cle23
-
Posts
1,308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by cle23
-
-
11 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
I’m going to look for signs from brooks and Jeremiah that they know something. The trade idea they presented at the beginning of the show was interesting but i don’t know if I buy it
They drafted Minkah Fitzpatrick at 12 and James Daniels at 22
oh.
Brian ONeill at 53
Mike White at 56
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:
Yes, that's possible.
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.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Dr. Who said:
Every fan base has its share of folks with unreasonable expectations. The above isn't happening, but neither is the #4 pick garnering a 2019 1st.
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Ittakestime said:
Cleveland fans are the most delusional fans in NFL
This board thinks trading to 1 is a possibility, and some think it would only cost 12, 22, 53, and a 2nd next year.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, PastorMKC said:
They generally downgrade a Pick the following year by 1 round. A 1st in 19 in worth a 2nd in 18.
-
14 minutes ago, ducej11 said:
the 22nd pick and next years first is definitely not enough for the 6th overall. Not even close to being reality.
I agree it's not enough, but who knows. I'd trade 35 and keep next year's 1st
-
26 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:
No it wouldn’t. Barkley isnt getting past the Giants. So Cleveland could either take Chubb or get a 2019 1st rounder and Shady. What are the odds both Chubb and Garrett are on the Browns in 4 years? Chubb is either a bust or you can’t afford to pay both Chubb and Garrett in 4 years. McCoy has 1-2 good years left and immediately changes the losing stench in the locker room.
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.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, BuffaloRebound said:
This.
Cleveland still has more draft picks than a 1-31 team can absorb. They need veterans who know how to win more than they need a bunch of talented rookies who get swallowed up by the losing culture. Tyrod was a good start for them. If I’m Cleveland, I take a QB at 1 who sits for a year, then trade pick 4 to the Bills for a 1st rounder next year and Shady. Tyrod, Shady and a decent defense can get 8 wins and get them on road to respectability.
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.
-
21 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Because they don’t have another offer close to that and are still getting the guy that they were taking? It is about the players at this point and not the numbers. If the Bills took Darnold, the Giants take Barkley, the Jets Baker, the Browns take Allen, the Browns can use some of those assets to come back up to 5 even. 12, 35 and 65 would do it for sure. So the Browns would get Allen and Chubb and turn 35 into 22 and 53. Again, this assumes Allen is their guy. Why wouldn’t they do that?
They could always ways turn around and use some of the assets to go to 2 if they are worried about the Jets. The Browns and Bills are the power brokers in this draft. The Browns can stay put and walk out with Allen and Chubb and still have 33, 35, 64 (or whatever). They could also get creative and get Allen, Chubb, 22 and 53. It depends how confident they are in the draft playing out in a certain manner.
There are a few givens though. The Browns and Jets are taking QBs in the top 4. If the Bills move up, they are as well. The Giants probably (not a given) take Barkley (especially if Darnold is gone). If they take Chubb (the only other realistic option IMO) the Browns will get Barkley. The top 4 (with no trades) is 2 QBs, Barkley and Chubb. If the Browns move down (or anyone does) the top 4 will be 3 QBs and Chubb OR Barkley. The Broncos at 5 and Colts at 6 are both open for business. By relinquishing a couple of assets you can get up there to grab the other one. That’s the exact reason that the Bills have leverage. They can go to 5 or 6 and get Rosen at a fraction of the price (and still a price no one else will pay).
The Bills can give up 12, 53 for Rosen or 12, 22, 53, 65 and a 2019 2nd for Darnold. The Browns aren’t holding them at gunpoint (and no one else is even close). So back to your original question, the Browns take it because they get more prime picks and the same guy. Either that or they just take the guy at 1. I think that we’d both agree Allen, Chubb, 22 and 53 is better than Allen, Chubb & 35. It’s just a matter of taking a little risk (basically that the Giants and Jets don’t take Allen).
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.
-
43 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
The Browns certainly have he option to stay put and take Allen or Darnold or whomever. If it is Darnold that they want they need to stay at 1 I think. If it is someone else they should take some assets. The Giants would LOVE to go to 4 and still get Barkley.
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?
-
5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
If they want Darnold all bets are off. You have to stay put and take him. 12, 22, 53, 65 and a 2019 2nd isn’t a lowball offer. That’s 2 1sts, 2 2nds and the first pick of the 3rd. Again, this assumes that the Browns are still getting Allen in the top 4. If he isn’t their guy this trade isn’t happening. Darnold isn’t making it to 4.
You aren’t likely giving up Chubb or Barkley because you are going back to 6. If Denver AND the Giants take Barkley and Chubb you miss out. You have a pick though that will be in great demand with the last of the QBs. You can call Miami or Arizona and say, “are you interested in 6?” If neither are, you add Nelson, Ward, Fitzpatrick, Edmunds, Roquan, etc.. at 12 and still have 22, 33, 35, 64, 65, etc...
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.
10 minutes ago, PIZ said:If the Browns stay at 1 and 4, how are they going to stay under the cap in a few years?
You worry about that in 4 years. That a good problem to have.
