wes_mantooth
Posts: 17,977
Mar 29, 2010 9:32pm
The hell with Bradford...fix other pieces then draft TP next year..lol
bases_loaded
Posts: 6,912
Mar 29, 2010 9:33pm
The Browns were 8th in the league in rushing, a league where the top teams are pass first.
Lovejoy1984
Posts: 5,277
Mar 29, 2010 9:34pm
This + Infinity.wes_mantooth wrote: The hell with Bradford...fix other pieces then draft TP next year..lol
M
miller45452003
Posts: 673
Mar 29, 2010 9:41pm
No way in hell do you give up our 2--2nd rounders. Someone will come on stong in next years draft class. It always happens!! We have to many freakin holes to fill. Moving up to pick 1st is NOT the way to do it. Now...if for some god unkown reason McNabb ends up in St. Louis, then we may need to talk about some sort of "smaller" move up. No way do we give up our 2nds for him. Especially injury proned. And I don't give 2 shits about him looking stellar at his proday. All it takes is for one big DE to ground his ass into the turf and its game over!! Not to mention $50+mill for the guy. No thanks...I'll pass.
S
Sonofanump
Mar 29, 2010 9:47pm
So did Captain James Cook. How did that turn out for him.Footwedge wrote: Christopher Columbus took a chance.
M
miller45452003
Posts: 673
Mar 29, 2010 9:48pm
^^^My bad. I misunderstood a post from earlier by footwedge I believe. I wasn't thinking. We dont even have 2--2nd's. So if he was sayin to swap 1st picks and swap 2nd's as well, you almost have to consider it. Although that won't be enough to get the job done. Probably have to throw in a 3rd as well or a player to make it work.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Mar 29, 2010 9:49pm
LOLwes_mantooth wrote: The hell with Bradford...fix other pieces then draft TP next year..lol
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Mar 29, 2010 10:05pm
LOL. I actually quit watching the Browns alltogether last year. I have Direct TV and they always put on the Giants and the Jets. Saw no reason in hoing to a bar to watch the Browns. Did listen to them though.sleeper wrote:
I'm not going to go look up all the stats, but I watched the last 4 games and the reason we had so many rushing yards was directly related to the fact that we ran the ball ALL THE TIME. I'd be the ypc wasn't all that great either, but if someone wants to prove me wrong, well hey, props to you.
The Browns could certainly use another Joe Thomas, that's for sure. I just don't equate this situation versus the one in 1999, when Couch got killed for a few years.
Trading up is always a gamble. And as good as Bradford looks, there are no guarantees. But this town deserves the excitement of getting the top quarterback in the draft. What happened with Quinn is mutually exclusive from picking Bradford. That page has been turned.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Mar 29, 2010 11:04pm
If this article was already posted, sorry. I guess the mood in some Cleveland quarters are thinking more and more about trading up. I think the Rams mindset might be...we need a lon of help....not just a qb. They may opt for Clausen with the 7th overall...and then throw in the Browns #2, and they might pull the trigger. The top pick also costs a bloody firtune...that is why top picks have been peddled recently.
I guess Gil Brantd called that Quinn would be a bust too.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/370501-2010-nfl-draft-is-sam-bradford-now-the-selection-for-cleveland
I guess Gil Brantd called that Quinn would be a bust too.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/370501-2010-nfl-draft-is-sam-bradford-now-the-selection-for-cleveland
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Mar 29, 2010 11:20pm
Sorry, but bleacherreport is a LOUSY source for anything -- since anyone can post just about anything without it being substantiated. It's mostly just people's mental meanderings.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Mar 29, 2010 11:21pm
LOLFootwedge wrote:LOL. I actually quit watching the Browns alltogether last year. I have Direct TV and they always put on the Giants and the Jets. Saw no reason in hoing to a bar to watch the Browns. Did listen to them though.sleeper wrote:
I'm not going to go look up all the stats, but I watched the last 4 games and the reason we had so many rushing yards was directly related to the fact that we ran the ball ALL THE TIME. I'd be the ypc wasn't all that great either, but if someone wants to prove me wrong, well hey, props to you.
The Browns could certainly use another Joe Thomas, that's for sure. I just don't equate this situation versus the one in 1999, when Couch got killed for a few years.
