All Saquon, all the Time...

[Mark O]

9 hours ago, hoorta said:

That idea got refuted by none other than Daniel Jeremiah- and I happen to agree with him. I'll even grant you the possibility that Barkley is in fact the top of the heap in talent level this year.  BPA applies only if you don't have a franchise QB according to Dan. We don't have our franchise qb. So it's QB or bust this year- swing for the fences, damn the torpedoes, and if our likely pick Darnold busts- so be it. It's been posted elsewhere, Darnold's 7.0 rating on NFL.com tops all of the recent QBs- Winston, Mariotta, Trubisky, Watson, Goff- and the QB guys on this forum have been bellyaching for years we should have taken- Carson Wentz. That's some pretty elite company to be in- and it sure fits my bill as "potential franchise QB". The other factor is we take Saquon and say Chubb- and improve to 7-9, what happens next year? We're in the same spot Buffalo finds themselves in this year. They already gave up a starting LT and their #21 in the first to move up to #12. They're going to have to give up even more- like both firsts, probably a couple seconds, and another second next year at least to get the Giants to budge out of #2. Even that might not be enough if the G-Men are thinking about taking the QB we don't.  When a "generational" QB like Andrew Luck is sitting there at #1, you can offer the team holding the #1 your entire draft to move up, and you'll get shot down. So this is it- let's hope we aren't drafting #1 overall again for a long, long time. Get the qb when you have the chance- and don't have to sell the ranch to do so. It's what smart teams do.  

BTW, DJ also pointed out the Giant's GM Gettelman NEVER goes BPA (unless it's also top need). LOL, you think the Jets gave up a boatload of picks just to take a swing at Saquon? Hell no. 

 

I think DJ is a really smart dude who's pretty good at scouting college players.  He worked as a scout for 3 different teams (including the Browns) before settling down out here in socal to have a family.   He's on the radio a lot out here.   And he's been saying for awhile what you're saying,  Barkley could be the best player in the draft but he won't go #1 because we need a QB.   Last I saw him on TV he had the Browns taking Barkley at 4 which I would be surprised with since we just signed Hyde but as long as we end up with a QB (and it's not Allen), I'll be happy.

[Tour2ma]

15 hours ago, PoeticG said:

I'm confident Barkley has the potential to be the first pick of the draft

[The Gipper]

Just Say No to Needlenose PoG and his obsession:

[PoeticG]

Some of the guys and I were talking today about the draft and we came up with-

"Saq and Bake and Hyde helped" 

Saquon and Mayfield...

or Darnold/Rosen/Allen... hell even Jackson/Rudolph would be okay...

- I really do get the feeling that our FO is going to find that they really like a bunch of these guys- and will be comfortable enough with securing Barkley first, then either orchestrating a trade up to #2 if they are able to or just letting the QB come to them at #4. 

I look at it as- With the first pick you definitely can't miss with the first pick, you have to hit with it. Even though we needed a QB last year, we took Garrett first, everyone- including the owner and the FO was on board with that pick, as I gather that they'll feel the same way about Barkley. He's as clean a prospect you'll find, nobody is going to outwork him, and he sells hope and inspiration. He's a can't miss player. 

You can say that he didn't have the yards per carry as some of the other players had, but you must acknowledge the fact that the scheme and the OL were partly responsible. Just as a QB can be perfect, hit a WR in the numbers and they simply drop it. In the NFL Barkley will be running in Hue's/Haley's scheme. He's Duke Johnson if Duke went Hulk... or super sayian.

Duke had a breakout year last year, amassing 1,041 yards and seven touchdowns, with a career high 74 catches! People think that Duke should have gotten even more work and should get the opportunity with Tyrod Taylor running the offense. Honestly though, there were a couple of times that I didn't think was going to get up. I love the tough little guy, but I don't think his body can handle much more than that. With Barkley, I'll say that he might be well close to 1,000 yards before the bye-week- assuming that it's going to be at or slightly past mid-season. 

I've been hearing that he's not good between the hashes, to that I would say that there is plenty of times he went up the middle. I could find the stat but I've literally watched him bust through the middle of the field- even straight up hurdling a defender and just continuing to run- there is no physical reasoning behind an inability to run up the middle. He's faster, stronger and more explosive that any other runner in the draft. 

