Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Apr 22, 2016 1:17pm
Let's say Goff, Wentz, Jack, Ramsey, Tunsil, Bosa, and Buckner go top 7. Browns can't trade down, who do you guys want us to draft?
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Apr 22, 2016 1:22pm
He's awful. He might be able to win 3-4 games but that's about it. I'm sure their plan was to trade the 2nd pick for more picks, get a stopgap QB in here to at least prevent them from complete disaster (0-16), and try and be good in 2-3 years.sleeper;1792821 wrote:I am hopeful that he can turn it around but I have my doubts. It's hard to believe a player who can't hack it on the Redskins can come make the Browns a contender.
I think another piece of their plan is to get some more picks for some of their vets. I think they'll trade Thomas soon. My opinion.
Benny The Jet
Posts: 2,987
Apr 22, 2016 1:42pm
Ronnie Stanley/Jack ConklinCommander of Awesome;1792822 wrote:Let's say Goff, Wentz, Jack, Ramsey, Tunsil, Bosa, and Buckner go top 7. Browns can't trade down, who do you guys want us to draft?
I am hopeful and confident though that Jets will go full Jets and completely reach and trade up with us to grab Lynch.
S
Sonofanump
Apr 22, 2016 2:02pm
Hargreaves/ Stanley. Is Jack cleared medically?Commander of Awesome;1792822 wrote:Let's say Goff, Wentz, Jack, Ramsey, Tunsil, Bosa, and Buckner go top 7. Browns can't trade down, who do you guys want us to draft?
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Apr 22, 2016 2:11pm
I'm really not a big fan of Stanley. Conklin is alright, but I prefer Decker over both of them. I also think reaching for a RT at #8 is dumb, and would piss me off to see Schwartz, best RT in football walk for nothing then use a premium resource to replace him. Get a RT in the 3rd round and use the #8 pick on something else.Benny The Jet;1792828 wrote:Ronnie Stanley/Jack Conklin
I am hopeful and confident though that Jets will go full Jets and completely reach and trade up with us to grab Lynch.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Apr 22, 2016 2:11pm
I would pretty pissed with either of those picks.Sonofanump;1792829 wrote:Hargreaves/ Stanley. Is Jack cleared medically?
S
Sonofanump
Apr 22, 2016 2:14pm
Could see drafting a tackle there would be upsetting, but I don't see the CB as strong as you do. Do you want a DE at #8, Lawson?Commander of Awesome;1792831 wrote:I would pretty pissed with either of those picks.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Apr 22, 2016 2:19pm
DE/OLBer would be a position I would look at. Lawson/Floyd/Dodd (I think Floyd and Dodd a little better than Lawson, think they're better pass rushers). Also wouldn't QQ at the best DT available. I really like Billings out of Baylor, this allows Shelton to be moved around the line, which I think is a better fit for him over purely NT. IF we went after OT, I prefer Decker to Conklin or Stanley (personally I think Stanley is a late first at best). I would rather draft Zeke over Stanley or Conklin and I would hate drafting Zeke. Darren Lee is a sleeper prospect who I wouldn't QQ if we drafted.Sonofanump;1792832 wrote:Could see drafting a tackle there would be upsetting, but I don't see the CB as strong as you do. Do you want a DE at #8, Lawson?
I guess I would go:
Dline prospect
WR
Lee
Decker
Benny The Jet
Posts: 2,987
Apr 22, 2016 2:30pm
I've seen some that have Buckner at 8. Don't know much about him other than he went to Oregon..and I know I don't trust much of anything that comes from Oregon NFL wise
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Apr 22, 2016 2:53pm
TJ Ward, MM, Armsted, Kiko, Blount, Bryd, Chung, Kyle Long, Ngata, Jake Fisher some pretty good players right off the top of my head.Benny The Jet;1792837 wrote:I've seen some that have Buckner at 8. Don't know much about him other than he went to Oregon..and I know I don't trust much of anything that comes from Oregon NFL wise
Mulva
Posts: 13,650
Apr 22, 2016 3:23pm
Max Unger and J Stew were ducks if you want to go back a little farther
S
slingshot4ever
Posts: 4,085
Apr 22, 2016 3:27pm
Stanley....lineman in the NFL is like pitchers in MLB....you can never have too many and we do not have much talent on the O line with departure of Schwartz and Mack.Benny The Jet;1792828 wrote:Ronnie Stanley/Jack Conklin
I am hopeful and confident though that Jets will go full Jets and completely reach and trade up with us to grab Lynch.
