Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

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

2012 Cleveland Browns thread: AKA Pat Shurmur Memorial thread

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ 2012 Cleveland Browns thread: AKA Pat Shurmur Memorial thread
B

buckeyes_woowee

Senior Member

512 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:12 PM
I wouldn't mind Glenn but I think DeCastro is going to be much much better. Of course he will be drafted about 15 spots higher than Glenn.
Mar 15, 2012 1:12pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:13 PM
buckeyes_woowee;1117182 wrote:I wouldn't mind Glenn but I think DeCastro is going to be much much better. Of course he will be drafted about 15 spots higher than Glenn.
I agree on Decastro but no way I'm using that first #1 on him. Get some kind of a playmaker there.
Mar 15, 2012 1:13pm
OneBuckeye's avatar

OneBuckeye

Senior Member

5,888 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:22 PM
Not sure if it was posted but according to ESPiN insider Tate to Browns is dead.
Mar 15, 2012 1:22pm
Dr. KnOiTaLL's avatar

Dr. KnOiTaLL

Trust me, I'm a doctor!

2,682 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:27 PM
OneBuckeye;1117197 wrote:Not sure if it was posted but according to ESPiN insider Tate to Browns is dead.
Yeah... I saw that. Stupid Texans! I'm sure Tate would like the opportunity to be a feature back just like Arian Foster does. I think if the Browns move down and stockpile a few second round picks, that maybe they would be willing to give up a round 2 pick for him, and maybe then the Texans would open up a little more to moving him.
Mar 15, 2012 1:27pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:27 PM
King on Flynn/Tannehill...

Peter King ‏ @ SI_PeterKing Matt Flynn flying to Seattle today. Seahawks serious about him. Miami may need a Manning decision by late Friday to get in on Flynn.

Peter King ‏ @ SI_PeterKing Miami may not get OC Mike Sherman's college QB, Tannehill, staying at 8. How incredible that you might have to trade into top 4 to get him.

Peter King ‏ @ SI_PeterKing I said "may'' about Tannehill, because you never know what Cleveland's going to do at 4, and don't know exactly how they feel about Colt.

Peter King ‏ @ SI_PeterKing I'm not talking about paying Flynn big money. That'd be dumb. To me, 3 yrs/20m/8 guaranteed seems fair. Big money comes when he proves self.
Mar 15, 2012 1:27pm
OneBuckeye's avatar

OneBuckeye

Senior Member

5,888 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:30 PM
I don't want tannehill.

Do the deal with St. Louis. Get 5 picks in the top 40 and draft a QB in the 3rd.
Mar 15, 2012 1:30pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:38 PM
If Miami felt they had to move up to 4 to get Tannehill that would be incredible.
Mar 15, 2012 1:38pm
B

buckeyes_woowee

Senior Member

512 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:46 PM
If that is the case you get as much as you can from Miami.
Mar 15, 2012 1:46pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:46 PM
lhslep134;1117230 wrote:If Miami felt they had to move up to 4 to get Tannehill that would be incredible.
One of the 5 teams I mentioned interested in jumping to #4.
Mar 15, 2012 1:46pm
OneBuckeye's avatar

OneBuckeye

Senior Member

5,888 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:47 PM
5?

Rams
Miami

Who else?
Mar 15, 2012 1:47pm
Dr. KnOiTaLL's avatar

Dr. KnOiTaLL

Trust me, I'm a doctor!

2,682 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:48 PM
I don't think I would really want to move down to 8. I like the deal with St. Louis because we would still be left picking between Claiborne, Blackmon, and Richardson (likely getting Richardson, who we may take at 4 anyways). So not only likely drafting the same player we would at 4, but we would gain 2 more picks in the top 40 players. That would be huge with a virtually nonexistant detriment to the Browns.
Mar 15, 2012 1:48pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:48 PM
BR1986FB;1117253 wrote:One of the 5 teams I mentioned interested in jumping to #4.

In your opinion, how much bargaining power/leverage do you think we have right now?
Mar 15, 2012 1:48pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:53 PM
lhslep134;1117260 wrote:In your opinion, how much bargaining power/leverage do you think we have right now?
A TON. There are teams that like Claiborne, Blackmon & Tannehill at that pick. The only issue with Miami is that they may try to go up to #3 thinking the Browns may grab Tannehill at 4.
Mar 15, 2012 1:53pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:55 PM
Dr. KnOiTaLL;1117259 wrote:I don't think I would really want to move down to 8. I like the deal with St. Louis because we would still be left picking between Claiborne, Blackmon, and Richardson (likely getting Richardson, who we may take at 4 anyways). So not only likely drafting the same player we would at 4, but we would gain 2 more picks in the top 40 players. That would be huge with a virtually nonexistant detriment to the Browns.
I'd move down to 6 and then I'd move down AGAIN (ala Mangini but not TOO far) if I could get 1st rounders on both trades. They are going to likely need a shit ton of ammo if they need to go up for Barkley or the #1 QB next year.
Mar 15, 2012 1:55pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:56 PM
BR1986FB;1117268 wrote:A TON. There are teams that like Claiborne, Blackmon & Tannehill at that pick. The only issue with Miami is that they may try to go up to #3 thinking the Browns may grab Tannehill at 4.

