Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Browns say they have talked to Rams about #1 pick

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Browns say they have talked to Rams about #1 pick
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:18 PM
dazedconfused wrote: please dont trade up...that asking price is way too high.

schefter just said it would be the 7th, 38th, next years first and then some...why not just get mccoy in the second and save yourself the trouble
I'm not advocating giving that much up and I agree with you on McCoy, but if what BCBulldog says is correct, and we are the ONLY suitor willing to move up to #1, I bet the price won't be that high.
Apr 16, 2010 12:18pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:22 PM
BR1986FB wrote:
dazedconfused wrote: please dont trade up...that asking price is way too high.

schefter just said it would be the 7th, 38th, next years first and then some...why not just get mccoy in the second and save yourself the trouble
I'm not advocating giving that much up and I agree with you on McCoy, but if what BCBulldog says is correct, and we are the ONLY suitor willing to move up to #1, I bet the price won't be that high.
Yeah, if we're the only suitors interested, why wouldn't the Rams lower the price? Think about it..they'll move down a few spots to draft Clausen instead of Bradford and get more picks..why wouldn't they want that?
Apr 16, 2010 12:22pm
dazedconfused's avatar

dazedconfused

Senior Member

2,662 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:25 PM
BR1986FB wrote:
dazedconfused wrote: please dont trade up...that asking price is way too high.

schefter just said it would be the 7th, 38th, next years first and then some...why not just get mccoy in the second and save yourself the trouble
I'm not advocating giving that much up and I agree with you on McCoy, but if what BCBulldog says is correct, and we are the ONLY suitor willing to move up to #1, I bet the price won't be that high.
my only thing with it is that even if we trade up to get bradford, he's not going to play this year (especially with us paying delhomme 7 mil). i'd rather get an impact defensive player in the first round and grab mccoy in the second round to develop for the future
Apr 16, 2010 12:25pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:26 PM
dazedconfused wrote: he's not going to play this year (especially with us paying delhomme 7 mil)
What makes you say that?
Apr 16, 2010 12:26pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:35 PM
dazedconfused wrote:
BR1986FB wrote:
dazedconfused wrote: please dont trade up...that asking price is way too high.

schefter just said it would be the 7th, 38th, next years first and then some...why not just get mccoy in the second and save yourself the trouble
I'm not advocating giving that much up and I agree with you on McCoy, but if what BCBulldog says is correct, and we are the ONLY suitor willing to move up to #1, I bet the price won't be that high.
my only thing with it is that even if we trade up to get bradford, he's not going to play this year (especially with us paying delhomme 7 mil). i'd rather get an impact defensive player in the first round and grab mccoy in the second round to develop for the future
Now that Philly is targeting Thomas or Eric Berry, if Berry is on the board I'd rather trade down with them and have 7 or 8 of the top 95 picks.
Apr 16, 2010 12:35pm
dazedconfused's avatar

dazedconfused

Senior Member

2,662 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:44 PM
SportsAndLady wrote:
dazedconfused wrote: he's not going to play this year (especially with us paying delhomme 7 mil)
What makes you say that?
i'm not saying i'm a big believer in delhomme or anything like that, but i don't think we're just going to set 7 million on fire and have delhomme sit the bench. no matter which qb we draft, i'd definitely want them to get some seasoning on the bench to develop while delhomme leads the offense
Apr 16, 2010 12:44pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:47 PM
dazedconfused wrote:
SportsAndLady wrote:
dazedconfused wrote: he's not going to play this year (especially with us paying delhomme 7 mil)
What makes you say that?
i'm not saying i'm a big believer in delhomme or anything like that, but i don't think we're just going to set 7 million on fire and have delhomme sit the bench. no matter which qb we draft, i'd definitely want them to get some seasoning on the bench to develop while delhomme leads the offense
I think our o-line is good enough to throw Bradford out there. I mean if we're gonna give up a ton of picks and such on him, might as well use him. Like Detroit and Stafford.
Apr 16, 2010 12:47pm
wes_mantooth's avatar

wes_mantooth

Tomfoolery & shenanigans

17,977 posts
Apr 16, 2010 12:59 PM
I agree with dazed...no way the Browns are going to bench 7 mil a year at the start of the season.

He may be "NFL ready", but I imagine that Lerner wants a little return on his money.
Apr 16, 2010 12:59pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:03 PM
I'm telling ya, the Iggles have 4 picks in the top 70. If Eric Berry falls to us, I trade that pick (instead of trading up) and get the Eagles #24, 35 & 70 picks in this draft (giving us 7 in the top 95). I use #24 on McCoy and either 35 or our 38 on Nate Allen, who the Browns are VERY high on, to fill the saftey need.

