Brownies willing to trade #1

[Roundybout]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Detective said:

I am begging for someone to convince me that the current Bills roster is just as good, or possibly even better, as the Eagles and Rams rosters were when they moved up for Goff and Wentz, that would justify the Bills making a similar move to #1 or #3 for a QB.

 

I'll be waiting.

 

Here's one to offer. 

 

After going 0-16 in 2008, the Lions drafted Matthew Stafford first overall. That team had zero talent on it. They had Kevin Smith as running back, and Calvin Johnson to throw to. Defensively, Louis Delmas was about the best they had. 

 

Stafford and co. slowly turned the Lions around, going 2-14, then 6-10, then 10-6 in 2011. Recently, they've gotten even better. With some better coaching, they could easily succeed the Packers and take on the Vikings. 

[transplantbillsfan]

Scenario #2... what if the Browns draft Darnold but they had him graded out almost exactly equal to another guy (Rosen, Mayfield or Allen) and then saw whichever guy they viewed as equal fall to their spot at #4.

 

At that point, do they take calls from other teams offering Darnold to another team to draft the guy they wanted at 4 while acquiring multiple 1st round picks from another team like Buffalo?

 

Does it cost less at that point if you're a team like Buffalo trading for Darnold who the  Browns drafted at #1?

 

 

I really don't think we'll trade up, but I think when teams have so many draft picks, they're more likely to offer up picks for maybe more of a fair deal.

[26CornerBlitz]

Rapoport: 'Good possibility' Browns sign a veteran QB like A.J. McCarron, could trade No. 1 pick (1:08)
 

NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport explores the possibility that the Cleveland Browns may sign a veteran quarterback in free agency and trade the No. 1 overall pick in the 2018 NFL Draft.

[Reed83HOF]

8 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Your title is not congruent with Dorsey's statement.  What Dorsey is saying is if somebody wants to pay "stupid money" then ,yes, we will fleece them.  Unless somebody wants to offer four number 1's and a couple of 2's and maybe a 7th so we can say we screwed somebody out of a year's worth of picks by volume then we will take our guy.  The first sentence in that statement implies Barkley to me.

 

Honestly, IDK why you are being a pain in the ass about it, frankly it's stupid and a waste of time. The point was to simply get this out on our board so people can see it and comment on it like any other functioning board (I'm not going to get into the dysfunction or level of function that occurs on this board). 

 

Now that I am spending time on this - The title says "Brownies willing to Trade #1", Dorsey says (I'm parsing the quote a bit) "A lot of things I can do at #1...I'm willing to trade". I would say the title is in agreement with what he said.

 

No where did he say he wants "stupid money" like you are inferring (I'm willing to concede; yes he wants a lot in return and why wouldn't he?). No where did he say that and I chose not to put it in the title. If you don't like the title or think it's misleading, report it and let a mod decide make your own, or stay out of the thread...Your choice...

 

On a serious note though: Do you believe the earth is spherical?

[Fadingpain]

This is impossible!

 

26Cornerblitz has been telling this board for months that Cleveland's #1 pick is not available and it will be used on a QB!

 

Surely he knows more than the Browns' GM, right?!  

 

 

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

40 minutes ago, Da webster guy said:

 

Yup.   Interesting draft in the sense that there is no clear cut #1 or even a clear top 5 for that matter.   It's an interesting time to be a Browns fan, I sure wish the Texans had traded up with us instead of KC, we'd be sitting with #4 and #21 and the perfect draft to get our QB and DT.

 

Rosen is #1 hands down.

 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Smokescreen! Make me a ridiculous offer and I'll see if 4 number ones is enough......Nah keep going not enough yet...and BTW, BUFFALO we now are thinking about taking Rosen number 1.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

Honestly, IDK why you are being a pain in the ass about it, frankly it's stupid and a waste of time. The point was to simply get this out on our board so people can see it and comment on it like any other functioning board (I'm not going to get into the dysfunction or level of function that occurs on this board). 

 

Now that I am spending time on this - The title says "Brownies willing to Trade #1", Dorsey says (I'm parsing the quote a bit) "A lot of things I can do at #1...I'm willing to trade". I would say the title is in agreement with what he said.

 

No where did he say he wants "stupid money" like you are inferring (I'm willing to concede; yes he wants a lot in return and why wouldn't he?). No where did he say that and I chose not to put it in the title. If you don't like the title or think it's misleading, report it and let a mod decide make your own, or stay out of the thread...Your choice...

 

On a serious note though: Do you believe the earth is spherical?

