’s are exempt .... i don’t read that much .... i open my trap a lot and insert foot a lot ... u haven’t noticed that ... *L* ...

And no .. we don;t agree ... i still think your full of crap ...

Trading down does not always get u more value ...

lol! He only mentioned it twice so it was easy to miss.

He also clearly stated that trading back brings more value when I questioned device's assertion that trading back is the most logical move. I questioned it because I think blindly trading back before you even know who is going to be available is anything but logical.

I should clarify. When talking value of the picks themselves trading down gets you more value. Obviously I would rather have Julio Jones instead of Phil Taylor and a bunch of dookie. My argument is that you are more likely to select more quality players if you have more picks. That’s it. That’s the argument.

I have no argument with that ... u should have said that out of the gate and I’d have less foot in mouth ... *L* ...

I’ve literally said it like 20 times in this thread.

Next time say it to me ... then I’ll have a much better chance of reading it ...

I’m done ... I’ve ruined this enough all ready ...

I probably went a little overboard in saying “no matter who is in the board”. My bad. I would not trade down until I was on the clock that way if a video comes out of Chase Young with a bong mask on I could still take him at ten.

j/c:

I have been thinking about the Tua situation. Last year, the talk was about tanking for Tua. Dude has incredible accuracy. Great touch. Pretty good athlete. Humble kid who will be a good face to the franchise. Strong work ethic. Comes from a disciplined family.

Then he got hurt.

However, the medicals have been good. I really think that Miami moves up to 3 to get him. Maybe 2, but most likely 3. I think the OT thing was put out there to dissuade the Chargers from moving up, but then again, the Chargers must certainly realize that.

I think Tua can be an excellent qb in this league if he can stay healthy. I think he is worth the risk.

Okay, that's fair.

NO, you are more likely to pick quality players the higher you pick.

Depends where the 5 additional picks are.

If the picks are in rounds 5-7, not that much better.

What are the odds you draft a starter in top 10, then 2 picks in the 4th?

You only trade down when your team is not setup to win and needs multiple holes to fill.

We are not in that position.

My reading comprehension is fine - especially in this instance with regards understanding someone's intent. Especially when I read the guy's other posts too. But thanks for the insults. Par for the course.

j/c,

Peradventure what we might be able to add in the Draft with one more 2nd round selection?

I am on record as agreeing in principle ... there is a time for everything under the sun.

Nathan Zegura agrees too.

https://youtu.be/InIMjUzjGNU

I am looking forward to the draft because there is nothing else going on in the world of sports, but another part of me can't wait until it's over because of how much dumb crap is being reported.

Seriously.............trading down before you know who is available and your primary talent are all on their rookie contracts is smart????

Give me a break!

They are all based on assumptions of who will be on the board at this point, (what ifs) but no Draft has ever gone as expected.

So don't get your feathers ruffled before the storm. No trades have been made as of yet bro...

I think we agree. We are just saying it differently. LOL

Yes, LOL ... I am definitely not suggesting that we should Draft down just for the sake of drafting down.

That would be well just plain dumb! *L*

I do agree you need to know who is on the board. Well, unless you make a pre-draft trade. My comments are more aimed at the good folks who say trading down is stupid, just like the old group, or take a tackle no matter which one is there.

Sorry, we do have a draft board. I simply don't want the 4th best tackle with the 10th pick in the draft. No value in that pick. We would be passing over much better players.

Like you, drafting for need isn't something I like. Especially in the top 10 picks because we have more than 1 need on this team. The defense has all kinds of needs.

If we really want to fix the LT position and one of our top 2 guys isn't there at 10, trade back and try to get him a little later with some value added. If we can't get one of the top 4, there are another 3-4 who should turn in to solid pro players. Get one of them at #19 or wherever we end up drafting.

I'd gladly take one of them with an additional 2nd rounder this year and maybe another good pick next year.

I agree. He is good. My #1. I like Georgia players. They are well coached and SEC battle tested. That is as close to having NFL experience as you can get with a college player.

No, that isn't putting any other conference down, just stating facts, at least as I see it.

You and I agree many times, but I don't agree with that blanket statement unless you are simply saying we end up with more picks.

I am a big fan with having more picks. Like anything, more chances gives you a better chance of getting a plus player.

In baseball, if the manager pulls you out in favor of another after going 0-3, you are hitting nothing. If you get that 4th at bat and get a hit, you are hitting .250. Not great, but at least semi decent. The nest night you go 2-4...now you are hitting .375 and looking like a HOF player.

