Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup
by CleSportsTruth » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:28 pm
by motherscratcher » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:53 pm
by Fire Marshall Bill » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:34 pm
by mattvan1 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:37 pm
motherscratcher wrote:OH NO! BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH PLAYMAKERS!!
The worst part of a trade down will be listening to everyone scream about passing up "playmakers". Personally, I don't see anyone at 4 that is worth that pick most years and is appreciably better than other players you can get later.
I'm all for trading down.
by motherscratcher » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:51 pm
by motherscratcher » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:53 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:15 pm
motherscratcher wrote:Basically, if younthink Blackmon is a playmaking stud, pick him at 4. By all means.
But, if you don't think he is, picking him at #4 doesnt turn him into that.
by swerb » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:18 pm
by motherscratcher » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:24 pm
by swerb » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:27 pm
by Hikohadon » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:39 pm
by jb » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:55 am
motherscratcher wrote:HEY Fuck You Matt! Why are you always riding people picking fits and shit!?
I assume that included in the 6 playmakers is Blackmon and Richardson. I guess I'm just not as excited about those guys, partly due to the position that they play. I don't want a RB that high, and Blackmon leaves me uninspired in relation to what you would expect a receiver drafted #4 to be.
I guess another guy is Claiborne. I like him but after drafting Haden...I don't know.
It's not that I'm opposed to playmakers. Obviously we need them. But you can't automatically make a guy something you don't think he is just because you draft him #4.
If they think a guy is worth that pick and going to be a stud then by all means take him. I just don't know if I think anyone who is available is that guy. Maybe it's just my own personal RG3 rebound.
I don't want them to not trade down for the sake of not trading down, even if trading down is the best thing...if that makes any sense.
by jb » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am
by Hikohadon » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:36 am
jb wrote:FWIW - I don't think you have to worry about Blackmon, Swerb. He's on record with some very disparaging remarks about the Browns. Can't see that happening.
by SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:20 pm
jb wrote:FWIW - I don't think you have to worry about Blackmon, Swerb. He's on record with some very disparaging remarks about the Browns. Can't see that happening.
Dropping 2 - 3 slots suggests targeting Richardson or Tannyhill to me.
by SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:26 pm
swerb wrote:Justin Blackmon terrifies me. Bottom line: You only pick WR Top 5 if it is Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson levels of confidence in the player.
You can't pick a god damn cornerback. You can I guess. But you need SO MUCH on offense, it would be lunacy to use a precious #1 pick on D.
Richardson to me has a very low bust % and should be a good back. But #4? In a league with 60% passes? And 10 of last years 15 rushers being smaller backs. Not at #4. No thanks.
Kalil would be my preference of all these guys if on da board.
But EOD, I am ALL ABOUT the trade down this year. Never made more sense. Still get great players with the trade down pick, #22, #37 ... maybe pick up another 4th/5th. And add a #1 next year so we're positioned well to get outbid again to trade up to get next year's unexpected breakout QB.
by JCoz » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:59 pm
by Fire Marshall Bill » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:11 pm
by SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:59 pm
Fire Marshall Bill wrote:Blackmon knows as much about the Browns as FMB does about Rap .
You're right SD....the only thing I know about rap is that you can't spell crap without it...
by Fire Marshall Bill » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:15 pm
by SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:23 pm
Fire Marshall Bill wrote:Pay attention....it don't cost much
Tannehill will not be a Brown and McCoy will be the starter......
Let the butthurt flow brotherdawg
by CleSportsTruth » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:50 pm
JCoz wrote:I'm actually for a fair hefty tradeback.
If we made it out of RD 1 with Miller, Wright, an extra 3rd and a #1 next year I'm all about it.
by Erie Warrior » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:43 pm


