SportsAndLady;1514881 wrote:I didn't say it would make sense. In fact I said they would be complete morons if they did trade him.

It doesn't make sense to shop him (being a game changer) unless they HAVE some kind of information. I'm not saying they would shop him if they "think' he has a purple drank problem. Trading him just because they think he could fall off the wagon probably wouldn't be smart. Now if they "knew" he had this problem, could explain their willingness to take such a low return (2nd rounder), if in fact these rumors are true.

What I'm saying is that, unless they have some kind of recent dirt on him, dangling him out there for a 2nd rounder, when he's your best weapon, wouldn't be smart. A) it implies a true "tanking" of the season, B) it sends a horrible message to a 3-2 team that seems to FINALLY have found some heart and C) not that the front office would care but it would send the fan base into an uproar.

I think these guys (Banner, etc) are too smart to just give away such a talent. If they ARE marketing him, there's got to be a reason because even if they got back a late 1st, it's an unproven commodity. Gordon looks pretty proven to me, right now.

There's nobody untouchable if the team feels it will increase the value they hold. They know they are not Super Bowl locks. If you can increase your value, no matter where that value lies, you do it at this stage of the plan.

Gordon is no different than anyone else on the roster....especially when you don't have the QB you need and want yet. They will need value to get him.

BR1986FB;1514886 wrote:It doesn't make sense to shop him (being a game changer) unless they HAVE some kind of information. I'm not saying they would shop him if they "think' he has a purple drank problem. Trading him just because they think he could fall off the wagon probably wouldn't be smart. Now if they "knew" he had this problem, could explain their willingness to take such a low return (2nd rounder), if in fact these rumors are true.

What I'm saying is that, unless they have some kind of recent dirt on him, dangling him out there for a 2nd rounder, when he's your best weapon, wouldn't be smart. A) it implies a true "tanking" of the season, B) it sends a horrible message to a 3-2 team that seems to FINALLY have found some heart and C) not that the front office would care but it would send the fan base into an uproar.

I think these guys (Banner, etc) are too smart to just give away such a talent. If they ARE marketing him, there's got to be a reason because even if they got back a late 1st, it's an unproven commodity. Gordon looks pretty proven to me, right now.

I don't disagree with any of your logic. I'm saying the regime might not feel that way and might make a horrible, horrible decision by trading him so they can have as many picks as possible.

BR1986FB;1514791 wrote:As far as the Grdon rumors goes, if teams are reaching out to the Browns inquiring about his availability, it's one thing, but if the Browns are actively shopping him, that's completely another story. If the Browns ARE shopping him, who's to say they know something we don't know? Maybe he hasn't changed his stripes and they see a potential one year ban coming his way from his behavior?

I wouldn't part with him for a low second rounder but I bet a lot of "don't trade him" people are going to change their tune to "we should've traded him" if he gets the one year ban. Just like a lot of the "omg...that T-Rich trade was horrible" people are now settling down to see it was a pretty good deal for the Browns.

I think the only way they should trade him is if they believe that he hasnt changed and see issues coming around.
He is a solid WR and will only get much better with more playing time and some consistant QB play and play calling for the OC. You dont trade a guy with his skill set and potential unless you are already stockpiled at that position, which the browns arent. You dont trade a good, and could be very good, commodity, for draft picks because you dont know what you will get.

SportsAndLady;1514891 wrote:I don't disagree with any of your logic. I'm saying the regime might not feel that way and might make a horrible, horrible decision by trading him so they can have as many picks as possible.

And that's possible. If they were to get a 2nd in return they's have two picks in the 1st through 4th round. That's a lot of ammo to move up to get your QB and still add pieces around him. A 2nd still wouldn't be enough for him though unless they have inside dirt that he could be done for the year, then I'd take a 2nd and run with it.

SportsAndLady;1514891 wrote:I don't disagree with any of your logic. I'm saying the regime might not feel that way and might make a horrible, horrible decision by trading him so they can have as many picks as possible.

I agree that that is certainly a possibility....whether we as fans agree with it or not. I don't think, if polled, the fans would have been in favor of trading T. Rich before it happened either.

Con_Alma;1514899 wrote:I agree that that is certainly a possibility....whether we as fans agree with it or not. I don't think, if polled, the fans would have been in favor of trading T. Rich before it happened either.