-
2 minutes ago, nbbillsfan said:
I want to trade up badly to get our guy. My only concern is giving up the 2019 1st, would love love it to be 2020. I have a bad feeling we could be picking top 10 next year (perhaps even top 5) and don't want to lose that pick. Do NFL trades ever have protection on picks, i.e. if its top 10 then the pick is deferred until 2020?
Never heard of a deferred pick in the NFL.
-
8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
Yeah it really hinges on the Giants. If they decide they don't want a QB the trade will happen.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Yes and they are either going to take Allen at 1, 2 or 4. Why wouldn’t they take the extra assets? He’s the same guy that they are getting no matter where they pick him.
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.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:
The Rams paid 2 1sts (1 current, 1 future), 2 2nds (both current), and 2 3rds (1 current 1 future) to go from 15 to 1.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Manther said:
Disagree. You are making a bold statement with a loud tone to prove a point that can’t be proven or quantified.
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?
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
You said that the Bills would get shut out of the QB. The package I just gave you is why they won’t. If the Browns take 12, 22 and 53 for 4 they are missing out on Chubb. So, the first scenario (that you are against) has the Browns getting Allen, Chubb, 22 and 65 for 35. In this scenario the Browns get Allen, 12, 22, 53 and keep 35. Would you rather Chubb, 22 & 65 or 12, 22, 35 and 53? You are a Browns fan. Which scenario do you prefer? I know if I were a Browns fan I’d rather Chubb.
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.
-
1 minute ago, KOKBILLS said:
The Bills will still get a QB, and if everyone stays put there's a very good chance the #3 QB will be available at pick #5...And Denver will be listening...At that point 12 and 22 are more than enough...
The Bills will get one of the top 5 guys...All they have to do to assure it is to get ahead of Miami...Which is easy...They're not desperate...The only reason this is a thing is because they seemingly love Darnold...
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:
They won't get shut out, they just won't get Darnold. Unlikely Giants take a qb. If Browns, Jets, and Broncos (unlikely, but possible) go for qb, one of the top four is available 6 - 10. Bills will invest less and get a qb.
Right. They risk getting the 3rd or 4th best quarterback even with a trade up at that point. They wouldn't be trying to get up to the first pick if they thought all the quarterbacks were equal.
-
Just now, Kirby Jackson said:
That won’t happen because the Bills will go to 6 (as illustrated above). If the Giants go QB at 2 the Bills will trade up to 4. The Bills package blows everyone else’s away. I know that you don’t want to hear that the Browns won’t be getting 3 firsts but they won’t. Tell me a package that the Browns are getting better than 12, 22 and 53 for the 4th pick?
I didn't say the Browns wouldn't consider 12, 22 and 53 for number 4. I said no team would get to the 1st pick without a future 1st.
-
3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Not me, the 2019 pick is the last asset added. You are talking about top 10 pick in an elite front 7 draft. I’m not giving that pick up unless it is a last resort. You can easily get a deal done without it.
No team is trading from 12 to 1 without giving up a future first. A GM should get fired immediately if he does that trade.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
The points are close according to the charts. They may not get Chubb (or Barkley at 6). That would mean that the Giants took one and the Broncos took the other. I think that the Broncos are taking a QB or Nelson. That’s the gamble that the Browns would be taking. They’d be giving up a high 2nd (35) for the 1st pick of the 3rd (65) AND a 1st (22).
The only risk that they are taking on is that the Broncos AND Giants take Barkley and Chubb. If that happens the Browns can get on the phone with the Cardinals, Dolphins and anyone else looking for a QB and auction of the 6th pick.
The players are all that matter at this point. If you can get the guys that you want and assets you do it. The assumptions that I am making in this thread are based on the rumors out there. The Giants want Barkley, the Bills Darnold, the Browns Allen & Chubb, the Jets Mayfield and the Colts want to trade down. If all of those are true, basically the Browns and Giants can force the Bills to relinquish assets and still walk away with the guys that they are taking otherwise. If they overplay their hands though they get those guys without the extra assets.
That or the Bills get shut out completely ,stay at Pick 12 and not get a top quarterback. Cleveland picks at 1, New York picks at 2, the Jets pick a quarterback at 3, and Cleveland auctions off the 4th pick to all the quarterback needy teams out there. The Bills are the team trying to trade up and desperate for a QB.
-
2 minutes ago, PIZ said:
Seems to be the talk of the Town.
That trade actually makes sense. I honestly don't love it but the value is there and Cleveland could package some of their 4 second-rounders to move back up from 12 while still getting a first next year and pick 65 back.
-
3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Who is saying no to my proposed trade and why? Of course they want that pick but if they can add 22 & 65 while still getting the guys that they’d pick anyways they’d have to consider it. That was @KOKBILLS point earlier. It isn’t a hypothetical at this point. They are trying to figure out how the draft will unfold. There are names now associated with those spots. If the Browns are going to go Allen 1 & Chubb 4, why wouldn’t they rather go Allen 2, Chubb 6 and add 22 & 65 (while subtracting 35)?
Cleveland is saying no. They would probably honestly laugh. Why would they be throwing picks into a trade down especially a high second-rounder? Yes they could still get Allen at 2 but there is absolutely no guarantee that Chubb would be there at 6. They could probably get much higher value trading 4 outright.
Bills in team spotlight on Path to the Draft
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Cleveland isn't desperate for a franchise QB?