The Gipper Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 So, we always speculate about what the Browns should do in the draft by landing in Camp so and so over different players. But with our Front office....we have to consider the Trade Down possibility. Simply due to the fact that this camp "won" last year. It could win again. You know me....if MT comes out I want him at #1. But what if he stays in school? Or what if....God forbid...the Browns FO does not agree with me. (How dare they?). What if they perceive (probably rightly so) that our holes are so manifest that we need even more ammunition to attain more high round picks....so that we can fill more of our holes (OL, DL, DBs etc.) with more first and second round picks/prospects. Would you trade #1 overall....or leave that sacrosanct. What about #12. Who would be a trade partner that could give us say another round one and a round 2. Could the Browns use having 3 first rounders....and maybe the same number of second rounders. Do you have any prospects of whom such a Trade down could take place with? Who would be desperate to give the Browns an attractive package of picks to move up to #1, if anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Top 20 picks: 1. Cleveland Browns 2. San Francisco 49ers 3. Chicago Bears 4. Jacksonville Jaguars 5. Tennessee Titans (from Los Angeles Rams) 6. New York Jets 7. San Diego Chargers 8. Carolina Panthers 9. Cincinnati Bengals 10. Buffalo Bills 11. New Orleans Saints 12. Cleveland Browns (from Philadelphia Eagles) 13. Arizona Cardinals 14. Indianapolis Colts* 15. Philadelphia Eagles* (from Minnesota Vikings) 16. Baltimore Ravens 17. Washington Redskins 18. Tennessee Titans 19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 20. Denver Broncos. I don't know if any of the playoff teams have multiple picks. New England Dallas Kansas City Seattle Oakland Houston NY Giants Pittsburgh Detroit Atlanta Miami Green Bay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 And while this is not completely accurate based on playoff positioning, this shows one possible second round configuration: 33. Cleveland 34. San Francisco — 35. Jacksonville — 36. Chicago — 37. Los Angeles — 38. San Diego — 39. N.Y. Jets — 40. Carolina — 41. Cincinnati — 42. New Orleans — 43. Philadelphia 44. Buffalo — 45. Arizona — 46. Minnesota — 47. Baltimore — 48. Indianapolis — 49. Washington — 50. Tampa Bay — 51. Denver — 52. Cleveland from Tennessee — 53. Houston — 54. Detroit — 55. Green Bay — 56. Miami — 57. Seattle — 58. Pittsburgh — 59. Atlanta — 60. Oakland — 61. N.Y. Giants — 62. Kansas City — 63. Dallas — 64. New England — Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvcanedy Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 If a team like Houston or something wanted to go after Trubisky I could see it, but I would never want to trade back that far for any reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 If a team like Houston or something wanted to go after Trubisky I could see it, but I would never want to trade back that far for any reason Sure, the question is.....is there any player that someone would be desperate to trade up to #1 to take. Other than a QB...that is almost never done. And the Browns have a dire a need for a QB as anyone. But, lets say MT stays in school. Would teams be clamoring to make DeShaun Watson the #1 pick? SF? Jets, Bills, Bears? If MT is not in this draft....I am about 75% willing to consider a trade of #1. Who would salivate over one of the high ranked defenders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Sure, the question is.....is there any player that someone would be desperate to trade up to #1 to take. Other than a QB...that is almost never done. And the Browns have a dire a need for a QB as anyone. But, lets say MT stays in school. Would teams be clamoring to make DeShaun Watson the #1 pick? SF? Jets, Bills, Bears? If MT is not in this draft....I am about 75% willing to consider a trade of #1. Who would salivate over one of the high ranked defenders? If MT stays in, I don't think there would be a market for the 1 unless a team absolutely thinks a lack of a pass rusher is the only thing holding them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Buffalo Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Let's say we are opening to trading. You have SF and Chicago at 2 and 3 as QB needy teams. If a guy separates himself at QB that the browns don't believe in then they can try to pull something off. However the problem is, if a guy does separate himself fro. The pack, the Browns better just take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Let's say we are opening to trading. You have SF and Chicago at 2 and 3 as QB needy teams. If a guy separates himself at QB that the browns don't believe in then they can try to pull something off. However the problem is, if a guy does separate himself fro. The pack, the Browns better just take him. Agree completely. For my initial concept though, lets say that MT stays in school. The clamor to trade up to #1 to take a QB will always be much, much more than the clamor to trade up to take anyone else. Refresh my memory on the big trades that have been made recently: Didn't the Redskins give up like 3 first rounders to take RGknee? Look what the Eagles gave us to get Wentz. Any others? When was a blockbuster trade ever made to pick up a defensive end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Sacrosanct? No... never say never, but my trade down price would be extra high this year... and I'm not even taking a QB as of now. Of course the other factor is how far down does the 1st rounder I get in return. There are as many impact players on the D-side in this draft as I can remember there ever being. But even the top tier of 15 or so have a pecking order, and I want to be sure I get at least one of the best of the best... and with a little luck I might even land two of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 I'd be cool with at least trading down one spot so we still get Garrett or Allen. Past that, not sure. But I'd probably be fine with that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 If we can get SF and Chicago in a bidding war for the QB @ #1 overall, good for us. We still get Garrett or Allen plus at least 1 relatively high extra player. And we can still use #12 (and maybe even #33) for more excellent D players in a very deep defensive class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnhnyy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Just learned that Jack Conklin is a first team All-pro as a rookie. Wouldn't we all love to have an All Pro offensive tackle at the age of 22? Of course, we traded the pick (#8) away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Have to say that I apparently missed Conklin, then. Seemed to me to be overrated coming out of MSU. That said... the #8 overall is pricey for a RT, but even that circumstance may be due to Lewan holding down LT that any shortcomings jack may have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Trading down to 3 and