Idea for Trading with Cleveland for 4th pick based on Hue Jackson Quotes

[YoloinOhio]

3 hours ago, BobChalmers said:

 

I still think they want and should get one of the top rookies - I'm just saying the difference between the top 4 isn't clear enough to miss out on Barkley.

 

So trading down depends on how far down they think they can trade and still get a good one - given that there's a flood of teams needing a QB after them (the whole reason the Bills need to trade up to 5 or similar to get their guy in all these mocks) they can't move down very far and still get a top 4 QB guy.

 

It comes down to:

 

Do you (if you're the Browns) want: 

 

- your first choice at QB, then a top safety or a bunch of picks in trade  OR

- your second choice at QB AND the consensus top offensive player in the whole draft

Dorsey’s drafting history suggests that he does not value offensive skill positions high in the draft. He prefers to find gems in the mid rounds. I would be surprised if they don’t take a QB at 1 and Minkah at 4. I would be shocked if he takes Barkley at the top of the draft.

 

and hue... don’t get me started. He probably doesn’t even want a RB on the team the way he has criminally underused Duke Johnson. Sure, Todd Haley is there now but Hue still runs the show (for some reason). 

Edited March 1, 2018 by YoloinOhio

[RalphWilson'sNewWar]

3 hours ago, matter2003 said:

You are delusional if you think trading 21 and 22 is enough to get up to number four. Maybe that works in your career Madden simulation but it damn sure isnt working in real life.

 

You are likely adding in a 2nd round pick this year and another pick next year...so make that 9 of the top 65

I didn’t just say 21 and 22.

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, RalphWilson'sNewWar said:

The idea for Taylor strictly came from Hue Jackson saying his ideal QB Room for 2018 would have 2 young QBs developing and 1 Veteran with playing experience.

 

I think that is the reason Browns put in a bid for Alex Smith.

 

the vet would play because the 1st Pick is probably Darnold or Allen who are the 2 QBs who they say need time.

 

plus out of Keenum, Bradford, Bridgewater, McCarron, Taylor...Taylor on the 1 year deal might be cheapest?

 

 

Yeah, agreed, out of Keenum, Bradford, Bridgewater, McCarron and Taylor, Taylor might be the cheapest.

 

Just a reminder, the Browns have the most cap room in football, around $100 mill. They won't be making decisions on QB based on saving money. The fact that they thought about bringing in Smith makes that very very clear even if it weren't pretty obvious already. Also, they are very likely to want that veteran to not just be a guy who can start but also a guy who can be an on-field coach and help them develop the young guys, a Frank Reich type who could start.

 

And that's not looked at by anyone as something Tyrod can do. I doubt if you asked him that Tyrod would be interested in that kind of role anyway. He seems to be committed to find a place where he can start and try to prove himself the long-term starter. Can't see the Browns valuing Tyrod enough to make including him in the deal worthwhile.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

18 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Kizer and Kessler are just terrible though, and they won 0 games last year... need oline help, defensive backs, running backs.  You don't win 0 games unless u have tons of holes.

 

You're wrong that Kizer and Kessler won 0 games last year. I think if you go back and go through the game film you will find that the Cleveland Browns were the ones who won zero games. Win-loss record is a team stat.

 

Kizer was a rookie. Plenty of terrible rookies become good or great players. Look at Eli Manning's first year. He completed 48.2% of his passes and had 6 TDs and 9 INTs and a YPA of 5.3. Or Brees' first full year of play, his second year in the league. 60.8%, 17 TDs and 16 INTs and a 6.2 YPA. Kessler has played about as much as Brees had and has frankly outplayed Brees if you only look at similar periods of their career. Young guys can get better. I don't know if either of them will, but saying that they're terrible so they will always be terrible simply doesn't make sense.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Tipster19]

On 2/28/2018 at 10:43 PM, simool said:

My god. What the hell are you on?

Hahahahahahaha, I am not laughing at the original poster but man this struck me so funny that I can’t stop laughing! Lol!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 hours ago, matter2003 said:

You are delusional if you think trading 21 and 22 is enough to get up to number four. Maybe that works in your career Madden simulation but it damn sure isnt working in real life.

