hoorta Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 from St Louis and was wondering any talk in Cleveland about moving down? as good as Garrett is adding more picks sure makes sense. Thanks The #1 is not in play, short of an insane offer. We're tired of missing out on stud players. Bosa,Mack, Jones for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 What if we traded with San Diego and they gave us Bosa and their Number 7? Ok well that's not exactly trading down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I did not see it in this thread, but somewhere else a suggestion was made that because the Tits are so slaverish over getting a pass rusher, that the Browns trade The #1 overall to the Titans for their #5 overall....and the #18 overall which they also own. That would give the Browns: #5, #12, #18, #33, #52, #65 plus we have #103. That would give the Browns 7 of the Top 103 picks. And what to do with them? Fill primary needs: QB DB LB/DE OT/OC DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alporcini Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I've always maintained the worst move we never made was in 1999 when we let Ditka give his entire draft including #12 in the first round plus his #1 and #3 in 2000 to Washington for Ricky Williams. We would have had a cadre of picks to form a substantially better nucleus moving forward. I like the idea of adding the Titans two #1s. Assures us of Allen/Garret/Foster or a QB. Count me in Team Gip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Titans aren't moving up. You don't move up to #1 unless it's for a franchise QB anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Titans aren't moving up. You don't move up to #1 unless it's for a franchise QB anymore. I agree they are not moving up, but for a different reason. There will be a quality pass rusher available @ #5. Too many excellent ones this year's draft besides Garrett. Let's say Garrett goes #1 as expected. And at least one of SF or Chi takes a QB. Then you have Allen, Barnett and Thomas with Allen likely to go before #5. That leaves two very excellent pass rushers, one of which the Tits can take. Therefore, no trade with Cleveland by the Tits. Logical? I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poplarbluffman Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 last I looked QB's are sort of important...and this draft is filled with mid rd qb prospects and will likely need a late 1 for Garrappola..trading down for a mid #1 makes sense to fill your greatest need Donald didn't make the Rams a winning team and neither did Bosa make San Diego a Super Bowl team..till you fidna QB the Browns will keep losing. my question was fair but received a lot of scary stupid answers..hopefully the idiots will post elsewhere or I will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 last I looked QB's are sort of important...and this draft is filled with mid rd qb prospects and will likely need a late 1 for Garrappola..trading down for a mid #1 makes sense to fill your greatest need Donald didn't make the Rams a winning team and neither did Bosa make San Diego a Super Bowl team..till you fidna QB the Browns will keep losing. my question was fair but received a lot of scary stupid answers..hopefully the idiots will post elsewhere or I will Well it didn't take long to go from "hey guys, what do you think about this?" to "browns suck they should do my idea!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Well it didn't take long to go from "hey guys, what do you think about this?" to "browns suck they should do my idea!" Yep - fastest graduation in history. PS-Welcome to the Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Titans aren't moving up. You don't move up to #1 unless it's for a franchise QB anymore. Yes, in theory....but as someone noted, the Rams moved up to take Orlando Pace....and that worked out HOF player. If the Tits think that Gayrett is THAT good, they my do it....expecially if they think that by his addition they could be a serious playoff contender....which is possible. Though...from what I have heard, they may just want to stay put to take WR Williams out of Clemson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 I agree they are not moving up, but for a different reason. There will be a quality pass rusher available @ #5. Too many excellent ones this year's draft besides Garrett. Let's say Garrett goes #1 as expected. And at least one of SF or Chi takes a QB. Then you have Allen, Barnett and Thomas with Allen likely to go before #5. That leaves two very excellent pass rushers, one of which the Tits can take. Therefore, no trade with Cleveland by the Tits. Logical? I think so. See my previous post. As you say, this draft is considered rich in edge rushers. What it is not rich in is WRs apparently....thus Williams may be a very in demand commodity. And the Tits may want the WR as badly as the DE/OLB....which maybe they think they can get with their #18 pick. They can't get a WR there on the order of Williams....can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 I'm still on board with trading #1 to the 49ers for #2 & #34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 I'm still on board with trading #1 to the 49ers for #2 & #34 That could work. But why would the Niners do that to move up one spot? My theory would be so that the Browns would not trade it to the Bears/Tits...or some other team that may want to jump the 9ers for the player they want. But...who would that player be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 That could work. But why would the Niners do that to move up one spot? My theory would be so that the Browns would not trade it to the Bears/Tits...or some other team that may want to jump the 9ers for the player they want. But...who would that player be? I think 49ers are going QB and the Browns could go whacky and take their guy. The insurance might be worth it for the 49ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 I think 49ers are going QB and the Browns could go whacky and take their guy. The insurance might be worth it for the 49ers. If that guy is Mitch Trubisky...then the Browns should go whacky and take their guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 If that guy is Mitch Trubisky...then the Browns should go whacky and take their guy. I wish I was as confident as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 last I looked QB's are sort of important...and this draft is filled with mid rd qb prospects and will likely need a late 1 for Garrappola..trading down for a mid #1 makes sense to fill your greatest need Donald didn't make the Rams a winning team and neither did Bosa make San Diego a Super Bowl team..till you fidna QB the Browns will keep losing. my question was fair but received a lot of scary stupid answers..hopefully the idiots will post elsewhere or I will Not sure two posts by one person constitutes "a lot". As for your approaches to posting and fixing the team... to each his own. Spending two, 1st-round picks on QBs this draft is not an approach I'd take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 First pick in the draft should be an impact player right out of the gate. Just saying. