#4 #22

[choco]

Moving up those few spots wouldn't warrant a #1 at all, we'd swap 1's and probably grab a 2 this year. But that would crazy to give up that pick for a 2nd rounder.

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

 

pick #4 - 1800

pick #12 - 1200

pick #44 - 460

pick #76 - 210

 

seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.

[Guest jparsh]

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

 

pick #4 - 1800

pick #12 - 1200

pick #44 - 460

pick #76 - 210

 

seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.

 

 

Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)

[Dirty Hands]

My new interesting theory on the picks kind of a lion's move....seems to be a lot of nay sayers for richardson at the 4th interesting thought what about blackmon 4th and wright 22nd? gives us 2 good receivers on the outsides with little and blackmon and wright fills the slot let's cribbs focus on what he does best special teams and would make him a match-up issue with 4 WR sets

[Dirty Hands]

Then we would really be able to evaluate colt as well... If he couldn't succeed with those receivers pull the plug

[Kosar_For_President]

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

 

pick #4 - 1800

pick #12 - 1200

pick #44 - 460

pick #76 - 210

 

seattle to #4 would cost a swap of the 1's, plus their 2nd and 3rd this year, or simply a 1st next year.

 

Nice post, I had no clue.

[BrownsKidd]

My new interesting theory on the picks kind of a lion's move....seems to be a lot of nay sayers for richardson at the 4th interesting thought what about blackmon 4th and wright 22nd? gives us 2 good receivers on the outsides with little and blackmon and wright fills the slot let's cribbs focus on what he does best special teams and would make him a match-up issue with 4 WR sets

 

I've thought about that. What if they take Blackmon and Wright. Doubt that it will happen, but it sure would give us the chance to see how good our QB's are. But a WCO needs WR's. Could you imagine Blackmon, Wright, Little & Cribs... That could be very interesting. However, you wonder what kind of ego's would be coming to camp.

 

Right now I'm leaning to grab RG3 and Wright, I hope that can happen. But we will see.

[Guest jparsh]

I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined. We will wind up with either RG3, Flynn or Tananhall (sp?) and one of those 3 will be the starting QB next year. The only option there that allows for two wide outs in the first round is if GB doesn't franchise Flynn and we get him free and clear through free agency. But I'm leaning towards thinking GB will franchise him, the only issue is the fact that his salary would be so large it may scare teams away. Then there's the issue on whether or not he'll resign long term with the team he's being traded to. There's a lot to be determined in that area, except for the fact that Colt will not be the guy. If anyone is taking the whole "we love him and he has a shot to be our franchise guy" BS then you need to learn what it means when a GM/coach/president says the right thing.

 

I said before, you don't give your future guy competition and leave things in limbo. Name one other starting QB this year that's secure in their job who had their gm and president say that they're not willing to name him the starter for next year.

[Kosar_For_President]

I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined.

 

This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Seattle would be a tad more, but I was judging it on the Redskind or Dolphins. But anyway, I don't think even the Seahawks would have to give us their 2nd and 3rd. That's too many points. I knew the trades were based on a system. A bunch of people on here were trying to say that it depends on how much a team wants a player, that's not how professional sports works. You have rules that govern these kinds of things. Kinda like the person who says to trade Daniel Gibson for Dwight Howard ignoring the fact that the salaries don't match up (and that nobody in their right mind would make a trade comparable to that)

 

 

The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.

[Guest jparsh]

This is not true. Holmgren has said that EVERY position next year has to be won. No one will be given a starting spot. He is not saying he will NOT start. McCoy is still in the mix.

 

 

He went on to say a list of players that are safe. Haden, Thomas, Sheard(sp?) Taylor, Little, Cribs....

 

Our team sucked, so he was just putting people on notice for the most part. But he has stated in the past that the number one spot on the team is quarterback and he related super bowls to the QB position. Holmgren said that he'd change QB's every single year til he gets it right. Heckert drafted TJ in the second round and played well when not hurt, so that's not likely to be a spot in jeopardy. Basically he left the QB, right side of the line, one CB spot, one LB spot and WR position open.