 

You are likely adding in a 2nd round pick this year and another pick next year...so make that 9 of the top 65

 

I know you're not talking to me.  I understand that people look at the draft charts and come up with stuff..

 

I think the bottom line though, is that even if a team with a top pick wants to trade, they typically don't want to go back all the way to #21 or #22.  The Bills will have to come up with something intermediate, IMHO.

On 3/1/2018 at 6:51 AM, dneveu said:

 

Kizer and Kessler are just terrible though, and they won 0 games last year... need oline help, defensive backs, running backs.  You don't win 0 games unless u have tons of holes.

 

Wouldn't that be Kizer and Hogan?  Kessler was still on the roster, but he didn't start a game and only threw 23 passes to Hogan's 75

Kessler actually interests me a bit from 2016 where he started 8 games.  Not as a starter though!

 

[Big Turk]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I know you're not talking to me.  I understand that people look at the draft charts and come up with stuff..

 

I think the bottom line though, is that even if a team with a top pick wants to trade, they typically don't want to go back all the way to #21 or #22.  The Bills will have to come up with something intermediate, IMHO.

 

Wouldn't that be Kizer and Hogan?  Kessler was still on the roster, but he didn't start a game and only threw 23 passes to Hogan's 75

Kessler actually interests me a bit from 2016 where he started 8 games.  Not as a starter though!

 

 

I agree...I think the smarrt thing to do would be to first trade up to maybe like 10 or 11 and then try and jump into the top 10 from there...might get a better deal too

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

You're wrong that Kizer and Kessler won 0 games last year. I think if you go back and go through the game film you will find that the Cleveland Browns were the ones who won zero games. Win-loss record is a team stat.

 

Kizer was a rookie. Plenty of terrible rookies become good or great players. Look at Eli Manning's first year. He completed 48.2% of his passes and had 6 TDs and 9 INTs and a YPA of 5.3. Or Brees' first full year of play, his second year in the league. 60.8%, 17 TDs and 16 INTs and a 6.2 YPA. Kessler has played about as much as Brees had and has frankly outplayed Brees if you only look at similar periods of their career. Young guys can get better. I don't know if either of them will, but saying that they're terrible so they will always be terrible simply doesn't make sense.

 

Kizer completed 53% of his passes and threw 22 ints.  But the fact that they lost EVERY game, is an indicator that they aren't a QB away.  They need to address that position, but they need to stock up on picks too.  New GM who may want to get rid of some of the previous regime's guys as well.  

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I know you're not talking to me.  I understand that people look at the draft charts and come up with stuff..

 

I think the bottom line though, is that even if a team with a top pick wants to trade, they typically don't want to go back all the way to #21 or #22.  The Bills will have to come up with something intermediate, IMHO.

 

Wouldn't that be Kizer and Hogan?  Kessler was still on the roster, but he didn't start a game and only threw 23 passes to Hogan's 75

Kessler actually interests me a bit from 2016 where he started 8 games.  Not as a starter though!

 

 

Good point.  Either way - Position needs an upgrade, and trading back from 4 to get a bunch of players may be in their best interest in adding talent to a team that has won 1 game in 2 years.

[Thurman#1]

17 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Kizer completed 53% of his passes and threw 22 ints.  But the fact that they lost EVERY game, is an indicator that they aren't a QB away.  They need to address that position, but they need to stock up on picks too.  New GM who may want to get rid of some of the previous regime's guys as well.  

 

 

 

They are more than one QB away. But they don't have to trade away anything to get the QB they want. He'll be there at #1. And they aren't a team looking to be ready to get to the Super Bowl this year. They'll need to make major improvements this year to keep Hue employed but if they win five or six games and are competitive with most of their schedule it will still be a major improvement.

 

And they're already stocked up on picks. They don't need to stock up on more, not for long-term growth. Just as important, if not more so with their wealth of picks, to get a few real prime talents.

 

And while I didn't watch a single Browns game and don't know what to think about Kizer, I do see that just by the stats he got better as the year went along. I mean, in his first seven games he had two games rated over 50 at passer rating. That's awful. But in the remaining nine games only two games below 50. Had games of 99, 98, 86, 73 and 66.