still getting Allen plus another early 2nd round pick and a fourth would be ideal. Trading down any lower than that would piss me off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillmotion Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsnMopar Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second. WSS How about #12 for Garoppalo their #1 #2 & 3 or 4 all their pucks will be late rounders! Definitely not #1 overall that is for ALLEN! ?? GO BROWNS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Give NE garett or allen for jimmy fucking garoppolo? First and foremost, negatory on giving belichick the #1 pick in the draft, oh fuck no. "Maybe" for brady a couple years ago. The league would despise us for that move. Second, garoppolo is not worth that price....not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBC mike Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Allen is who I want. No an this year in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Trade the number one to New England Jimmy Garoppolo and their first and 3rd or their first and second. WSS At best I would give a 3rd rounder for Garropolo. Colt McCoy and Charlie Frye were 3rd round picks....and I see him as nothing more than a Colt McCoy or Charlie Frye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob806 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Sure, the question is.....is there any player that someone would be desperate to trade up to #1 to take. Other than a QB...that is almost never done. And the Browns have a dire a need for a QB as anyone. But, lets say MT stays in school. Would teams be clamoring to make DeShaun Watson the #1 pick? SF? Jets, Bills, Bears? If MT is not in this draft....I am about 75% willing to consider a trade of #1. Who would salivate over one of the high ranked defenders? I think one of the reasons why the Browns have had drafting issues is the trades made on draft day,or prior to the draft. It hasn't worked, period. I will say it until I'm blue in the face....the draft is designed to help the weaker teams get better, by drafting earlier than the better teams. Of course, you have to draft smart ( the major problem the Browns have had). Pittsburgh, Denver, New England, etc. draft in the 20s to 32, and never seem to have a problem reloading. You, as other fans know the dismal history.They had, for example, picks #4, 17, & 35 just two drafts ago and traded down....made the team worse IMHO with the JM pick alone. So, the FO made a bunch of deals last year. They are in a great position currently, with 5 of the first 65 picks. Trading away any of these 5 picks is the STUPIDEST thing they can do, they can get better in a hurry (by drafting smartly)....hopefully, the analytics did a proper analysis of the dismal trading history of this franchise starting with the stupid-ass flip flop of draft position with the Lions in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 At this point...no, I would not be in favor of the trade down. You know why. But, these Harvard boys could care less what an Akron U/Cleveland State grad has to say. They are smarter than the rest of us. Just ask them. So, if their analytics says trade down, they will do so. Someone mentioned that all they are doing is following an example of Bill Belichick. OK, sure...but BB lucked into his 15+ year franchise QB early on. The Browns haven't gotten that lucky, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Just spitballing here: What if you Luddites are right and the Browns decide they do not want to go after the QB with #1.....but, suppose that they are aware that both the 49ers and the Bears both actually lust after the same QB. How about then we trade #1 overall to the Bears, getting back their #3...and their first pick in the second round, which would be like #36. That way the Bears can jump the Niners to get the QB they want. The Browns get #3 ....and one of the troglodytes you guys want would still be there (Allen/Garret). So,the Browns would have: #3 #12 #33 #36 #52 #65 What say you? (No, the one thing I did not do is to check this vs. the draft trade value chart...we can see what that says in a bit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 On the above , after checking, I note that under the "Old" system #1 is 3000 pts. #3 is 2200 pts. #35 is 550 points (so in theory under that chart, getting back #35 is actually NOT sufficient compensation....falling 250 points short) However, under the Harvard Chart #1 is 494.6 pts. #3 is 401.3 pts, for a difference of 93.3 pts. The #35 pick is worth 171.4 pts. So there, getting back #35 is far too much compensation. Under that chart all it would take is for the Bears to give back their 4th round pick, which would be like #99 to adequately compensate us. What about that deal? Edit: actually the figures would be off a few points from these as the Bears have pick #36, not #35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Maybe the Bears want Kizer Watson? We have to make them think we would take the quarterback they lusted after. WSS Perhaps....though it is more the case that the Bears would have to believe that the 49ers want the QB they want. But, of course you know that these teams do blow smoke up each others asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsnMopar Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Just spitballing here: What if you Luddites are right and the Browns decide they do not want to go after the QB with #1.....but, suppose that they are aware that both the 49ers and the Bears both actually lust after the same QB. How about then we trade #1 overall to the Bears, getting back their #3...and their first pick in the second round, which would be like #36. That way the Bears can jump the Niners to get the QB they want. The Browns get #3 ....and one of the troglodytes you guys want would still be there (Allen/Garret). So,the Browns would have: #3 #12 #33 #36 #52 #65 What say you? (No, the one thing I did not do is to check this vs. the draft trade value chart...we can see what that says in a bit) This to me would be the ideal situation! Add a 2nd and still get Allen or Garrett!!! Win-Win GO BROWNS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Gip it all depends upon whether the FO sees them as equal or if they see that for their needs one is clearly the better choice for the team with current players in place. I personally would not mind unless we are planning a QB @ 12. Garrett to me is the real bend around the tackle pass rusher in the 4-3. Got to have one of the two 1st rounders be a pass rusher in that mode. Garrett just happens to be the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 How about a refreshing Camp Don't Overthink it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 How about a refreshing Camp Don't Overthink it? lol... or Over Wish It... which if smushed becomes... Camp WiShit... No idea how the Bear's evaluations are falling, but if I am them I am firmly in Camp Letthedraftcometous... which I believe is Iroquois for Don't Overthink It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.