Trading up is always a gamble. And as good as Bradford looks, there are no guarantees. But this town deserves the excitement of getting the top quarterback in the draft. What happened with Quinn is mutually exclusive from picking Bradford. That page has been turned.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Mar 30, 2010 12:14am
I think the mental meanderings are beimg pondered by the top brass. Gil Brandt is like EF Hutton when it comes to quarterbacks...when he talks...people listen.Writerbuckeye wrote: Sorry, but bleacherreport is a LOUSY source for anything -- since anyone can post just about anything without it being substantiated. It's mostly just people's mental meanderings.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 30, 2010 5:20am
The asking price of a 1st and 2-2nd's? The Rams would laugh in our faces. At a MINIMUM we'd have to give up our 2010 & 2011 1st's plus at least a second to even get them to perk up their ears.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 30, 2010 5:24am
Umm...the team should have been 7-9 last year (blew games against Cincy & Detroit). If you think Peyton Manning wouldn't be good for another 1-2 wins you obviously haven't watched the man play.sleeper wrote:I think I've heard this before, how did Brady Quinn work out?buckeyes_woowee wrote:Bradford wouldn't start for 2 or 3 years. plenty of time to fix some pieces.sleeper wrote: Bradford? Look, you could throw freaking Peyton Manning on the Browns right now and they'd still suck. The defense is junk, the skill players are junk(except Cribbs, but he's a ST), and we have 1 good prospect on the OL.
Who's going to block for him? Joe Thomas and ...? Is he going to play defense too?Bullshit! I love when people give the old "you could put Peyton Manning on the Browns and they'd suck" line. Austin Collie & Pierre Garcon are FAR from elite receivers yet Manning MAKES them play at a higher level. The elite QB's will get the most out of their weapons by pushing them to a higher level to get better or tell them to GTFO. Peyton Manning on last years Browns equals 8-8/9-7.
And seriously 8-8, 9-7? LOL
Our receivers are FAR from stellar but they WERE open last year. Our shitbags, which some might refer to as "quarterbacks", couldn't get them the ball.
Gotta think that with a guy like Manning under center that the offense isn't going "3 & out" three or four consecutive series, hence ball control, hence defense resting more, hence better defensive production.
P
pkebker
Posts: 760
Mar 30, 2010 5:47am
OK so we give up our top 3 picks (at least) to get Bradford...then how do we fix the rest of the team? We've tried this crap before, doing whatever it takes to get our 'franchise' qb and not worry about the rest of the team. IF bradford becomes a bust, everyone will be angry because we traded away all our top picks. Getting Bradford would be nice, because I think he could be a great QB, but he's not worth all those picks plus giving a huge #1 pick salary. Simply not worth it. Fix the rest of the team, and then get our qb, like the Jets/steelers/(many other teams) did.SportsAndLady wrote: The asking price is gonna be deep to get a QB of the future??? No way?!
hoops23
Posts: 15,696
Mar 30, 2010 6:12am
I'd rather have Eric Berry than Bradford.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 30, 2010 7:35am
People were furious with what we gave up for Quinn and he busted. Imagine if the same happened with the asking price for Bradford? I'd love to have Bradford over any QB in this draft but not for what it will cost.pkebker wrote:OK so we give up our top 3 picks (at least) to get Bradford...then how do we fix the rest of the team? We've tried this crap before, doing whatever it takes to get our 'franchise' qb and not worry about the rest of the team. IF bradford becomes a bust, everyone will be angry because we traded away all our top picks. Getting Bradford would be nice, because I think he could be a great QB, but he's not worth all those picks plus giving a huge #1 pick salary. Simply not worth it. Fix the rest of the team, and then get our qb, like the Jets/steelers/(many other teams) did.SportsAndLady wrote: The asking price is gonna be deep to get a QB of the future??? No way?!
P
pkebker
Posts: 760
Mar 30, 2010 9:47am
Exactly. Simply just too great of a risk. Our #7 pick should either be used for defense(Berry, Haden) or possibly an OT, or we could trade down and accumulate even more picks. I am totally against the idea of trading up in the first round.BR1986FB wrote:People were furious with what we gave up for Quinn and he busted. Imagine if the same happened with the asking price for Bradford? I'd love to have Bradford over any QB in this draft but not for what it will cost.pkebker wrote:OK so we give up our top 3 picks (at least) to get Bradford...then how do we fix the rest of the team? We've tried this crap before, doing whatever it takes to get our 'franchise' qb and not worry about the rest of the team. IF bradford becomes a bust, everyone will be angry because we traded away all our top picks. Getting Bradford would be nice, because I think he could be a great QB, but he's not worth all those picks plus giving a huge #1 pick salary. Simply not worth it. Fix the rest of the team, and then get our qb, like the Jets/steelers/(many other teams) did.SportsAndLady wrote: The asking price is gonna be deep to get a QB of the future??? No way?!