Baseball is the curliest sport. Even the very best fail 70% of the time. It's a good life lesson game.

If you want your kid to learn how to deal with failure and learn how to deal with that and come back dusting off the britches, get them to play baseball.

When you are at bat, you are center stage. Everybody is watching you. Some hoping you get a hit, some not. Same with fielding. When the ball is hit towards you, people are watching you.

I always told my guys the most important position on the field is the position you are playing. Life lesson. The most important position on the factory floor or office floor is the position you hold. They all count and are important, or they wouldn't be there. When it's you're turn, time to produce.

Took me a couple of minutes to get the joke...lol I take everybody too seriously.

I was a fan of trading down long before the analytics guys got here. I still think it can be smart.

I just don't like blanket statements. I don't think it is "logical" to trade down if there is an excellent player on the board.

I also want to add this. When you are rebuilding your team, trading down makes even more sense because you want more picks/assets. However, when you have a talented core that are still playing on their rookie contracts, acquiring impact players to assist them is probably the way to go.

I fail to see any way this can be disputed...

I think every draft is different, and your draft strategy should be tweaked to match. The overall landscape (all the players available) can make for "good" and "bad" drafts, heavy on one position, light on another, heavy on top-end talent, heavy on good/average talent, etc. Having a good grasp on how "good" a draft is compared to surrounding years can help to inform a trade down for picks the following year.
Similarly, understanding the landscape of talent within a specific draft is important. The more I think about it, the 10 spot might be a trap. You're still top of the draft (wanting to get that elite prospect), but there's a high risk of getting stuck with the leftovers. I think this happened in the Haden draft. All the big names were gone, and Haden was left. I was a fan of Haden, but I do remember at the time I really wanted Berry or someone else, but after Haden there was a really steep drop off in talent.

I hesitate to make a blanket statement about trading down vs not, as it depends on the talent available (which will change right until our pick). I think it's very smart to have contingency plans in place. I can definitely see picks 1-9 working against us, and instead of reaching for a player, trading down a little bit to get someone else on our list would be good.
One thing I will say, though... is that I think the hand-wringing about reaching for a player is somewhat overblown. Draft busts are certainly a thing, but that has more to do with completely botching the talent eval for that guy. I kinda roll my eyes when we're arguing over whether a guy should be drafted in a certain slot, or 10 picks later. In a couple years, nobody will care if a guy was drafted 10 picks sooner than he "should" have.

Picking impact players is hard and you are more likely to do it if you have more picks. This is especially true if you are picking outside the top eightish.

I’d also argue that having a team of a bunch of above average players is better off than a team with a few great players and a bunch of bodies. Depth is king in the NFL.

I also think, with the makeup of our team as it is right now, we are more in a position to take less, higher draft picks. Depending on the talent available, it generally makes more sense for us to value less, higher picks more than a bunch of lower picks.

This is why I think so...

Having a bunch of lower picks is good for a team that's really hurting for talent across the roster (something we're recently familiar with) as well as a for a team at the other end of the spectrum, that has their starters mostly set and is looking for depth and diamonds in the rough.

Higher draft picks sound good for a team that has pretty decent talent, but has several big holes in the roster (where I think we are right now).

I do feel the SEC is a good gauge of the talent they play against. Especially when you factor in the speed of the game. I add the Big 10 to that due to how many great LT's and OL players have been drafted from that conference as well.

To address those that say. "Always trading down is the right thing to do unless it's a QB" are concerned.

Any blanket statement like this is incorrect. The claim is your odds to get an impact player go up with more picks. Not so. Most of the top impact players come from the top of the draft. The lower in the draft you get, the fewer impact players there are. The harder they are to identify. Not that there aren't impact players that teams draft further down the draft board. They are there. But once the top rated talent comes off the board at the top of the draft, the lower your odds are at finding those players.

I do agree there are times it is wise to trade down. But let's use the LT position in this draft as an example. Picking the 5th or 6th rated LT greatly decreases your odds of success. Will you gain another pick? Yes. So are two average players better than a stud? Because the odds are more than likely that will be the scenario you are looking at.

In this years draft, there are certainly players on the board, that if they are there, there's no way I would trade down. Much like Peen if we are targeting a LT, I don't believe that we should settle with a #10 pick. So if out two top rated LT's are gone and players like Simmons and Brown aren't there to draft, a trade down makes sense to me.