I like Bradford but I LOVE the above scenario A LOT more if we can pull it off.
Apr 16, 2010 1:03pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:05 PM
The only way the Rams are going anywhere is if they can guarantee getting clausen in return. If clausen is there at 7, maybe a switch would be in order. I just don't see the browns dealing for #1 outright.
Apr 16, 2010 1:05pm
F

Fabio

Gibby Hunter

547 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:06 PM
Or you could use the #24 to grab Iupati, the 35 for McCoy and the 38 for Nate Allen
Apr 16, 2010 1:06pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:07 PM
wes_mantooth wrote: I agree with dazed...no way the Browns are going to bench 7 mil a year at the start of the season.
So they'll bench Bradford and his millions?
Apr 16, 2010 1:07pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:08 PM
Fabio wrote: Or you could use the #24 to grab Iupati, the 35 for McCoy and the 38 for Nate Allen
I think Iupati will be gone by then and so will McCoy. I think they will have to trade up into the back end of the 1st to get him. Hope I'm wrong.
Apr 16, 2010 1:08pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:11 PM
If Berry is there at 7, I will be pissed at anything other than selecting him.
Apr 16, 2010 1:11pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:19 PM
dat dude wrote: If Berry is there at 7, I will be pissed at anything other than selecting him.
Nope, not if we could get THAT many picks in the first 95. One player won't remake the defense but FIVE, and TWO on offense, will remake the TEAM. If we can pull THAT kind of a trade, I'd forget Berry's name.
Apr 16, 2010 1:19pm
wes_mantooth's avatar

wes_mantooth

Tomfoolery & shenanigans

17,977 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:21 PM
SportsAndLady wrote:
wes_mantooth wrote: I agree with dazed...no way the Browns are going to bench 7 mil a year at the start of the season.
So they'll bench Bradford and his millions?
Nope...which is why I really doubt they would take him at 1. That is more than likely at least 50 mil of guaranteed money sitting on the bench.
Apr 16, 2010 1:21pm
BCBulldog's avatar

BCBulldog

Senior Member

824 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:24 PM
BR1986FB wrote:
dat dude wrote: If Berry is there at 7, I will be pissed at anything other than selecting him.
Nope, not if we could get THAT many picks in the first 95. One player won't remake the defense but FIVE, and TWO on offense, will remake the TEAM. If we can pull THAT kind of a trade, I'd forget Berry's name.
If you had proposed that scenario a month ago, I would have disagreed, but after having a chance to look at more of the top 100 players, I would have to agree. The Browns have many needs and would be best served to fill as many as possible. The only time this changes is if you have a once in a decade QB that is available. I'm not sure if Bradford is that, but I think he is closer to that than what will be in next year's draft.
Apr 16, 2010 1:24pm
P

pkebker

Senior Member

760 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:35 PM
SportsAndLady wrote:
BR1986FB wrote:
BCBulldog wrote:
I think their greatest fear is that they have to actually use the pick on a QB that they really don't like.
And this is where my thought process lies. I think the Browns love Bradford and the Rams aren't sold on him. If the Rams can trade down to #7 and maybe get Clausen AND picks, I think they'd probably be happy. Maybe even McCoy for the Rams in round 2.

I just don't like the Browns giving up all of those picks when we have 5 in the top 100. At least three of those picks should be starters. Unless Bradford is the starter from Day 1, I don't like using the picks for a player who will sit when we need a player to make an impact NOW.
From everything I've read, Bradford is a starter in the NFL right now. I think the age of sitting your #1 pick (QB) for a year to "learn the system" is over. It's better to get that young QB experience in the game, even if he struggles, than it is to sit him and learn the system.
Didn't Rodgers just do this with Green Bay? and it worked pretty effectively. Pretty sure Philly did it with Kolb as well. The era of "learn the system" will never be over.
Apr 16, 2010 1:35pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:37 PM
pkebker wrote:
SportsAndLady wrote:
BR1986FB wrote:
BCBulldog wrote:
I think their greatest fear is that they have to actually use the pick on a QB that they really don't like.
And this is where my thought process lies. I think the Browns love Bradford and the Rams aren't sold on him. If the Rams can trade down to #7 and maybe get Clausen AND picks, I think they'd probably be happy. Maybe even McCoy for the Rams in round 2.

I just don't like the Browns giving up all of those picks when we have 5 in the top 100. At least three of those picks should be starters. Unless Bradford is the starter from Day 1, I don't like using the picks for a player who will sit when we need a player to make an impact NOW.
From everything I've read, Bradford is a starter in the NFL right now. I think the age of sitting your #1 pick (QB) for a year to "learn the system" is over. It's better to get that young QB experience in the game, even if he struggles, than it is to sit him and learn the system.
Didn't Rodgers just do this with Green Bay? and it worked pretty effectively. Pretty sure Philly did it with Kolb as well. The era of "learn the system" will never be over.
I guess I could re-word it a little. I don't think it will be over, but I think the new trend of throwing your first pick out there right away will take over.

By the way, I never said sitting your pick for a year to learn the system doesn't work.
Apr 16, 2010 1:37pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Apr 16, 2010 1:44 PM
BR1986FB wrote:
dat dude wrote: If Berry is there at 7, I will be pissed at anything other than selecting him.
Nope, not if we could get THAT many picks in the first 95. One player won't remake the defense but FIVE, and TWO on offense, will remake the TEAM. If we can pull THAT kind of a trade, I'd forget Berry's name.
Nope? lol Uh, yes I will be.

Anyway, that's certainly a reasonable opinion. But judging by drafting history, you could end up with a Chaun Thompson and a Alex Hall for those picks. To me, Berry is as close to a sure thing as you are going to get. I would be thrilled if he fell to 7.
Apr 16, 2010 1:44pm