S
Sonofanump
Mar 30, 2010 9:59am
It's not like the Rams brass did not attend the Bradford workout and know what he is worth.
j_crazy
Posts: 8,372
Mar 30, 2010 10:03am
pkebker wrote:Exactly. Simply just too great of a risk. Our #7 pick should either be used for defense(Berry, Haden) or possibly an OT, or we could trade down and accumulate even more picks. I am totally against the idea of trading up in the first round.BR1986FB wrote:People were furious with what we gave up for Quinn and he busted. Imagine if the same happened with the asking price for Bradford? I'd love to have Bradford over any QB in this draft but not for what it will cost.pkebker wrote:OK so we give up our top 3 picks (at least) to get Bradford...then how do we fix the rest of the team? We've tried this crap before, doing whatever it takes to get our 'franchise' qb and not worry about the rest of the team. IF bradford becomes a bust, everyone will be angry because we traded away all our top picks. Getting Bradford would be nice, because I think he could be a great QB, but he's not worth all those picks plus giving a huge #1 pick salary. Simply not worth it. Fix the rest of the team, and then get our qb, like the Jets/steelers/(many other teams) did.SportsAndLady wrote: The asking price is gonna be deep to get a QB of the future??? No way?!
I wouldn't trade up to #1, but if bradford is there at 3, I'm making phone calls and trying to go up to get him. The price would be much better (both for the pick and signing bradford as the #3 overall pick vs. the #1 overall pick). The fact is you don't know what teams like washington, seattle and tampa are doing with regards to QB. so you can't sit there and expect to grab him at 7. if you are comfortable with the QB situation as is (why would you be), you stay at 7 and take whoever is the best for your needs.
D
devil1197
Posts: 6,220
Mar 30, 2010 10:16am
j, the price for signing Bradford at #3 will be the same or very close to #1 money. The main difference will be him being a QB and they always get more $$$. Inside the Top 5 the money is pretty close, so that won't be an issue imo. The price for jumping up in terms of picks will also be close to the same, you are looking at the #1 QB in the draft, the team at #3 isn't going to lower demands on Bradford just because their two picks down.
That's just my opinion, he is a potential franchise QB so it won't matter price if he still is inside the Top 5. Its going to be steep.
That's just my opinion, he is a potential franchise QB so it won't matter price if he still is inside the Top 5. Its going to be steep.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 30, 2010 10:19am
I said earlier if he makes it out of that #1 spot, which is highly unlikely, that Holmgren will be making some phone calls.j_crazy wrote:pkebker wrote:Exactly. Simply just too great of a risk. Our #7 pick should either be used for defense(Berry, Haden) or possibly an OT, or we could trade down and accumulate even more picks. I am totally against the idea of trading up in the first round.BR1986FB wrote:People were furious with what we gave up for Quinn and he busted. Imagine if the same happened with the asking price for Bradford? I'd love to have Bradford over any QB in this draft but not for what it will cost.pkebker wrote:OK so we give up our top 3 picks (at least) to get Bradford...then how do we fix the rest of the team? We've tried this crap before, doing whatever it takes to get our 'franchise' qb and not worry about the rest of the team. IF bradford becomes a bust, everyone will be angry because we traded away all our top picks. Getting Bradford would be nice, because I think he could be a great QB, but he's not worth all those picks plus giving a huge #1 pick salary. Simply not worth it. Fix the rest of the team, and then get our qb, like the Jets/steelers/(many other teams) did.SportsAndLady wrote: The asking price is gonna be deep to get a QB of the future??? No way?!
I wouldn't trade up to #1, but if bradford is there at 3, I'm making phone calls and trying to go up to get him. The price would be much better (both for the pick and signing bradford as the #3 overall pick vs. the #1 overall pick). The fact is you don't know what teams like washington, seattle and tampa are doing with regards to QB. so you can't sit there and expect to grab him at 7. if you are comfortable with the QB situation as is (why would you be), you stay at 7 and take whoever is the best for your needs.
The price to get to #1 is way too steep. Considering you'd lose at least two potential IMMEDIATE starters to gain one player (Bradford) who may not start for a year, it's just too much.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 30, 2010 12:18pm
Thunder70
Posts: 748
Mar 30, 2010 12:52pm
I really like the 3rd option. We need players as one player won't take us over the top. I like the option of getting a lot of people. However, that doesn't mean we drade down three times to get a center. I didn't like that at all.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 30, 2010 12:58pm
Alex Mack was a GREAT pick. I have no issue trading down 2, 3 times in this draft. If we could end up with a later 1st rounder, a couple of 2nd's and 3-4 thirds, I'd be ecstatic.Thunder70 wrote: I really like the 3rd option. We need players as one player won't take us over the top. I like the option of getting a lot of people. However, that doesn't mean we drade down three times to get a center. I didn't like that at all.