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 last I looked QB's are sort of important...and this draft is filled with mid rd qb prospects and will likely need a late 1 for Garrappola..trading down for a mid #1 makes sense to fill your greatest need Donald didn't make the Rams a winning team and neither did Bosa make San Diego a Super Bowl team..till you fidna QB the Browns will keep losing. my question was fair but received a lot of scary stupid answers..hopefully the idiots will post elsewhere or I will Well, I see you need some education on what the Browns came up with going after "mid first round" quarterback prospects. Brady Quinn. Brandon Weeden. Johnny Manziel. That collective stink could fuel several garbage dumps. Other than Mitch Trubisky- who will go top five, there's not another qb in this draft I would touch in the first round. And that includes New England's wonder boy backup Garropolo. I'm not 100% sold on Garrett yet, but he sure looks like he can be the next Von Miller. Trading down has resulted in us missing on Kalil Mack (got bust Justin Gilbert instead) Julio Jones ( drafted Phil Taylor instead) Haloti Ngata (took Kam Wimbley instead). So FYI, the group think of the Browns fan base is- enough of this trade down crap. You have a stud at where you're picking- take the stud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaineDeSoulis Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 7 of the next 10 picks after gilbert went to the pro bowl. Trading down was a great idea but farmer made a terrible selection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suomi Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 A big NO to a trade down out of #1 - that's reserved for Myles Garrett. I'd actually prefer a trade UP from 12 to grab one of the two safeties or (licks his chops) Jonathan Allen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 garrett AND allen? jesus we'd have to give up quite a bit for that. Plus that leaves one hell of a traffic jam on the front line. We have other needs to fill on that defense let alone offense (QB?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 garrett AND allen? jesus we'd have to give up quite a bit for that. Plus that leaves one hell of a traffic jam on the front line. We have other needs to fill on that defense let alone offense (QB?). No secondary. Get to the QB in under half a second and it doesn't matter who's playing receiver. a DL of Garrett-Bryant-Shelton-Meder-Allen-Ogbah backed up by Collins-Kirksey-Davis-Orchard. Probably should keep a strong safety in case the runner gets through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 I'm still on board with trading #1 to the 49ers for #2 & #34 Id do it in a NY second..... Then Id take 12 and one of my 2nds and get inside the top 8 for my second pick....increasing the possibility of us getting 2 elite players......difference makers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcam222 Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Sure this is against the popular vote but this is a great draft to trade down in. I'd support a trade down as far as 5. We could likely make picks then at 5, 12 and somewhere around 17 to 20 using what we picked up in a trade up. In this draft that would be a big haul. Still would have pick 1 in the 2nd round too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Sure this is against the popular vote but this is a great draft to trade down in. I'd support a trade down as far as 5. We could likely make picks then at 5, 12 and somewhere around 17 to 20 using what we picked up in a trade up. In this draft that would be a big haul. Still would have pick 1 in the 2nd round too. absolutely....and #1 overall always gets a great price.....so a "short" trade back should net enough to add another 2nd, PLUS the ammo needed to move up from 12..... Would you prefer? picks # 1 ....12.....33.....52......Or, for example, something like.... picks # 4.......7.....33....40....52......? With the players available this year.....Id take the second option......all day every day..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Yeah, that second option would be pretty tempting. 2 of the top 5 defenders from this draft could go along way in getting this defense turned around in a hurry. If Greg Williams can motivate these young guys the way we all hope, we could be looking at a defensive improvement that could add 4-5 wins to the schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElkDawg Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 If we trade down to 15-22 and grab another medicore player i'll flip. take the best damn player available. It's not rocket science, maybe the browns are trying to overthink it. I think it's mock draft boards and guys on forums who over think take Mahomes first and Barnett at 12. Real simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 I think it's mock draft boards and guys on forums who over think take Mahomes first and Barnett at 12. Real simple. LOL Barnett won't be there by 12. But Mahomes will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 I wish I was as confident as you. “...maybe sometimes it's riskier not to take a risk. Sometimes all you're guaranteeing is that things will stay the same.” ― Danny Wallace, Yes Man “...If there is no risk, there is no reward.” ― Christy Raedeke, The Daykeeper's Grimoire “Only those who play win. Only those who risk win. History favors risk-takers. Forgets the timid. Everything else is commentary.” ― Iveta Cherneva The biggest risk is not taking any risk... In a world that changing really quickly, the only strategy that is guaranteed to fail is not taking risks. Mark Zuckerberg But we also believe in taking risks, because that's how you move things along. Melinda Gates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.