 

Dunno if he's going to be any good, but as I say, plenty of bad rookie QBs become good players.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

They are more than one QB away. But they don't have to trade away anything to get the QB they want. He'll be there at #1. And they aren't a team looking to be ready to get to the Super Bowl this year. They'll need to make major improvements this year to keep Hue employed but if they win five or six games and are competitive with most of their schedule it will still be a major improvement.

 

And they're already stocked up on picks. They don't need to stock up on more, not for long-term growth. Just as important, if not more so with their wealth of picks, to get a few real prime talents.

 

And while I didn't watch a single Browns game and don't know what to think about Kizer, I do see that just by the stats he got better as the year went along. I mean, in his first seven games he had two games rated over 50 at passer rating. That's awful. But in the remaining nine games only two games below 50. Had games of 99, 98, 86, 73 and 66.

 

Dunno if he's going to be any good, but as I say, plenty of bad rookie QBs become good players.

 

I mean... trading 4 and like a 4th for 21, 2 2nd's, and some picks in 2019 would be a pretty solid haul.  if you can get 6 picks in the first 100 between 2018 and 2019 that's a lot of players.  And they will still get their QB at 1.  

 

They are in a good spot for drafting purposes... but when you go 0-16 that means player development, and draft strategy in the last 3-5 years has been incredibly poor.  Many of the players picked in that time frame have to be replaced.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

On 2/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Doc Brown said:

There's a rumor the Browns could trade for Andrew Luck which would throw the beginning of the draft into chaos with the Colts having three of the first four picks.  How fun would that be?  

Is Andrew Luck worth the 1st and 4th overall picks in a draft that is considered to have multiple franchise QBs? If I'm Cleveland I'd only trade the 1st overall and one of their seconds for Luck.

On 3/1/2018 at 4:50 AM, JinxedBill1 said:

I like the bravado but I doubt Darnold is there at 4. I think Darnold and Rosen go 1 and 2 to the highest bidder at 2. JMO

I see us having to give up three firsts to get it done at minimum. #21, #22 and our first in 2019. It will depend on how far down the draft board the Giants or willing to fall. If they really like a couple prospects that are likely to go top 10 then they might not be willing to trade with us. They'll make a deal with either Denver, NY Jets or Arizona. They can stay in the top ten, draft an elite talent and pick up a 2019 1st.

On 3/1/2018 at 5:44 AM, BobChalmers said:

If Sequon Barkley runs well at the combine at 230+ pounds, Cleveland would be nuts not to take him FIRST and then take whatever QB they can get at #4.

 

I disagree. You don't take a RB #1 overall over a franchise QB in today's NFL. Waiting till #4 to select their QB guarantees they are taking the 3rd best QB in the draft because I see QBs going #2 and #3 in that scenario. Teams will trade up with the Colts and Giants. That's if the Giants don't draft one themselves.

[Thurman#1]

10 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

I mean... trading 4 and like a 4th for 21, 2 2nd's, and some picks in 2019 would be a pretty solid haul.  if you can get 6 picks in the first 100 between 2018 and 2019 that's a lot of players.  And they will still get their QB at 1.  

 

They are in a good spot for drafting purposes... but when you go 0-16 that means player development, and draft strategy in the last 3-5 years has been incredibly poor.  Many of the players picked in that time frame have to be replaced.

 

 

Sure. But it doesn't have to all be done in one year.

 

And yeah, it would be a solid haul. But they've already got like three solid hauls worth to use.

 

I'm usually a huge fan of trading down. I want the Bills to do it every year but this one. Trade up for a QB, Bills. 

 

The Browns, IMHO, should do two things. They should bring in two impact players, including their QB. And they should start a treadmill of picks that will put them in premium draft spots every year by trading down for one or two really good picks next year. This year, they're OK.