He's only going to get bigger - stronger - faster and better at the next level. You have to consider what he is going to become at the next level. He's just about to get his "Dad Strength", and that is legit. He'll be fighting for his child. I can honestly say I don't know what amount of yardage per carry that really equates to but I would guess it's worth another yard.

 

 

[Dutch Oven]

Jesus, I'm pretty sure you are mentally ill. 

[PoeticG]

Dutch, we don't need your .02 cents bud. Thanks anyway though. Next time at least try to be productive. 

[Dutch Oven]

16 minutes ago, PoeticG said:

Dutch, we don't need your .02 cents bud. Thanks anyway though. Next time at least try to be productive. 

3,716 posts, each dumber and more inane than the last. 

Oh wait, you got DieHardBrownsFan to like your post... someone who knows a thing or two about posting useless nonsense on here. Birds of a feather flock together, I suppose! 

 

 

[Mark O]

43 minutes ago, PoeticG said:

 He's a can't miss player.

Like Trent Richardson was even after he was released by his third team?

[PoeticG]

Saquon Barkley is not Trent Richardson. They are totally different players! That is about as equal a statement as Baker Mayfield is Brandon Weedone. 

Are you still mad that I called it? That we were going to pick Richardson? Deja vu old pal? 

When I say he's a can't miss player- I'm not saying that he's a perfect player. I'm telling you that he's the right player. Cleveland's biggest need may not be Runningback... But they're biggest NEED is Saquon Barkley. I saw the stands, I was at a few games, it was depressing. Barkley is exciting to watch. He brings explosiveness and with Gordon and the gang, we would be a high powered offense that scores points to win games. I'm not willing to pass on that for a maybe someday at QB. I'll gladly take a QB with our extra 1st to develop for the future... But we can win NOW with Barkley and Gordon and Landry and Tyrod/Hogan/#4QB. 

Only 25% of the people are going to be happy with the QB they select #1. 

25%- Darnold

25%- Rosen

25%- Allen

25%- Mayfield

 

Regardless of whether you take a QB #1 or #4 you are still upsetting 75% of the fanbase. You take Barkley(75%) and the QB(25%) and you've satisfied - ahem... 100% of the ... ahem... fanbase... cough... 

 

 

 

[Gunz41]

50 minutes ago, PoeticG said:

Saquon Barkley is not Trent Richardson. They are totally different players! That is about as equal a statement as Baker Mayfield is Brandon Weedone. 

Are you still mad that I called it? That we were going to pick Richardson? Deja vu old pal? 

When I say he's a can't miss player- I'm not saying that he's a perfect player. I'm telling you that he's the right player. Cleveland's biggest need may not be Runningback... But they're biggest NEED is Saquon Barkley. I saw the stands, I was at a few games, it was depressing. Barkley is exciting to watch. He brings explosiveness and with Gordon and the gang, we would be a high powered offense that scores points to win games. I'm not willing to pass on that for a maybe someday at QB. I'll gladly take a QB with our extra 1st to develop for the future... But we can win NOW with Barkley and Gordon and Landry and Tyrod/Hogan/#4QB. 

Only 25% of the people are going to be happy with the QB they select #1. 

25%- Darnold

25%- Rosen

25%- Allen

25%- Mayfield

 

Regardless of whether you take a QB #1 or #4 you are still upsetting 75% of the fanbase. You take Barkley(75%) and the QB(25%) and you've satisfied - ahem... 100% of the ... ahem... fanbase... cough... 

 

 

 

There is so much wrong with your last few posts trying to explain your reasoning. BUT, I will give you credit because most was rational, even if people disagree.

But a few things, and I want an HONEST and SERIOUS answer. Why do you only use stats that you want to? And when Barkley struggled, why is it on someone else's fault, but the same can't be said for others?

And the second serious question is why are you so set on Barkley being #1. It is not because you think someone else would take him, because earlier in off season when presented with the option of YOUR top QB #1 And Barkley #4 or Barkley #1 and YOUR #3 QB, you picked the latter. So seriously, why does it matter so much for you for him to go #1 vs #4.