But a lot of people saw T-Rich as an ordinary back. Gordon, so far, has shown that he's anything but ordinary. Take T-Rich out of the offense and it won't miss much of a beat. Take Gordon out of this offense and it's pretty neutered. You have no viable deep threat so opposing defenses can cheat up into the box and intermediate pass routes.

There's no comparison between trich and Gordon. Gordon was out the first two games, we sucked offensively. Now were an above average offense.

With Richardson we were horrible, without him we are better.

We need to quit with that comparison. People took that trade as "were giving up!" (Myself,admittedly, included) but really it was our regime making a smart move based on their prediction that Richardson wasn't really needed and isn't a necessity. But to say because of that move they're going through a fire sale and Gordon is next is just guessing and more than likely incorrect.

BR1986FB;1514902 wrote:But a lot of people saw T-Rich as an ordinary back. Gordon, so far, has shown that he's anything but ordinary. Take T-Rich out of the offense and it won't miss much of a beat. Take Gordon out of this offense and it's pretty neutered. You have no viable deep threat so opposing defenses can cheat up into the box and intermediate pass routes.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the impact in not have those two respectively. I am disagreeing with the fact that most people, fans, would not have made the Richardson trade when it took place.

It's a QB league. They don't have one. Their defense is going to win them some games which will impact their draft value/position. They are going to need plenty in the bank to give to the right team to get the guy they want. I think that's what they are thinking....but like you stated earlier....none of us truly know.

SportsAndLady;1514904 wrote:There's no comparison between trich and Gordon. Gordon was out the first two games, we sucked offensively. Now were an above average offense.

With Richardson we were horrible, without him we are better.

We need to quit with that comparison. People took that trade as "were giving up!" (Myself,admittedly, included) but really it was our regime making a smart move based on their prediction that Richardson wasn't really needed and isn't a necessity. But to say because of that move they're going through a fire sale and Gordon is next is just guessing and more than likely incorrect.

I'm not comparing the two players being traded. I am comparing the people's view on trading players as compared to this regime's view.

Con_Alma;1514907 wrote:I'm not comparing the two players being traded. I am comparing the people's view on trading players as compared to this regime's view.

I do agree with that. People blew a gasket because Richardson is a marquee "name." "OMG....we CAN'T trade Trent Richardson" when if people looked at his stats (ypc) and how he ran tentatively (granted, he did have injuries), they could've seen he wasn't the "home run hitter" we envisioned. Plus, Banner has a history of devaluing the RB position.

I would've rather seen Dion Lewis in a Darren Sproles role in this offense than T-Rich.

On OBR there's a lot of discussion involving trading for Cam Newton. Granted its speculation from posters and not the insiders, but interesting idea.

New Pro Bowl uni's. Rumor floating around that the AFC design was taken from the concept design of the new Browns uni's.....

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1390736_519830328096934_1168458495_n.jpg

BR1986FB;1514977 wrote:New Pro Bowl uni's. Rumor floating around that the AFC design was taken from the concept design of the new Browns uni's.....

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1390736_519830328096934_1168458495_n.jpg

Where is that rumor coming from?

like_that;1514988 wrote:Where is that rumor coming from?

Browns fans.

I'd be fine with that. Browns could use a jolt.

Serious question, who cares about the Pro Bowl?

SMH, I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, at least it would be a "road" game.

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/nfl-approves-funding-for-firstenergy-stadium-enhancements-browns-could-be-picked-to-play-in-london-1.435267#.UlSLgzbRxXU.facebook

No shocker here, Travis Benjamin named AFC Special Teams Player of the Week.

# Browns Chud: . I will say we’re not
shopping Josh and have no plans to trade Josh.

http://q.usatoday.com/2013/10/09/jameis-winston-nfl-draft-mock-2014-2015/

Commander of Awesome;1515526 wrote:http://q.usatoday.com/2013/10/09/jameis-winston-nfl-draft-mock-2014-2015/

If we took mettendouche with our first rd pick is be pissed as hell. He's garbage

Crimson streak;1515547 wrote:If we took mettendouche with our first rd pick is be pissed as hell. He's garbage

Saw a mock that had us taking Manziel at #16 and Seastrunk with the Colts pick in the late 20's.

Go Lions, Go Lions, Go Lions...etc etc.