S
slingshot4ever
Posts: 4,085
Apr 22, 2016 3:28pm
Vegas line for Browns is 4.5 wins this year. I say under with a high level of confidence.
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Apr 22, 2016 3:31pm
Where the fuck did someone get they were odds on favorites to go 0-16?slingshot4ever;1792851 wrote:Vegas line for Browns is 4.5 wins this year. I say under with a high level of confidence.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Apr 22, 2016 3:32pm
Wow...everybody is on the "more picks" bandwagon...yeah I'm good with that as long as we don't go full Mangini.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Apr 22, 2016 3:35pm
Probably because they are underdogs in every one of their matchups. Still very misleading with the 0-16 talk.Azubuike24;1792854 wrote:Where the fuck did someone get they were odds on favorites to go 0-16?
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Apr 22, 2016 3:36pm
True, but obviously being predicted to lose every game doesn't make it a cumulative thing. I think 3-13 would be a fair prediction...but this is the NFL. Half the games that look hard now, could be easy, and vice versa.like_that;1792856 wrote:Probably because they are underdogs in every one of their matchups. Still very misleading with the 0-16 talk.
Mulva
Posts: 13,650
Apr 22, 2016 3:47pm
Give me someone who can get to the QB, or trade down and take a receiver.
S
slingshot4ever
Posts: 4,085
Apr 22, 2016 3:52pm
They are projected as the team to win the fewest number of games; therefore, would be odds on favorite to be the most likely team to go 0-16. Makes sense to me...Azubuike24;1792854 wrote:Where the fuck did someone get they were odds on favorites to go 0-16?
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Apr 22, 2016 3:54pm
That's not what he said. He said Vegas projects them to go 0-16, not that they have the best odds to go 0-16. Big difference.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Apr 22, 2016 4:17pm
Sorry but no. You can have too many and no team other than the Browns is a perfect example at that. We had one of the best offensive lines in the league and we still were god awful because we didn't have any talent on offense elsewhere to utilize that line.slingshot4ever;1792850 wrote:Stanley....lineman in the NFL is like pitchers in MLB....you can never have too many and we do not have much talent on the O line with departure of Schwartz and Mack.
We may need some OL talent in the draft because we are depleted after some FA departures but let's not go overboard here.
S
slingshot4ever
Posts: 4,085
Apr 22, 2016 4:20pm
But you said "odds on favorite"....big difference as wellAzubuike24;1792869 wrote:That's not what he said. He said Vegas projects them to go 0-16, not that they have the best odds to go 0-16. Big difference.
S
slingshot4ever
Posts: 4,085
Apr 22, 2016 4:22pm
sleeper;1792876 wrote:Sorry but no. You can have too many and no team other than the Browns is a perfect example at that. We had one of the best offensive lines in the league and we still were god awful because we didn't have any talent on offense elsewhere to utilize that line.
We may need some OL talent in the draft because we are depleted after some FA departures but let's not go overboard here.
Need 5 starters....more than any other type of position....should be the largest number of roster spots
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Apr 22, 2016 4:24pm
Sure, but you don't need all starters and all backups to be studs. Lineman are pretty durable so having 5 good starters and a couple of bodies to fill in is enough.slingshot4ever;1792878 wrote:Need 5 starters....more than any other type of position....should be the largest number of roster spots
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Apr 22, 2016 4:29pm
Doesn't help our run game when the WRs are the size of smurfs, thus can't block, and our TEs are as effective as a tissue in blocking as well.