And then you lost EVERYONE with his dad strength and it's real. He isn't fighting for his kid on a football field, and IF that were a real thing, he certainly isn't the only father in the NFL. And your percentages are just a flat out lie. Just assume the 25% for each QB is right (which it isnt), still not everyone is in favor of Barkley, or Chubb, or Fitzpatrick, etc. No matter what 2 players are taken, not even close to 100%.

You see, when you say actual things for discussion, people will actually start to listen. Dont hurt your cause and his by saying asinine things.

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, PoeticG said:

Dutch, we don't need your .02 cents bud. Thanks anyway though. Next time at least try to be productive. 

We didn't need his post but his post was perfectly accurate.

[hoorta]

3 hours ago, PoeticG said:

 

I look at it as- With the first pick you definitely can't miss with the first pick, you have to hit with it. Even though we needed a QB last year, we took Garrett first, everyone- including the owner and the FO was on board with that pick, as I gather that they'll feel the same way about Barkley. He's as clean a prospect you'll find, nobody is going to outwork him, and he sells hope and inspiration. He's a can't miss player. 

 

Not true- there were several dissenting voices that wanted Trubisky, but Garrett was considered a "generational" player. We would have taken Mitch with a trade up, but the Bears moved up to #2 and jumped us. 

2 hours ago, PoeticG said:

1) Are you still mad that I called it? That we were going to pick Richardson? Deja vu old pal? 

2) But they're biggest NEED is Saquon Barkley. I saw the stands, I was at a few games, it was depressing. . 

3) Only 25% of the people are going to be happy with the QB they select #1. 25%- Darnold, 25%- Rosen 25%- Allen, 25%- Mayfield

4) Regardless of whether you take a QB #1 or #4 you are still upsetting 75% of the fanbase. You take Barkley(75%) and the QB(25%) and you've satisfied - ahem... 100% of the ... ahem... fanbase... cough... 

1) Look it up- I called Richardson a bad pick. Thank you very much. 

2) Wrong- the Browns biggest need is a true franchise QB- and we're going to take one- at #1. Don't believe me if you must but obviously you're ignoring every freaking site that rates team needs, and everyone I've seen has the Browns #1 need as a quarterback. Get used to the idea Po, but apparently you just can't grasp the concept. Regarding the games, it was way more depressing watching Kizer completely screw the pooch multiple times. AND I blew around $1,000 bucks to fly down to Houston where me and Tour watched your hero Hogan put on a total $hit show. THAT was depressing, my friend. Want to explain why Haslam, Dorsey, Jackson, Haley, and a host of scouts were at both Darnold's and Allen's pro days- and no-shows at Barkley's? I've been to Laramie a bunch of times, and it's not exactly a garden spot I'd put on my agenda to visit in March. 

3) Where did you pull that crap from? Out of your azz? Link please. 

4) Wrong. That scenario only satisfies your agenda. 50% of our wacko fans are going to be dissatisfied whatever we do. There's a significant percentage of Browns fans that don't want Barkley AT ALL, take a running back later. Count me as one of them.

[PoeticG]

42 minutes ago, hoorta said:

Not true- there were several dissenting voices that wanted Trubisky, but Garrett was considered a "generational" player. We would have taken Mitch with a trade up, but the Bears moved up to #2 and jumped us. 

1) Look it up- I called Richardson a bad pick. Thank you very much. 

2) Wrong- the Browns biggest need is a true franchise QB- and we're going to take one- at #1. Don't believe me if you must but obviously you're ignoring every freaking site that rates team needs, and everyone I've seen has the Browns #1 need as a quarterback. Get used to the idea Po, but apparently you just can't grasp the concept. Regarding the games, it was way more depressing watching Kizer completely screw the pooch multiple times. AND I blew around $1,000 bucks to fly down to Houston where me and Tour watched your hero Hogan put on a total $hit show. THAT was depressing, my friend. Want to explain why Haslam, Dorsey, Jackson, Haley, and a host of scouts were at both Darnold's and Allen's pro days- and no-shows at Barkley's? I've been to Laramie a bunch of times, and it's not exactly a garden spot I'd put on my agenda to visit in March. 