by peeker643 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:29 pm
by JCoz » Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:37 am
CleSportsTruth wrote:JCoz wrote:I'm actually for a fair hefty tradeback.
If we made it out of RD 1 with Miller, Wright, an extra 3rd and a #1 next year I'm all about it.
One, I don't think you'd get a 1 next yr. out of it. Two, while I might agree that the gap between the WR's is pretty small, I don't for a second buy that for RB. Richardson is the clear top dog, IMHO.
Either way, isn't it time the Browns pick the BEST guy at his position, for once, and not settling for "value?" I do. Even if it's a "reach."
Look, if you guarantee me that either Richardson or Blackmon will drop to 6 or 8, then do it. Two problems, though. One, the Bucs just might take Richardson at 5, with Blackmon going to StL at either 4 or 6. Two, someone trades up with TB or Jax. You cannot be reasonably confident that either guy will drop to you, so, IMHO, you swallow hard, and pick either at 4.
CleSportsTruth wrote:Either way, isn't it time the Browns pick the BEST guy at his position, for once, and not settling for "value?"
by pod2dawg » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:50 am
by jb » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:26 am
pod2dawg wrote:These dummies need to reach for tanneyhill and be done with it .
SoulDawg
by pod2dawg » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:38 am
by pup » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:48 am
by Hikohadon » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:01 pm
pup wrote:Except Richardson going to TB, no?
by Hikohadon » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:03 pm
by OldDawg » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:17 pm

by Madre Hill, Superstar » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:55 pm
OldDawg wrote:Two contradictory rumors regarding the QB spot
Tannehill
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumo ... xid=cnnbin
McCoy
http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/27/pat-s ... =nfl_t2_a8
Smoke screening to get some interest in people (Miami) in trading up to get Tannehill at 4?

by jb » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:09 pm
Hikohadon wrote:If the Browns trade down to 8 and both Blackmon & Richardson are gone, take Coples and be done with it. Take a WR with the 22. Take a RB with the 37.
EDIT - Fisher says the Rams open to trading up to #4, presumably to get Blackmon.
What can you squeeze out of STL for that trade? They've got a surplus of 1's coming up, maybe you can get one of those? Or maybe Washington's 2 from this year (that's a pretty high 2)? That would give them 6, 22, 37, and 39 in this draft. In theory, 4 new starters.
by SoulDawg74 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:18 pm
Hikohadon wrote:If the Browns trade down to 8 and both Blackmon & Richardson are gone, take Coples and be done with it. Take a WR with the 22. Take a RB with the 37.
EDIT - Fisher says the Rams open to trading up to #4, presumably to get Blackmon.
What can you squeeze out of STL for that trade? They've got a surplus of 1's coming up, maybe you can get one of those? Or maybe Washington's 2 from this year (that's a pretty high 2)? That would give them 6, 22, 37, and 39 in this draft. In theory, 4 new starters.
by Govbarney » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:31 pm
Hikohadon wrote:If the Browns trade down to 8 and both Blackmon & Richardson are gone, take Coples and be done with it. Take a WR with the 22. Take a RB with the 37.
EDIT - Fisher says the Rams open to trading up to #4, presumably to get Blackmon.
What can you squeeze out of STL for that trade? They've got a surplus of 1's coming up, maybe you can get one of those? Or maybe Washington's 2 from this year (that's a pretty high 2)? That would give them 6, 22, 37, and 39 in this draft. In theory, 4 new starters.
by SoulDawg74 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:47 pm
Govbarney wrote:Hikohadon wrote:If the Browns trade down to 8 and both Blackmon & Richardson are gone, take Coples and be done with it. Take a WR with the 22. Take a RB with the 37.
EDIT - Fisher says the Rams open to trading up to #4, presumably to get Blackmon.
What can you squeeze out of STL for that trade? They've got a surplus of 1's coming up, maybe you can get one of those? Or maybe Washington's 2 from this year (that's a pretty high 2)? That would give them 6, 22, 37, and 39 in this draft. In theory, 4 new starters.
I agree build a Defense that can compete in a division with 2 A+ Defenses, and 1 B+ Defense. You add Couples and in a year or two your looking at the best front four in the Division, possibly the conference. I keep thinking back to the Giants SB run, and I believe it was there D-line which gave them a edge over the competition and made up for some other shortcomings. That D-line was able make two future "franchise" Hall of Fame QBs (Rogers & Brady) look really human, and in my eyes still showed that good Defense will still more often then not beat good offense.
by Madre Hill, Superstar » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:54 pm
Govbarney wrote:I agree build a Defense that can compete in a division with 2 A+ Defenses, and 1 B+ Defense. You add Couples and in a year or two your looking at the best front four in the Division, possibly the conference. I keep thinking back to the Giants SB run, and I believe it was there D-line which gave them a edge over the competition and made up for some other shortcomings. That D-line was able make two future "franchise" Hall of Fame QBs (Rogers & Brady) look really human, and in my eyes still showed that good Defense will still more often then not beat good offense.