I should have asked my question better.

What do you think we can get back from one of those teams (not best case scenario, but realistically).
Mar 15, 2012 1:56pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:57 PM
BR1986FB;1117271 wrote:I'd move down to 6 and then I'd move down AGAIN (ala Mangini but not TOO far) if I could get 1st rounders on both trades. They are going to likely need a shit ton of ammo if they need to go up for Barkley or the #1 QB next year.
Everything you said made sense, until you added Barkley. Get picks, and use them on fucking talent/starters. Why on earth would we stock pile picks, on a team that needs talent/depth, to just unload all of them on one player?
Mar 15, 2012 1:57pm
Dr. KnOiTaLL's avatar

Dr. KnOiTaLL

Trust me, I'm a doctor!

2,682 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:57 PM
BR1986FB;1117268 wrote:A TON. There are teams that like Claiborne, Blackmon & Tannehill at that pick. The only issue with Miami is that they may try to go up to #3 thinking the Browns may grab Tannehill at 4.
Agreed, I've read that the Browns will likely have Rams-like leverage once Peyton settles on a team. That will leave several teams scrambling and may enable the Browns to stockpile EVEN MORE picks. If we're totally in rebuilding mode, this is definitely the way to do it. I know many fans hate us not being hands on in free agency, but I like this direction a whole lot more.
Mar 15, 2012 1:57pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:58 PM
BR1986FB;1117271 wrote:I'd move down to 6 and then I'd move down AGAIN (ala Mangini but not TOO far) if I could get 1st rounders on both trades. They are going to likely need a shit ton of ammo if they need to go up for Barkley or the #1 QB next year.
I am ALL for that if they get first rounders in back to back trades. That would be awesome having 3 first round picks the next draft. Then you could definetely package those picks if you really need barklay.
Mar 15, 2012 1:58pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 15, 2012 1:59 PM
DeyDurkie5;1117274 wrote:Everything you said made sense, until you added Barkley. Get picks, and use them on fucking talent/starters. Why on earth would we stock pile picks, on a team that needs talent/depth, to just unload all of them on one player?
Just options. If they had 3 first rounders, maybe they could trade 2 of them, and still have two first rd picks. There are a lot of options if they stock pile a lot of picks.
Mar 15, 2012 1:59pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 15, 2012 2:00 PM
like_that;1117279 wrote:Just options. If they had 3 first rounders, maybe they could trade 2 of them, and still have two first rd picks. There are a lot of options if they stock pile a lot of picks.
Or they use all those picks on talent in the draft. Could you imagine getting 3 first round picks, and using them all on offensive/defensive positions? Our team would be loaded. That's when you go into FA and grab a qb. He sees the talent we drafted, and sees the team.
Mar 15, 2012 2:00pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 2:01 PM
DeyDurkie5;1117274 wrote:Everything you said made sense, until you added Barkley. Get picks, and use them on fucking talent/starters. Why on earth would we stock pile picks, on a team that needs talent/depth, to just unload all of them on one player?
Because they will NEED a franchise QB next year once they get all of these "pieces" you people were crying for in place.
Mar 15, 2012 2:01pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 2:02 PM
lhslep134;1117273 wrote:I should have asked my question better.

What do you think we can get back from one of those teams (not best case scenario, but realistically).
Really depends on the player. You're likely going to get the most for Tannehill as some team would be stupid/desparate.
Mar 15, 2012 2:02pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 15, 2012 2:03 PM
BR1986FB;1117281 wrote:Because they will NEED a franchise QB next year once they get all of these "pieces" you people were crying for in place.
Free agency. QB's will be available throughout the draft, no need to give up 3 first rounders for one.
Mar 15, 2012 2:03pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 15, 2012 2:03 PM
like_that;1117277 wrote:I am ALL for that if they get first rounders in back to back trades. That would be awesome having 3 first round picks the next draft. Then you could definetely package those picks if you really need barklay.
They may not even need to use them anyhow to move up. As constructed, right now (considering talent, schedule, etc), this could be a 2-3 win team. Only Indianapolis might be worse.
Mar 15, 2012 2:03pm