 

With the first three picks you can address QB, WR and LB or DE. Then you have free agency and trades to address other issues. I predicted around week 10 that we'll have about 6 new starters by next year. QB, WR, DE, RT, CB, OLB. With all our available resources I can't see why this isn't completely feasible.

[Guest jparsh]

The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.

 

 

Jets look like they made a mistake on that one. But Mangini let them off easy. He got old players instead of draft picks. My one friend asks why we were able to win games last year and stay in many others while this year we looked horrible. That's easy to answer. Mangini filled the team with vets that would never win in the long run. Vets make less mistakes but have little future value. This year we're young and we have a bright future but those kids make mistakes and don't look that good at times.

[Kosar_For_President]

With all our available resources I can't see why this isn't completely feasible.

 

In the article The Walrus states the Browns are not going to dive into the free agent market. Which I think is correct, look at the Jets and Philly.

[Kosar_For_President]

The Jets traded a second and two starting members of their defense to grab Sanchez.

 

Dirty is WAY worse than McCoy. Terrible. With a line like that he should be more consistent.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Jets look like they made a mistake on that one. But Mangini let them off easy. He got old players instead of draft picks. My one friend asks why we were able to win games last year and stay in many others while this year we looked horrible. That's easy to answer. Mangini filled the team with vets that would never win in the long run. Vets make less mistakes but have little future value. This year we're young and we have a bright future but those kids make mistakes and don't look that good at times.

 

 

Abe Elam was in his third year. Coleman in his seventh.

 

Not exactly the oldest of players.

 

Either way, it only shows that emotion and brashness are just as big of factors in drafting as an arbitrary set of numbers assinged to each pick.

[Guest jparsh]

In the article The Walrus states the Browns are not going to dive into the free agent market. Which I think is correct, look at the Jets and Philly.

 

 

No, Holmgren and Heckert said that free agency isn't a way to build a team, they never said they wouldn't grab a player that worked for them. Or trade for one for that matter. I have no doubt that they won't overspend for a "top" guy that happens to be the popular fan pick. But I could easily see 2 starters, maybe even 3 brought in via free agency. Their first year they were fairly active, Gocong, Fujita, Williams, Hillis...all starters that they got via trade or free agency.

 

I see their style as, get your superstars via the draft, and fill in the gaps through trades and free agency. Which is alright with me.

[Guest jparsh]

Abe Elam was in his third year. Coleman in his seventh.

 

Not exactly the oldest of players.

 

Either way, it only shows that emotion and brashness are just as big of factors in drafting as an arbitrary set of numbers assinged to each pick.

 

 

Not totally, there is an assigned value to picks, that's what I was trying to explain to people before someone posted the actual chart. I'm not sure how it works with current roster players, not sure how many points Elam was worth, IMO he'd be worth 1 point in my trade value chart. And our defense was OLD that year. Our linebackers were slow and a step behind all year. Except for Rubin our D line was older. Haden and Ward were the most youthful players we had.

[Kosar_For_President]

No, Holmgren and Heckert said that free agency isn't a way to build a team, they never said they wouldn't grab a player that worked for them. Or trade for one for that matter. I have no doubt that they won't overspend for a "top" guy that happens to be the popular fan pick. But I could easily see 2 starters, maybe even 3 brought in via free agency. Their first year they were fairly active, Gocong, Fujita, Williams, Hillis...all starters that they got via trade or free agency.

 

I see their style as, get your superstars via the draft, and fill in the gaps through trades and free agency. Which is alright with me.

 

Correct, you had mentioned they need to fill 6 spots, which I don't see via free agency.

[Guest jparsh]

Correct, you had mentioned they need to fill 6 spots, which I don't see via free agency.

 

 

Of course not all through free agency. They have 3 picks in the top 37 picks. All of those players will be starters (at least I would sure as hell hope so). Then you have your 3rd rounder who could easily be an OL starter. There are 3 to 4 starters through the draft, that leaves a couple starters needed to be filled via free agency and or trades.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Not totally, there is an assigned value to picks, that's what I was trying to explain to people before someone posted the actual chart. I'm not sure how it works with current roster players, not sure how many points Elam was worth, IMO he'd be worth 1 point in my trade value chart. And our defense was OLD that year. Our linebackers were slow and a step behind all year. Except for Rubin our D line was older. Haden and Ward were the most youthful players we had.

