Jump to content


Community Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cle23

  1. Having Taylor changes absolutely nothing about pick 1.
  2. Rumor basically the same principle as has been tossed around. Buffalo gets 1. NY Giants get 4, 22, and a 5th. Cleveland gets 2, 12, 53, 65, 2019 1st, and possibly 56.
  3. It took 3 2nds for the Jets to go from 6 to 3 but it only costs a 3rd to go from 6 to 4?
  4. Right, one was for a quarterback and one wasn't. There are premiums paid when trading up for a QB.
  5. From 15? Is it 3 drafts worth of picks? David Johnson and Patrick Peterson?
  6. I actually really like Mike White. If he drops to mid 3rd or the 4th, and I want Cleveland to grab him a la Kirk Cousins after Darnold at 1.
  7. When I said 3 1sts, I was meaning if Cleveland moves down from 1 and 4, or the 1st pick outright. I'd try to trade 12 and 53 to get back to 6 or 7 for Barkley, Chubb, or even Ward.
  8. I think the #4 would depend on the trade structure. It could be 12, 53, and a 2019 1st. It won't be 3 1sts though.
  9. This board thinks trading to 1 is a possibility, and some think it would only cost 12, 22, 53, and a 2nd next year.
  10. They generally downgrade a Pick the following year by 1 round. A 1st in 19 in worth a 2nd in 18.
  11. I agree it's not enough, but who knows. I'd trade 35 and keep next year's 1st
  12. You are crazy. I'll take Garrett and Chubb for 5 years and deal with contracts then. Bookend franchise pass rushers for 5 years is a great problem to have. No one trades much for a 30 year old RB, let alone a top 4 pick.
  13. It would take more than a 1st next year a McCoy for #4. McCoy is a soon to be 30 year old RB. Take Barkley at 4 for that.
  14. And someone doesnt take Barkley or Chubb. I think Denver would take either one at 5, and I think Indy would take them at 6 over 12 and a 2nd.
  15. I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this. I just can't fathom how Cleveland is "taking some assets" by trading down from 1 to 2, but also having to trade down from 4. If Buffalo was at 2 and you knew they wanted Darnold while Cleveland wanted Allen, sure, take a 2nd and get your guy. But as it stands, Cleveland would give up 1 (3000 points) for 12, 22, 53, 65, and a future 2nd (Roughly 2800 guessing at the future 2nd ). I don't use the chart exclusively, but why would Cleveland do that?
  16. How is Cleveland getting 6 AND 12, 22, and 65? Where is 6 coming from? Also, while it seems Allen would drop, who says that the Bills don't take Darnold and the Jets take Allen? The Bills take Allen, the Giants take Darnold, and the Jets take Mayfield? Cleveland can't take that risk without a king's ransom. You worry about that in 4 years. That a good problem to have.
  17. Never heard of a deferred pick in the NFL.
  18. It doesn't sound that way though. It's reported New York wants Chubb or Barkley. A trade down probably gets them out of reach.
  19. I don't think they are taking Allen 1st of all. I think they are taking Darnold. 2nd, you don't just take a lowball offer because it's "the best offer". New York reportedly doesn't want to drop down to 12. If they did, the trade would probably be done already. If this 3 way trade happens. Cleveland is giving up 1 or 4 and dropping to 12. You may get Allen at 2, or even 4, but you are giving up a chance for Barkley or Chubb. It isn't as simple as only adding picks.
  20. If future 1sts are equivalent to 2nds, then the Rams paid more than Washington. The Rams were also trading with a team that already had a franchise QB. Cleveland has needed a franchise QB for 25 years.
  21. Washington gave up 3 1sts and a 2nd to go from 6 to 2. Somehow Buffalo is going from 12 to 1 for nowhere near that?
  22. That's all hypothetical though. There is zero guarantee that Chubb will be there at 6. Darnold at 1, Allen at 2, Mayfield at 3, Chubb at 4, and Barkley at 5 means the Browns gave up an elite prospect to move up 13 spots from 35 to 22 and get their 65th pick back. Cleveland doesn't need picks, it needs elite players. We have tons of picks.
  23. Okay I had bad wording in my first statement. They can obviously get one of the top five quarterbacks guaranteed, but they wouldn't be trying to trade into the top two if they thought all the quarterbacks were close.
  • Create New...