3) Where did you pull that crap from? Out of your azz? Link please. 

4) Wrong. That scenario only satisfies your agenda. 50% of our wacko fans are going to be dissatisfied whatever we do. There's a significant percentage of Browns fans that don't want Barkley AT ALL, take a running back later. Count me as one of them.

Dang. I just spent an hour writing up a reply to Gunz's questions- we were about to be best friends- then I went read this and went to reply before I hit submit and lost it! Dude, I can't even... I'm weak af. I don't know if I'd ever be able to configure the words with the same delivery, all the same to you- that you won't see - I guess it's just for the best, it'll all work out- I guess you're blessed cause I've saved you the misery. 

[hoorta]

4 minutes ago, PoeticG said:

Dang. I just spent an hour writing up a reply to Gunz's questions- we were about to be best friends- then I went read this and went to reply before I hit submit and lost it! Dude, I can't even... I'm weak af. I don't know if I'd ever be able to configure the words with the same delivery you don't see that you miss my misery. 

You might be able to restore it if you click in the reply box at the end of the thread.  Just MHO Po, you may feel bad about it, but it's about 95% certain Saquon isn't going #1- like I previously posted. Taking the whole crew to Darnold and Allen's pro days, and essentially ignoring Saquon should tell you who we have major interest in. 

[PoeticG]

2 minutes ago, hoorta said:

You might be able to restore it if you click in the reply box at the end of the thread.  Just MHO Po, you may feel bad about it, but it's about 95% certain Saquon isn't going #1- like I previously posted. Taking the whole crew to Darnold and Allen's pro days, and essentially ignoring Saquon should tell you who we have major interest in. 

Aye- In my warp and twisted mind- All those guys are attending because they are already SOLD on Barkley- They are just doing their due diligence about having them ranked so they can gauge the value of each quarterback at 4. Say the feel good about 3 of them and they are already sold on Barkley then it's a done deal.

They could take Barkley and offer NY #4 and the swap low second round picks with Cleveland, then we can get back to back #1 and #2. If they don't want to we would be happy with two of the other guys- I know many don't see it that way, but if we all had the same opinion- we'd have nothing to talk about... 

[PoeticG]

Even though I don't agree with the approach to take a lesser player because he's a QB(you take the Elite player, I believe). But... there is a way for everyone to get what they want; and in a couple of different ways. It's difficult to type it out, like how to word it but it's like this:

 

1- If you're Dorsey, you call NYG and ask them who they want to draft- because we don't want to take the guy they want(unless it's Barkley). But, if they agree not to take Barkley and we both want different QBs- we should be fine. We end up with the first choice of QB and have a shot to get Barkley at 4.

2- We find out what QB NYG likes(draft him), then trade NY that QB for the #2 spot.... wait, scratch that one...

2- We trade NYG the #1 pick with stipulation that will not draft Barkley or the QB we want with it. 

3- We trade NYG the #4 and our first and last second round picks for NYG's first, second and third rounder. It's basically letting them cut us twice but we don't lose any picks.

There are a lot of different ways to assure that we get the FO's #1 QB AND Barkley, and IF these guys in the FO and coaching staff are serious about turning this thing around, this is the approach that they should take. 

Do you agree with that?

 

[RoyceRolls]

Guys...logic doesn’t work here. This is the guy who wouldn’t give up on Trent Richardson even after he proved to be a sub-standard back. (He probably still wants the Browns to sign TRich).  

The Saquon dickriding won’t stop, even after the browns pass on him twice, we will have to hear about how Saquon could have been a brown, even if he proves to be an ordinary back.  Then the conversation will be how the team dumb enough to waste a premium pick on a RB was miss using him or some Sheet.  

Buckle up, the broken logic is here to stay. 

[Dutch Oven]

2 minutes ago, RoyceRolls said:

Guys...logic doesn’t work here. This is the guy who wouldn’t give up on Trent Richardson even after he proved to be a sub-standard back. (He probably still wants the Browns to sign TRich).  