  I am only a pain in the rear to those who see it differently than myself.  I don't know what to tell you if you can't handle differing opinions than yours in your own thread.  The essence of the statement is he will do what is best for the Browns but he is not giving away the store to any other team.  Can we at least agree that it is going to take a lot for any top 4 team to part with their pick and not give it away for two picks in the bottom third of round one, a bottom third of the second pick, Glenn, Bruce Smith's sneakers, Thurman Thomas' warming coat, or any other things that amount to trinkets.  I don't need a mod as I don't think you deliberately are twisting the statement but just looking at it through Rosen, Darnold, whatever colored glasses.  Your last statement is just smart-alecky as though once again you can't handle somebody who looks at it differently than you do.

[Rico]

32 minutes ago, Virgil said:

There some rumors out there that they don’t like any of the QBs with the first pick. If they like anyone else, they have the #4 pick, and could easily trade up to #2. 

 

I wouldn’t be surprised to see them trade back with the Jets. 

 

I don’t take this as a slight against the QB class until the Browns can prove they can accurate scout talent. 

Safest way to keep Rosen out of a Felons or Jets uniform is to trade for the first pick.

[ndirish1978]

59 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Detective said:

The Rams also had these guys on their roster at the time they made that trade: Robert Quinn, Aaron Donald, Alec Ogletree, Todd Gurley, Greg Robinson, Rodger Saffold.

So, much like the Eagles, the Rams ALREADY HAD A STRONG ROSTER IN PLACE, meaning that they could afford to make a bold move to go up and take Goff.

 

Yes, let's wait 2-3 more years to draft a QB. Of course by then we likely won't have 2 picks in the first round and would not have the ability to trade up to get a good QB. Oh and the aging starters we do have in place will by then need to be replaced, so there's that.

[26CornerBlitz]

16 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

This is impossible!

 

26Cornerblitz has been telling this board for months that Cleveland's #1 pick is not available and it will be used on a QB!

 

Surely he knows more than the Browns' GM, right?!  

 

 

 

Let's see if it a trade of the # 1 pick comes to fruition fading stain. 

[2003Contenders]

While trading from #1 overall down to 21 may seem like a steep drop, the Browns could easily package all the picks they have to move BACK into the top 10 without much effort. Heck, just the 2 first-round picks they would hypothetically acquire from the Bills would be enough to get them back to anywhere from 4-8 (depending upon which draft value chart you believe).

Edited March 1, 2018 by 2003Contenders

[Buffalo Bills Detective]

31 minutes ago, BillsEnthusiast said:

 

Here's one to offer. 

 

After going 0-16 in 2008, the Lions drafted Matthew Stafford first overall. That team had zero talent on it. They had Kevin Smith as running back, and Calvin Johnson to throw to. Defensively, Louis Delmas was about the best they had. 

 

Stafford and co. slowly turned the Lions around, going 2-14, then 6-10, then 10-6 in 2011. Recently, they've gotten even better. With some better coaching, they could easily succeed the Packers and take on the Vikings. 

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my original request.  I'm seeing posters saying that the Bills should make a bold move to go all the way up to #1 or #2 for a QB because that's what the Eagles and Rams did.  My question, again, is can anyone convince me that the Bills roster, as it stands today, is as strong as the Eagles and Rams rosters were in early 2016, to justify them moving up from 21 to either #1 or #2 to take a QB?

[Jay_Fixit]

 

 

1 hour ago, PIZ said:

They want to see who is serious about moving up, so they can decide if they need to take a QB at one, or if they can take Barkley at 1 and a QB at 4.

 

Would any team desperate for a QB do something like the Saints did to get Ricky Williams?

 

The Saints traded away 8 picks, including two 1st rounders, to the Washington Redskins so they could move up from their own #12 spot in the draft to the #5 spot.

Here is what the Redskins received.

 

Year	Round
1999	1st (12th Overall)
1999	3rd
1999	4th
1999	5th
1999	6th
1999	7th
2000	1st (2nd Overall)
2000	3rd

It just amazes me that Washington did absolutely nothing with those picks.

 

They used some to trade (got Champ Bailey at 7 in 1999) and Lavar Arrington in 2000.

 

Otherwise, yowza.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Jay_Fixit

[Teddy KGB]

31 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:

 

Yes, let's wait 2-3 more years to draft a QB. Of course by then we likely won't have 2 picks in the first round and would not have the ability to trade up to get a good QB. Oh and the aging starters we do have in place will by then need to be replaced, so there's that.

 

I think he’s saying the qb can’t win unless we draft an Alec Ogtree and Fletcher Cox clone first.   

 

I dont understand why the qb can’t learn on the job without ogletree/Cox clones but Detective can probably explain that better.  

 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

4 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

I think he’s saying the qb can’t win unless we draft an Alec Ogtree and Fletcher Cox clone first.   

 

I dont understand why the qb can’t learn on the job without ogletree/Cox clones but Detective can probably explain that better.  

