B
buckeyes_woowee
Posts: 512
Mar 15, 2012 1:12pm
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.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 1:13pm
I agree on Decastro but no way I'm using that first #1 on him. Get some kind of a playmaker there.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.
OneBuckeye
Posts: 5,888
Mar 15, 2012 1:22pm
Not sure if it was posted but according to ESPiN insider Tate to Browns is dead.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 1:26pm
Top 75 free agents still left. A few of these signed today...
http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/03/14/top-75-available-free-agents-updated-031412/
http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/03/14/top-75-available-free-agents-updated-031412/
Dr. KnOiTaLL
Posts: 2,682
Mar 15, 2012 1:27pm
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.OneBuckeye;1117197 wrote:Not sure if it was posted but according to ESPiN insider Tate to Browns is dead.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 1:27pm
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.
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.
OneBuckeye
Posts: 5,888
Mar 15, 2012 1:30pm
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.
Do the deal with St. Louis. Get 5 picks in the top 40 and draft a QB in the 3rd.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Mar 15, 2012 1:38pm
If Miami felt they had to move up to 4 to get Tannehill that would be incredible.
B
buckeyes_woowee
Posts: 512
Mar 15, 2012 1:46pm
If that is the case you get as much as you can from Miami.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 1:46pm
One of the 5 teams I mentioned interested in jumping to #4.lhslep134;1117230 wrote:If Miami felt they had to move up to 4 to get Tannehill that would be incredible.
OneBuckeye
Posts: 5,888
Mar 15, 2012 1:47pm
5?
Rams
Miami
Who else?
Rams
Miami
Who else?
Dr. KnOiTaLL
Posts: 2,682
Mar 15, 2012 1:48pm
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.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Mar 15, 2012 1:48pm
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?
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 1:53pm
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.lhslep134;1117260 wrote:In your opinion, how much bargaining power/leverage do you think we have right now?
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 1:55pm
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.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.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Mar 15, 2012 1:56pm
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).
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 15, 2012 1:57pm
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?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.
Dr. KnOiTaLL
Posts: 2,682
Mar 15, 2012 1:57pm
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.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.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Mar 15, 2012 1:58pm
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.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.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Mar 15, 2012 1:59pm
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.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?
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 15, 2012 2:00pm
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.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.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 2:01pm
Because they will NEED a franchise QB next year once they get all of these "pieces" you people were crying for in place.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?
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 2:02pm
Really depends on the player. You're likely going to get the most for Tannehill as some team would be stupid/desparate.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).
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 15, 2012 2:03pm
Free agency. QB's will be available throughout the draft, no need to give up 3 first rounders for one.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.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 15, 2012 2:03pm
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.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.