The Saquon dickriding won’t stop, even after the browns pass on him twice, we will have to hear about how Saquon could have been a brown, even if he proves to be an ordinary back.  Then the conversation will be how the team dumb enough to waste a premium pick on a RB was miss using him or some Sheet.  

Buckle up, the broken logic is here to stay. 

Without a doubt.

The excuses for Kevin Hogan's abysmal start in Houston came flying from PatheticG's furious fingers faster than noodle-arm Hogan could throw passes. 

We've seen this movie before.

[Baequon Snarky]

Some very good conversation on here regarding the strategy of the first four picks. A little surprised that Allen is still in the conversation but I admit that I am a bit negatively bias towards him based on the other QB options. 

My thoughts on those first four picks are based around one truth that I think we can all agree on at this point: A QB is going to the NYJ at 1.03. With them trading up the three spots, they were attempting to align with a QB and not hoping Barkley or Chubb (who may have fell). So the draft will unfold one of three ways: 

1. The Non-QB at 1.01 narrative: The Browns go with Chubb or Barkley at 1.01 and then either trade out of 1.04 (if they do not intend to take a QB), land the other player (if both NY teams go QB) or take the remaining QB from the big 3 (Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield). 

I feel like this is the least likely scenario because they declined trading down with NYJ from the 1.01 and have also heard from BUF for the 1.01. The latter plot may unfold on draft night, but as it has not happened yet, I am assuming the Browns said no. It could have been a lack of value on the part of NYJ, but I feel that this move means that they are digging in on a QB, personally. 

 

2. NYG goes Non-QB at 1.02: So, if the Browns go QB at 1.01, the NYG then take Barkley or Chubb at 1.02. This then allows the Jets to take home the 2nd QB and then one of two things happens for CLE: either they take whichever of Chubb or Barkley that wasn't taken by NYG, or the phones open up and they are racing the clock to move down with DEN, MIA, or BUF. 

In this scenario, I feel that its also unlikely that NYG passes on QB because they too turned down the Jets to move down to 6. So I'm assuming that they too want to lock up a QB and will grab a 2nd tier RB on day two. 

 

3. QBs go 1-2-3: If the Browns, Giants, and Jets all take a QB, the draft finally opens up. In this case, one of three situations happen. Either the Browns take Chubb, take Barkley, or they attempt to trade down one spot with DEN (if DEN is trying to get a QB) and then will take Chubb or Barkley at 1.05 

This type of situation seems to be the most probable based on my above explanations. I'm not saying that its definitely going to happen this way, but I feel its the most likely. I do think that we will see QBs fly off the board and, if any of the teams that are willing to trade up want Allen, DEN behind CLE will offer a narrative that makes moving up seem paramount. 

 

I guess the point is that there are a lot of variables involved in trying to crack the code for the top four this year. Hell, CLE's first five picks all have a shot at starting, and so this draft is so crucial. 

 

I will leave you with another version of the draft that I read today and that I found incredibly interesting, although I don't think it will happen. Twitter is an interesting place for draft porn lol. Imagine the Browns going Chubb or Barkley at 1.01 and then getting the other one at 1.04. Then trading up into the mid 20's and taking Lamar Jackson to grow behind Tyrod. In that scenario, the Browns moved their 33rd and 64th picks, along with their 2019 3rd rounder so that they could put a 5th year option on Jackson. Then at 35 overall, they went with the best OT on the board. 

 

What a crazy concept, but it is rather sound, value wise. So many options are out there and I cannot wait to see how Dorsey uses it to build. 

[Tour2ma]

17 minutes ago, Baequon Snarky said:

I guess the point is that there are a lot of variables involved in trying to crack the code for the top four this year. Hell, CLE's first five picks all have a shot at starting, and so this draft is so crucial. 

Nice entrance... welcome o' stranger with the unusual name.

 

[hoorta]

2 hours ago, PoeticG said:

Aye- In my warp and twisted mind- All those guys are attending because they are already SOLD on Barkley- They are just doing their due diligence about having them ranked so they can gauge the value of each quarterback at 4. Say the feel good about 3 of them and they are already sold on Barkley then it's a done deal.