 

I understand that there's an assigned value, but that's more of a reference material than anything else. It's not the end all way of determining how a draft day trade works. You can't assign a value to a possible franchise QB, with trades involving QB's there's less math and more gut.

 

I agree that our defense was old, but that wasn't due to the trade. Mangini's brought in several vets to help instill values for the younger draft picks and to show that his system actually works. Had he been given a full 4-5 season, we would have seen a drastic improvement in the talent level and culture.

 

His system isn't one I normally agree with, but it does make sense if the coach is an experienced HC. Bring in older vets from your last system to act as examples, load the team through free agency with guys who know how to win, and then build through the draft so the draft picks are coming into a winning culture.

 

It makes sense.

 

Unfortunately, Shurmur had no experience, no guys to bring in, and doesn't know what a winning culture is. But I agree with the system in place. Build through the draft, don't overpay for over rated "playmakers" via FA, and build the defense.

[Kosar_For_President]

Of course not all through free agency. They have 3 picks in the top 37 picks. All of those players will be starters (at least I would sure as hell hope so). Then you have your 3rd rounder who could easily be an OL starter. There are 3 to 4 starters through the draft, that leaves a couple starters needed to be filled via free agency and or trades.

 

Yes. But IMO I think McCoy will have a productive year with the right tools. I just see them taking 3 offensive players with their first pick. Dude we are a 8 win team with more offense. We lost what 5-6 games by 6 points or less. One play one play maker away.

[Guest jparsh]

Yes. But IMO I think McCoy will have a productive year with the right tools. I just see them taking 3 offensive players with their first pick. Dude we are a 8 win team with more offense. We lost what 5-6 games by 6 points or less. One play one play maker away.

 

 

I don't disagree that McCoy can be an 8 win QB. I don't doubt that he can be a 10 win QB and take us to the playoffs. Of course he'll be better with more talent. But we need elite, Colt is not, nor will he ever be elite.

[Vizion]

I don't know what people are still talking about giving Colt more weapons. Colt will not be the QB next year, that has already been determined. We will wind up with either RG3, Flynn or Tananhall (sp?) and one of those 3 will be the starting QB next year. The only option there that allows for two wide outs in the first round is if GB doesn't franchise Flynn and we get him free and clear through free agency. But I'm leaning towards thinking GB will franchise him, the only issue is the fact that his salary would be so large it may scare teams away. Then there's the issue on whether or not he'll resign long term with the team he's being traded to. There's a lot to be determined in that area, except for the fact that Colt will not be the guy. If anyone is taking the whole "we love him and he has a shot to be our franchise guy" BS then you need to learn what it means when a GM/coach/president says the right thing.

 

I said before, you don't give your future guy competition and leave things in limbo. Name one other starting QB this year that's secure in their job who had their gm and president say that they're not willing to name him the starter for next year.

 

Umm, you have no idea whether or not Colt will be the QB next year. An open competition is an open competition. As for your challenge pretty sure Rex Grossman ended last season with the Redskins and yet went into the next year having to battle it out with John Beck for the starting job.

 

I'm not even going to talk about how absurd the idea of Green Bay franchising Flynn would be. That would make him the highest paid player on the team - a backup QB. Also, they have to tag Finley (which is much more likely). You really think Green Bay is going to put themselves in a position where Flynn makes more money than Rodgers? That's just absurd.

 

Also since they claim they won't be very active in free agency, trading up to get RG3 needs to be absoultely out of the question. They would be giving up at least 3 picks for him and if the Browns don't intend to do anything in free agency the draft is our only hope of filling the massive holes that we have on this team.

 

I would MUCH RATHER trade down than get into a bidding war with someone like the Redskins and trade away a ton of picks after having not done a freaking thing in free agency. This team would be in an even worse position that it is now.

 

All of you people thinking that RG3 will be there at the #4 pick? He won't. If we want RG3 we will have to trade up for him and I think that would be the dumbest decision this organization can make considering all of our issues and the fact that we don't intend to do much in free agency.