But to say a team should pass on a player like Simmons of he's there in "hopes" of drafting players later in order to have greater chances to hit on other players doesn't add up.

As with everything there are variables and there is no one size fits all.

Well, all blanket statements are incorrect, period.


The entire issue is that someone makes a statement as a generality and people take it as being stated as an absolute and begin to debunk the generality as an absolute.

I see what you just did there.

K'LAVON CHAISSON
DE, COLLEGE PLAYER

CBS' Jonathan Jones reports the Browns at No. 10 "could be the move" for the Falcons to move up from No. 16

Jones believes the Falcons could have their eyes on Florida CB C.J. Henderson or LSU EDGE K'Lavon Chaisson. The Falcons have tried to beat back the narrative they are desperate to move up, but it has been one of this week's most persistent storylines. We don't have to wait much longer to find out.

RELATED: Atlanta Falcons, Cleveland Browns
SOURCE: CBS
Apr 23, 2020, 1:52 PM ET

Spoken like a rookie and not the Wiley vet u are ... *L* ...

I wouldnt necessiraly trade back though just because your LT isnt there. If ALL we needed was a LT, yea - thats fine. But we have holes like swiss cheese on Def.

If there a player thats a top 10 or even 15 talent at a position of need, you take him at 10. Lets say all the LT at drafted early, and the 4th best guy is on the board, but Simmons is there. You take Simmons.

j/c...the key to trading down is we must have one guy we are targeting. We have to be confident that he will be there when we pick after the trade down. Then it is a good thing.

But to trade down without a guy we are targeting involved then it is not the time and place.

We are not the Browns of yesteryear, we have talent on this team and we need to add that one stud that can fit in our system. Take Simmons for instance I've stated "WILL, WILL" in the past but honestly when I think about it he will be our MIKE and that means sideline to sideline...for me that makes his much more valuable. So if that is the guy Screw the use of getting 2 more picks we don't have that desperate need for Quantity as in the past. Now it about quality. If the OT we want (Wills) is gone and we now want Jones then I say OK trade down and get a couple more picks and get the guy we want. But if Simmons or Derrick Brown is there...jump at it maybe trade up if Jones drops late in the draft. Seahawks haven't stayed pat in the last 12 drafts, they would be a good move up possibility utilizing our 2nd plus what ever it took. But what ever we do - Trading Down or UP it has to be with a purpose of a player we are targeting, sheer Quantity cause we are in that expansion mode still does not exist anymore. Quality is our goal!

jmho

Have heard that Philly wants to move up to get one of the top WRs, Lamb?, as the Jets at 11, the Raiders at 12 & 19, the Niners at 13, and Denver at 15 all could be in the market for a WR.

If Simmons is on the board at #10, I take him regardless of which OTs are there.

Simmons > top 2 tackles on OUR board > Brown take one in that order. Give third for Williams.
If those 4 players not there. Trade down. And probably trade for Williams. Only way I trade for Williams is if our top 2 tackles aren’t there at 10. Even if we drafted one after trading down I’d trade for him.

Same. He and Wirfs are the only two players take over a trade down.

Pssh. Jedrick Wills Jr. and Andrew Thomas are my top two players for us.

I'd say Chase Young is number 1 on my board, but that isn't happening

Only trash, disorganized organizations, and the Patriots trade down.

Stop being mediocre.

The Seahawks have traded down every year since 2012.

Yeah, they're a consistent winning organization who has won the super bowl recently.

We are not a winning organization.

So to become a consistent winning organization don’t do what the Seahawks and Patriots do. Got it.

If the Browns make a trade is should be up not down in order to get Isaiah Simmons. I would be mad if he goes one pick ahead of us.

Until the current brain trust shows me they know what the hell they're doing I don't think they're smart enough to trade down or do anything. I'll wait till I see the record at the end of the year to see if I trust the front office, not drinking the cool aid. I'm skeptical with this group but I hope they do well.

If Miami makes a trade with Washington and takes Tua, Browns should try and make a trade with the Lions for Chase Young.

Not a chance

I'd maybe make a play for the Jags pick ... but if you are sitting at 10 knowing you get Brown or Simmons, I'd sit tight and take whichever one was left. I'd be as happy with Brown as Simmons at 10.

Sure, but Young will be a Redskin by then.

Yea I don't think it's going to happen but would be great if it did.

Brown is good at stopping the run but not much of a pass rusher. Simmons is a play maker.

the odds are almost identical.

I think you don't know how probability works.

I think you need to re-read the wording. You only need 7 picks to pick "those 7 players."