by Commodore Perry » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:32 pm
by JCoz » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:49 pm
Hikohadon wrote:pup wrote:Except Richardson going to TB, no?
I've heard this too, but I haven't figured out how Blount is so bad that the worst defensive team in the NFL needs to take another RB in the Top 5.
Guess there's a reason that bad teams stay bad.
by jb » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:52 pm
JCoz wrote:Hikohadon wrote:pup wrote:Except Richardson going to TB, no?
I've heard this too, but I haven't figured out how Blount is so bad that the worst defensive team in the NFL needs to take another RB in the Top 5.
Guess there's a reason that bad teams stay bad.
I thought the word was he's completely uncoachable and cannot understand the simplest of pass protections.
by jb » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:53 pm
Commodore Perry wrote:This team has been well designed to be built through the draft. By letting talent constantly leave, and rarely bringing talent in, they create so many holes that they never have to actually use a high draft pick. Rather they can trade down for more picks. Masterful. Brilliant.
by CleSportsTruth » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:59 pm
Govbarney wrote:Hikohadon wrote:If the Browns trade down to 8 and both Blackmon & Richardson are gone, take Coples and be done with it. Take a WR with the 22. Take a RB with the 37.
EDIT - Fisher says the Rams open to trading up to #4, presumably to get Blackmon.
What can you squeeze out of STL for that trade? They've got a surplus of 1's coming up, maybe you can get one of those? Or maybe Washington's 2 from this year (that's a pretty high 2)? That would give them 6, 22, 37, and 39 in this draft. In theory, 4 new starters.
I agree build a Defense that can compete in a division with 2 A+ Defenses, and 1 B+ Defense. You add Couples and in a year or two your looking at the best front four in the Division, possibly the conference. I keep thinking back to the Giants SB run, and I believe it was there D-line which gave them a edge over the competition and made up for some other shortcomings. That D-line was able make two future "franchise" Hall of Fame QBs (Rogers & Brady) look really human, and in my eyes still showed that good Defense will still more often then not beat good offense.

by Commodore Perry » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:41 pm
jb wrote:Commodore Perry wrote:This team has been well designed to be built through the draft. By letting talent constantly leave, and rarely bringing talent in, they create so many holes that they never have to actually use a high draft pick. Rather they can trade down for more picks. Masterful. Brilliant.
Can I quote you to the point of shameless plagiarism?
by Hikohadon » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:15 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:Govbarney wrote:Hikohadon wrote:If the Browns trade down to 8 and both Blackmon & Richardson are gone, take Coples and be done with it. Take a WR with the 22. Take a RB with the 37.
EDIT - Fisher says the Rams open to trading up to #4, presumably to get Blackmon.
What can you squeeze out of STL for that trade? They've got a surplus of 1's coming up, maybe you can get one of those? Or maybe Washington's 2 from this year (that's a pretty high 2)? That would give them 6, 22, 37, and 39 in this draft. In theory, 4 new starters.
I agree build a Defense that can compete in a division with 2 A+ Defenses, and 1 B+ Defense. You add Couples and in a year or two your looking at the best front four in the Division, possibly the conference. I keep thinking back to the Giants SB run, and I believe it was there D-line which gave them a edge over the competition and made up for some other shortcomings. That D-line was able make two future "franchise" Hall of Fame QBs (Rogers & Brady) look really human, and in my eyes still showed that good Defense will still more often then not beat good offense.
One, Eli Manning? Two, sure, b/c scoring is TOTALLY overrated in the NFL.
by jb » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:17 pm
Hikohadon wrote:I think it's safe to say that there's no way we can get an Eli Manning in this draft (now).
by SoulDawg74 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:27 pm
jb wrote:Hikohadon wrote:I think it's safe to say that there's no way we can get an Eli Manning in this draft (now).
heh. Just wait until April 27th's posts when they pick Tannyhill and the fan bois get all excited in their circe jerk.
by Hikohadon » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:42 pm
by mattvan1 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:27 pm
Hikohadon wrote:Trading down to take Tannehill will go something like this:
Almost everyone will freak out initially. Someone will claim that he's "done" with the Browns. Someone will joke that Tannehill's agent must be LaMonte.
A few days will go by.
Most people will rebound from the disappointment and reason "Well, for better or for worse, he's the QB of the future around here. Guess we'll have to wait and see if maybe he's worth a squirt of piss."
By Training Camp, yes, Tannehill will have his camp too.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:40 pm
Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