[bringbackbrownie2]

I don't disagree that McCoy can be an 8 win QB. I don't doubt that he can be a 10 win QB and take us to the playoffs. Of course he'll be better with more talent. But we need elite, Colt is not, nor will he ever be elite.

 

If you truly believe the above then why not spend our picks on playmakers that can help Colt succeed? If Colt can take us to the playoffs with added playmakers, then there is no need to draft a QB that high - yet. Then with more winning seasons Cleveland can attract quality free agents and won't have to worry about losing top players to free agency. We can begin to change the losing culture and then look to add our franchise QB later - where he can come into a good situation instead of being thrown to the wolves with a crap offense..

 

Bottom line: If Colt is capable of taking the Browns to the playoffs (as you seem to think), then why upgrade that position when so many other positions are much more lacking in talent? It makes no sense..

[Guest jparsh]

Umm, you have no idea whether or not Colt will be the QB next year. An open competition is an open competition. As for your challenge pretty sure Rex Grossman ended last season with the Redskins and yet went into the next year having to battle it out with John Beck for the starting job.

 

I'm not even going to talk about how absurd the idea of Green Bay franchising Flynn would be. That would make him the highest paid player on the team - a backup QB. Also, they have to tag Finley (which is much more likely). You really think Green Bay is going to put themselves in a position where Flynn makes more money than Rodgers? That's just absurd.

 

Also since they claim they won't be very active in free agency, trading up to get RG3 needs to be absoultely out of the question. They would be giving up at least 3 picks for him and if the Browns don't intend to do anything in free agency the draft is our only hope of filling the massive holes that we have on this team.

 

I would MUCH RATHER trade down than get into a bidding war with someone like the Redskins and trade away a ton of picks after having not done a freaking thing in free agency. This team would be in an even worse position that it is now.

 

All of you people thinking that RG3 will be there at the #4 pick? He won't. If we want RG3 we will have to trade up for him and I think that would be the dumbest decision this organization can make considering all of our issues and the fact that we don't intend to do much in free agency.

 

 

Yes, Rex Grossman and Colt McCoy are comparable QB's, I would 100% agree with your comparison. Those are the types of QB's that have competition brought in for them. As for GB franchising Flynn, it's a legitimate option that I wouldn't be surprised in a hearbeat if they do. They know the value for Flynn right now and have a shot at getting something for him, not just letting him go in free agency.

 

Where on earth did you hear that the Browns were going to trade up to get RG3 and where in this universe did you hear that we'd have to give up 3 picks to get him??? I'd guess that our 3rd round pick would suffice if the Browns did in fact do that, which I don't think they'd do. But if they did it would be FAR from the dumbest choice they can make. Getting a franchise QB is never a dumb decision.

 

You seem to be very misinformed about much of how things work in the NFL. Your perception of what value trading up costs, your perception of what teams would do with their franchise tag is off. But you are spot on with your comparison of Colt and Grossman being the same type of QB to their teams.

[Guest jparsh]

If you truly believe the above then why not spend our picks on playmakers that can help Colt succeed? If Colt can take us to the playoffs with added playmakers, then there is no need to draft a QB that high - yet. Then with more winning seasons Cleveland can attract quality free agents and won't have to worry about losing top players to free agency. We can begin to change the losing culture and then look to add our franchise QB later - where he can come into a good situation instead of being thrown to the wolves with a crap offense..

 

Bottom line: If Colt is capable of taking the Browns to the playoffs (as you seem to think), then why upgrade that position when so many other positions are much more lacking in talent? It makes no sense..

 

 

I believe that with the right circumstance around them, a great number of NFL caliber QB can make it to the playoffs. Colt is no different, neither is Wallace for that matter. In fact Wallace is probably a little better than McCoy. If your defense only gives up 17 points a game and you have a 1,300 yard rusher with a guy who can break a 5 yard pass and turn it into a 70 yard TD play then yeah, your QB is going to succeed. But the problem is that those teams get exposed in the playoffs. Every team is elite when you get far into the playoffs. I want a QB that is capable of winning the super bowl, that is what separates the regular guy from Brees, Manning(s), Rogers, Brady and so on.