 

I don't think I have too major a disagreement with you here. I love trading down usually. I just think they already have so much they just need to use it this year. Bring in six or seven or eight players in one year and four years down the line after you've developed your guys you can't keep them all because you can't afford them. Your GM is saying, "We have to give second contracts to our QB. And he's not working with us yet, so there goes our franchise tag, maybe. And we also have to sign our second-best defensive player after Garrett, our LT,  two of our OL starters and three of our LBs. We don't have the cap space, two-thirds of them will have to go."  You have to spread 'em out.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Marv's Neighbor]

Any idea what hue likes to drink?  There may be a way to pull this off.

[BobChalmers]

On 3/2/2018 at 11:10 AM, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

I disagree. You don't take a RB #1 overall over a franchise QB in today's NFL. Waiting till #4 to select their QB guarantees they are taking the 3rd best QB in the draft because I see QBs going #2 and #3 in that scenario. Teams will trade up with the Colts and Giants. That's if the Giants don't draft one themselves.

 

Badly missing my point.

 

Who is the #1 QB?  Who are the top 3? 6?

 

Look - if the Browns are convinced that one of those QB's is a surefire franchise guy AND definitely better than the other 2, 4, or whatever, they should certainly take the QB.

 

BUT the apparent truth is there is good and bad about all of these guys - none of them is guaranteed better than the other guys.

 

OTOH, Barkley is the best RB prospect in several years.

 

Giving up an easy choice for your first among multiple unknowns makes zero sense.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

21 hours ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Badly missing my point.

 

Who is the #1 QB?  Who are the top 3? 6?

 

Look - if the Browns are convinced that one of those QB's is a surefire franchise guy AND definitely better than the other 2, 4, or whatever, they should certainly take the QB.

 

BUT the apparent truth is there is good and bad about all of these guys - none of them is guaranteed better than the other guys.

 

OTOH, Barkley is the best RB prospect in several years.

 

Giving up an easy choice for your first among multiple unknowns makes zero sense.

 

I don't think there's a single scout out there who has 3 guys tied at the top of the list.  If they love Allen, someone else might love him more and trade up at 3.  Then you end up with a guy you don't like as much.  It's the most important position on the field... you have to endlessly scout and interview these guys.  It's about fit as much as anything else.  

 

 

[billsredneck1]

On 2/28/2018 at 10:49 PM, RalphWilson'sNewWar said:

 

?  Just getting the ball rolling.  What don’t you like.  Fix it for me!

21/22 and tt for no.4 makes a hell of a lot of sense and that's why they are going to pay tt the bonus. they will take mayfield....

considering the browns take darnold and the giants take rosen....which they would be insane not too.

 

22/22 plus tt makes a lot of sense for getting no. 5 if denver has their sights on allen or jackson.

 

either way, no matter what...paying that 6 mil. bonus is going to get us a deal that would have cost additional picks or been impossible otherwise.

[NewEraBills]

48 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

I don't think there's a single scout out there who has 3 guys tied at the top of the list.  If they love Allen, someone else might love him more and trade up at 3.  Then you end up with a guy you don't like as much.  It's the most important position on the field... you have to endlessly scout and interview these guys.  It's about fit as much as anything else.  

 

 

 

I just think GM's grade guys more closely than fans do.  Secondly, Barkley has made a strong case for being the BEST PLAYER in the draft.  If you can get the best player in the draft AND one of the QB's you do it.  I don't even see how this is a debate.  You get the best player in the draft, especially for a team that is starving for playmakers on offense and you get one of the top QB's.  There is just no way to beat that combo for the Browns.

[billsredneck1]

On 2/28/2018 at 11:44 PM, gonzo1105 said:

I’m a firm believer that the Bills and Giants will make a trade for # 2. Just reading what other guys said, previous relationship with Gettlemen(much like the Chiefs last year), and the Giants willingness to hang on to Eli make me think this is a strong possibility. 

 

I also expect Cordy Glenn to be part of the deal. It just makes too much sense. 

i can't see how the giants would not put rosen behind manning.

[4BillsintheBurgh]

Seems like Cleveland has the draft ammo to get the first and second picks overall. I could see them taking barkley and then trading to 2nd to take the qb, if the NYG are willing to move from #2 which it seems they are.

[YoloinOhio]

6 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

i can't see how the giants would not put rosen behind manning.

Probably because Rosen is ready to start now. They should draft a QB but can afford to take one later because they have time to groom.