They could take Barkley and offer NY #4 and the swap low second round picks with Cleveland, then we can get back to back #1 and #2. If they don't want to we would be happy with two of the other guys- I know many don't see it that way, but if we all had the same opinion- we'd have nothing to talk about... 

I knew you would eventually come up with something so  c-ockamaime warped like that it defies any logic. So why would they turn down an offer from the Jets to trade down out of #1? Because the Jets want Barkley, or the Browns are stupid enough to turn down a boatload of picks for a running back they're not taking? 

Just remember- Dorsey has never taken a running back in the first round Po. John also said a day or two ago their draft board is far from set. If they really were interested in Barkley they would at least have sent someone higher than a scout (who was probably only there to watch Mike Gesicki) not to watch SB sit out his pro day. To a lot of GMs, that went over like a lead balloon. The rational thinking is compared to the top quarterbacks, the Browns have virtually no interest in Saquon. Sheeeze. 

[Baequon Snarky]

4 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Nice entrance... welcome o' stranger with the unusual name.

 

Much appreciated. I was just glad to find a chat for the Browns. I used to frequent the team’s site but that’s been years, and it appears to be gone. 

Figured it was the perfect time of year to jump in head first and talk the draft. Lol 

 

 

[hoorta]

34 minutes ago, Baequon Snarky said:

Some very good conversation on here regarding the strategy of the first four picks. A little surprised that Allen is still in the conversation but I admit that I am a bit negatively bias towards him based on the other QB options. 

My thoughts on those first four picks are based around one truth that I think we can all agree on at this point: A QB is going to the NYJ at 1.03. With them trading up the three spots, they were attempting to align with a QB and not hoping Barkley or Chubb (who may have fell). So the draft will unfold one of three ways: 

I will leave you with another version of the draft that I read today and that I found incredibly interesting, although I don't think it will happen. Twitter is an interesting place for draft porn lol. Imagine the Browns going Chubb or Barkley at 1.01 and then getting the other one at 1.04. Then trading up into the mid 20's and taking Lamar Jackson to grow behind Tyrod. In that scenario, the Browns moved their 33rd and 64th picks, along with their 2019 3rd rounder so that they could put a 5th year option on Jackson. Then at 35 overall, they went with the best OT on the board. 

What a crazy concept, but it is rather sound, value wise. So many options are out there and I cannot wait to see how Dorsey uses it to build. 

Didn't want to quote your entire post.  Intelligent conversation is always welcome around here. I'll echo Tour- nice first post. Unfortunately this thread is run amok (there's a few others Barkley threads that have been locked) by one of our posters who has a  major Saquon fixation. Don't know if you've been lurking before you posted. 

Regarding Chubb\Barkley\Jackson, MHO is that's crazy twitter opining. I saw something even crazier on another board where a guy wants us to trade away both our #1 and #4 for future first round picks. 

Dorsey's Marching Orders were crystal clear when Haslam introduced him. Get the quarterback. There is no way in hell Dorsey and Company are drafting the 5th or 6th best quarterback- depending on who you're listening to.    

Again- Welcome!   

[SD_Tom]

12 minutes ago, hoorta said:

Didn't want to quote your entire post.  Intelligent conversation is always welcome around here. I'll echo Tour- nice first post. Unfortunately this thread is run amok (there's a few others Barkley threads that have been locked) by one of our posters who has a  major Saquon fixation. Don't know if you've been lurking before you posted. 

Regarding Chubb\Barkley\Jackson, MHO is that's crazy twitter opining. I saw something even crazier on another board where a guy wants us to trade away both our #1 and #4 for future first round picks. 

Dorsey's Marching Orders were crystal clear when Haslam introduced him. Get the quarterback. There is no way in hell Dorsey and Company are drafting the 5th or 6th best quarterback- depending on who you're listening to.    

Again- Welcome!   