[choco]

As for GB franchising Flynn, it's a legitimate option that I wouldn't be surprised in a hearbeat if they do. They know the value for Flynn right now and have a shot at getting something for him, not just letting him go in free agency.

albiet, its a very long-shot of an option....you think they value flynn over finley? the tag number is roughly 14.5mil....rogers will make 8mil....you think they'll franchise a backup QB? i suggest you think this thru, cause the logical conclusion is franchising flynn is highly risky at best, a cap nightmare at worst.

 

I'd guess that our 3rd round pick would suffice if the Browns did in fact do that, which I don't think they'd do. But if they did it would be FAR from the dumbest choice they can make. Getting a franchise QB is never a dumb decision.

history nor references seem to help you stop making stupid claims....

 

itd take a minimum our 2nd and 3rd just to almost meet the chart value, let alone the premium of possibly bidding against another team. you forget what atlanta gave us to move up for jones? even if your trade could be done, griffin is not a sure fire franchise QB. please get that shit thru your fucking head.

 

You seem to be very misinformed about much of how things work in the NFL. Your perception of what value trading up costs, your perception of what teams would do with their franchise tag is off. But you are spot on with your comparison of Colt and Grossman being the same type of QB to their teams.

oh the irony....

 

check to make sure you dont live in a glass house before throwing stones....

[Vizion]

Yes, Rex Grossman and Colt McCoy are comparable QB's, I would 100% agree with your comparison. Those are the types of QB's that have competition brought in for them. As for GB franchising Flynn, it's a legitimate option that I wouldn't be surprised in a hearbeat if they do. They know the value for Flynn right now and have a shot at getting something for him, not just letting him go in free agency.

 

Where on earth did you hear that the Browns were going to trade up to get RG3 and where in this universe did you hear that we'd have to give up 3 picks to get him??? I'd guess that our 3rd round pick would suffice if the Browns did in fact do that, which I don't think they'd do. But if they did it would be FAR from the dumbest choice they can make. Getting a franchise QB is never a dumb decision.

 

You seem to be very misinformed about much of how things work in the NFL. Your perception of what value trading up costs, your perception of what teams would do with their franchise tag is off. But you are spot on with your comparison of Colt and Grossman being the same type of QB to their teams.

 

Again, Green Bay is not franchising Flynn. You should read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html

 

If the Packers tag Flynn, thta $14 million counts against their salary cap and by league rules you are not allowed trade franchise players. It was only done once with the Patriots and that is because Brady was on IR. Look at the rules! You are are not allowed to franchise tag a player with the intent to sign him and then trade him. You seem to be the one misinformed. When you tag a player, the amount that the tag is worth counts against the cap whether the player does or doesn't sign (if the player signs it is guaranteed to them). If the Packers put a franchise tag on Flynn he would be the highest played player on the team annually. That is NOT going to happen.

 

Sigh you don't get it with RG3. People are saying we need to get RG3. RG3 is not going to be there at the #4 pick. The Rams' (and Vikings') phones will be ringing off the hook with offers from QB needy teams to trade up. Right now, Casserly says for the Redskins to move from #6 to #2 they would have to give up their first this year, their second this year, a first next year and possibly one additional pick. In order for the Browns to outbid them we would have to match that and beat it. Does it make sense now? RG3 is not just going to fall into the Browns lap at #4 and thinking that he will is amazingly naive.

[Kosar_For_President]

If you truly believe the above then why not spend our picks on playmakers that can help Colt succeed? If Colt can take us to the playoffs with added playmakers, then there is no need to draft a QB that high - yet. Then with more winning seasons Cleveland can attract quality free agents and won't have to worry about losing top players to free agency. We can begin to change the losing culture and then look to add our franchise QB later - where he can come into a good situation instead of being thrown to the wolves with a crap offense..

 

Bottom line: If Colt is capable of taking the Browns to the playoffs (as you seem to think), then why upgrade that position when so many other positions are much more lacking in talent? It makes no sense..

 

Amen

[choco]

Again, Green Bay is not franchising Flynn. You should read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html

welcome FNG! nice to see someone new thats not a clueless madden fanboy.