 

Dubious!

[YoloinOhio]

20 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Detective said:

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my original request.  I'm seeing posters saying that the Bills should make a bold move to go all the way up to #1 or #2 for a QB because that's what the Eagles and Rams did.  My question, again, is can anyone convince me that the Bills roster, as it stands today, is as strong as the Eagles and Rams rosters were in early 2016, to justify them moving up from 21 to either #1 or #2 to take a QB?

I’m confused by your delivery and overarching point. Why does the roster matter how it stands today on March 1st since it is not what it will be when the season begins, why does it have to look like the Rams or Eagles, and why can’t a playoff team decide to upgrade at QB by using extra resources that they purposefully acquired to do so? 

[Reed83HOF]

19 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I am only a pain in the rear to those who see it differently than myself.  I don't know what to tell you if you can't handle differing opinions than yours in your own thread.  The essence of the statement is he will do what is best for the Browns but he is not giving away the store to any other team.  Can we at least agree that it is going to take a lot for any top 4 team to part with their pick and not give it away for two picks in the bottom third of round one, a bottom third of the second pick, Glenn, Bruce Smith's sneakers, Thurman Thomas' warming coat, or any other things that amount to trinkets.  I don't need a mod as I don't think you deliberately are twisting the statement but just looking at it through Rosen, Darnold, whatever colored glasses.  Your last statement is just smart-alecky as though once again you can't handle somebody who looks at it differently than you do.

 

I really do not feel like unpacking this entire response & our couple of posts back and forth - it just isn't worth the time for something so minute...

 

If people having differing opinions that is a good thing and can help everyone learn and come to a consensus (provide all parties are looking for that outcome and not being pricks - general statement; not directed at you).

 

I will say you are reading way more into & inferring a ton regarding the topic title and small piece of info I copied from the source article and put in there - Brownies willing to trade and Dorsey saying I'm willing to trade; it's black and white, period, done deal.

 

You added the inference of: "Your title is not congruent with Dorsey's statement.  What Dorsey is saying is if somebody wants to pay "stupid money" then ,yes, we will fleece them..." I made no reference to how much it will take to trade or that we even should trade to #1, that was all you and your thoughts; not mine. Nowhere, in this thread at least & until now, did I mention that we should trade up for Rosen, Darnold or whatever (yes we should)....

 

Again you are inferring that my "last statement is smart-alecky as though once again you can't handle somebody who looks at it differently than you do" is also incorrect. Here is the funny thing, I actually agree with you. You can actually check out my full thoughts on this in this thread over here:

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/202273-beane-josh-rosen-will-be-one-of-the-bills-30-pre-draft-visits/?page=4

 

Any how I hope we are good now dude, no hard feelings here 

[Buffalo Bills Detective]

22 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I’m confused by your delivery and overarching point. Why does the roster matter how it stands today on March 1st since it is not what it will be when the season begins, why does it have to look like the Rams or Eagles, and why can’t a playoff team decide to upgrade at QB by using extra resources that they purposefully acquired to do so? 

I give up because I'm tired of arguing about this. 

I hope the Bills trade up to #1 or #2 and they take either Rosen or Darnold.  Then, we can watch as Preston Brown walks and Kyle retires and Beane is unable to get a decent LB and DT in free agency to replace them.  Then, we can watch Rosen or Darnold throw 70 times a game because the defense, now consisting of a combination of Jerel Worthy and Adolphus Washington (or a lower tier, 2nd/3rd round DT) as your starting DTs and Matt Milano (or a lower tier 2nd/3rd round LB) as your starting MLB, will be getting gashed by the run over, and over, and over again.

Have fun, everyone!

Edited March 1, 2018 by Buffalo Bills Detective

[YoloinOhio]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Detective said:

I give up because I'm tired of arguing about this. 

I hope the Bills trade up to #1 or #2 and they take either Rosen or Darnold.  Then, we can watch as Preston Brown walks and Kyle retires and Beane is unable to get a decent LB and DT in free agency to replace them.  Then, we can watch Rosen or Darnold throw 70 times a game because the defense, now consisting of a combination of Jerel Worthy and Adolphus Washington (or a lower tier, 2nd/3rd round DT) as your starting DTs and Matt Milano (or a lower tier 2nd/3rd round LB) as your starting MLB, will be getting gashed by the run over, and over, and over again.

Have fun, everyone!

It’s ok to give up if you want. But I don’t really understand the premise. Why won’t the Bills be able to replace Kyle or Preston in FA and/or the draft? Did you know Jerel Worthy doesn’t play for the Bills anymore? Most of all why does it matter so much who is on the roster as of today, over 6 months before the season starts?

Edited March 1, 2018 by YoloinOhio