I get what you're saying, though. More picks, more chances that some of them are good.

actually, I do.

The odds are 2.6718% for 7 picks vs 4.4944% for 12 picks

Basically, they are almost identical in the scheme of things.


but, that's not what I was saying.

I would rather have the 1st 7 picks of a draft than the last 21

I think trade down is now in play....Simmons gone

Simmons will be missing out on the SB 2020 when the Browns play the Bucanneers!

Good move.

Agreed. RB, WR taken so far. Probably didn’t change our plans

"Here. Take a free fifth round pick and not miss out on any players you were going to take."

That move was really good. Berry did his homework. Must have known the teams at 41 thru 43 were not looking safety. Great move. If pick 160 becomes a player it will be a real steal!

That’s a great trade IMO .. 5th rounder for 3 spots

I need someone to hose me off.

I like the way we’ve traded down tonight

Trade down

The Future 3rd is nice but man ...

Unacceptable

Zach Baun just went w/that pick. First bad decision by the Browns. We could have really used him.

I won't go there

I agree that i was hoping to pick him up. But we dunno what their board really looks like.


I think someone mentioned it, but i bet they have a number of guys rated right around the same. They saw the return and couldn't pass up the trade down

That was a dumb trade.

Now that we're down in the late 70's, how well do you know the players ranked around here?


I think it's tough to call it a dumb trade based on the players on the board. They moved down 14 spots in the 3rd and picked up a 3rd next year. Sounds like value if it makes sense with their own board rankings

They got good value in the trade. But, it will all depend on the pick at 88. They had a choice of a few decent linebackers at 74. If this pick is a miss then the trade will be a bad decision.

Just voicing my "opinion."

Why?

We go down 14 spots and pick up a 3rd next year.

yes. dumb trade. saints will be good again,,, so that is a low...low 3rd rd draft pick fr
or next year.. shouldve gotten more.

Except a lot of 3rd rounders fail anyway..... We've had plenty of failed 3rd rounders.

The better way to evaluate it is pick the guy you would have picked there and compare it to who they get at 88.

Not 88 verse the field. That's not really fair

I gotcha. Maybe i'm just not as up to date on the draft as some folks on here.

I'll admit, most of these guys, this far down, i don't really know.



So i can't go out and say, "Man that trade sucks" because we didn't get a player verses a bunch of other guys that i didn't know (through no fault of their own).

I just think it seems like good value to me. I imagine they did it because of how they have these guys (most of whom, i have no clue who they are) ranked

The trade was fine. We got good value. Apparently, I was a lot lower on Baun than some of you, though.

Yep, last thing we need is a tackling machine for a linebacker...I guess we expect to fill our holes in the 5th and-7th rounds...

Hmmm, seems like we have seen this act before...

Oh, but they have a plan

I wound like to win this season .. You don't run a Browns draft like your a perennial Play off team.

I don't want to argue. I had to go through that crap w/Pastor on another thread. I just want to state my opinions and not get into it.

All of it is "unknown." None of us can make definitive statements about how these guys will turn out. Not sure what is wrong w/voicing an opinion?

Last night was fun on here. Tonight has been a total bummer due to personalities. And no, I am not talking about you.

Okay, fair enough.

Just stating my own opinions as well, seeing as it's a message board. But if you're in no mood, no big deal at all (honestly, no big deal). We've got months more of some sort of social distancing to go over it. lol

Ok I am done arguing with you but you said I had nothing but opinions and now you say the same thing man you are confusing

I like gaining future picks.

We don't know who we are targeting, so chill.


OH....J/C

Look Pastor..............you made a statement of fact. I said your statement was an opinion and showed you true facts. One guy was drafted in the first round and the other in the second.

I clearly stated this last thing was my opinion. I did NOT state it as a fact.

Go write a sermon and stay the hell away from me. Please?

Jesus!

Braun failed a drug test, so that hurt him. But yeah, he's a good player. But getting a 3rd for dropping down 17 spots in the 3rd is good value.

I thought he drank too much water? Like Peppers did?

Not sure if you're serious, so if you're joking, disregard.

As someone who used to smoke pot and took drugtests. Dilute could be from drinking too much water, but it could be from a masking agent (or purposely drinking too much water) in an attempt to hide something

Uhmmm...............that was the excuse as to why we drafted Peppers.

Hmmmm...........you probably are not getting my point. Never mind.

Are we on the clock yet, boys?

Yes

We’re up again in 4 picks