The Bears moving up last draft along with the chiefs is a reminder that if you want a qb,  you take him at #1.  He's probably not going to be there at #4

[hoorta]

7 minutes ago, SD_Tom said:

The Bears moving up last draft along with the chiefs is a reminder that if you want a qb,  you take him at #1.  He's probably not going to be there at #4

Po's faulty premise is there's not going to be any difference between the quarterbacks we'll eventually have ranked on our draft board #1, #2, #3. Even if in the unlikely event we did, we're still going to pick the one we like best. Do you like vanilla or chocolate ice cream better?   DUH! The only way to ensure we have our #1 QB is- to take him at #1!!! Not exactly rocket science. Dorsey & Crew aren't going to spend countless hours dissecting the top prospects, and take a chance the guy they really want will be there at #4. This is a decision- if all goes well- that's going to impact the Browns for the next several years- and we have to get it right. 

You present Po with a bunch of reasons (dozens of times) why it's damn imperative to take our QB of choice first, and he just keeps spinning away with his Barkley at #1 love. 

 

[hoorta]

2 hours ago, PoeticG said:

Even though I don't agree with the approach to take a lesser player because he's a QB(you take the Elite player, I believe). But... there is a way for everyone to get what they want; and in a couple of different ways. It's difficult to type it out, like how to word it but it's like this:

 

1- If you're Dorsey, you call NYG and ask them who they want to draft- because we don't want to take the guy they want(unless it's Barkley). But, if they agree not to take Barkley and we both want different QBs- we should be fine. We end up with the first choice of QB and have a shot to get Barkley at 4.

2- We find out what QB NYG likes(draft him), then trade NY that QB for the #2 spot.... wait, scratch that one...

2- We trade NYG the #1 pick with stipulation that will not draft Barkley or the QB we want with it. 

3- We trade NYG the #4 and our first and last second round picks for NYG's first, second and third rounder. It's basically letting them cut us twice but we don't lose any picks.

There are a lot of different ways to assure that we get the FO's #1 QB AND Barkley, and IF these guys in the FO and coaching staff are serious about turning this thing around, this is the approach that they should take. 

Do you agree with that?

 

Except it doesn't work that way in the real world Po. When you trade draft picks- you can't ask the other team what they're going to do with it. 

[Dutch Oven]

4 hours ago, hoorta said:

Po's faulty premise is there's not going to be any difference between the quarterbacks we'll eventually have ranked on our draft board #1, #2, #3. Even if in the unlikely event we did, we're still going to pick the one we like best. Do you like vanilla or chocolate ice cream better?   DUH! The only way to ensure we have our #1 QB is- to take him at #1!!! Not exactly rocket science. Dorsey & Crew aren't going to spend countless hours dissecting the top prospects, and take a chance the guy they really want will be there at #4. This is a decision- if all goes well- that's going to impact the Browns for the next several years- and we have to get it right. 

You present Po with a bunch of reasons (dozens of times) why it's damn imperative to take our QB of choice first, and he just keeps spinning away with his Barkley at #1 love. 

 

And he's not the only person on here who thinks that the QBs at top are just interchangeable parts that can easily fit into any system, so take Barkley or Chubb #1 and take whatever QB is left at #4... Like the QBs are new Chevrolet Impalas sitting on the car lot, and even if the red, blue and black Impala gets bought before you get a chance to buy one, you can take the silver one, because at the end of the day you still get a Chevrolet Impala. 

The logic behind this is baffling. People really think that after months and months of scouting these QBs the Browns are just going to be all: "You know, they are all perfectly fine for us and whatever one we get, we'll be fine with!"? 

[TexasAg1969]

3 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

And he's not the only person on here who thinks that the QBs at top are just interchangeable parts that can easily fit into any system, so take Barkley or Chubb #1 and take whatever QB is left at #4... Like the QBs are new Chevrolet Impalas sitting on the car lot, and even if the red, blue and black Impala gets bought before you get a chance to buy one, you can take the silver one, because at the end of the day you still get a Chevrolet Impala. 

The logic behind this is baffling. People really think that after months and months of scouting these QBs the Browns are just going to be all: "You know, they are all perfectly fine for us and whatever one we get, we'll be fine with!"? 

There is a better than 80% (I made it up) chance Chubb will be there @ #4. Too many QB needy teams in a decent QB year. Let some other chump have Barkley the Dog. Too many good backs later on in a very deep RB draft.

[The Gipper]

It really never ends, does it?

 

[The Gipper]

What will it take to defeat Needlenose PoG and he relentless forces of evil: