LOCKED: Browns BS Drama Continued...

posted by BR1986FB

Agree with this, for the most part. The actual problem, in the Wentz case, was the fact that they traded down PERIOD. Sashi Brown set this new front office up very nicely with draft picks and cap room but he didn't have the sack to pull the trigger when it came time to man up, grab his QB and own it.

Wentz is one they let get away, however the following draft they had several opportunities to make the right picks and that includes a QB even though I am not high on Watson as some.  I am looking at the entire sample size.  The Browns have traded down a lot and received an additional first round pick the last 5-7 years.  Any good GM could have turned the Browns into a competitive franchise with those picks.  The Browns simply haven't had a good GM making those picks. 

posted by like_that

Wentz is one they let get away, however the following draft they had several opportunities to make the right picks and that includes a QB even though I am not high on Watson as some.  I am looking at the entire sample size.  The Browns have traded down a lot and received an additional first round pick the last 5-7 years.  Any good GM could have turned the Browns into a competitive franchise with those picks.  The Browns simply haven't had a good GM making those picks. 

Mangini's was still the worst. Granted, I would've never drafted Butt Fumble but the players he picked were god awful. Dare I say COA's all-time favorite? (coug-Veikune-cough). Plus, he should've gotten a better haul of picks for how far they traded down.

posted by BR1986FB

Mangini's was still the worst. Granted, I would've never drafted Butt Fumble but the players he picked were god awful. Dare I say COA's all-time favorite? (coug-Veikune-cough). Plus, he should've gotten a better haul of picks for how far they traded down.

I always forget about Mangini, because he got trade raped on those trade downs.  I was more referring to the drafts where we had 2 first round picks. 

posted by Commander of Awesome

Thinking about #4 pick, would you consider moving back from #4 for both of Buffalo's 1st Round picks? Buffalo owns #21 & #22.

Hopefully Fitzpatrick is there and they don't need to consider

posted by like_that

I always forget about Mangini, because he got trade raped on those trade downs.  I was more referring to the drafts where we had 2 first round picks. 

Yeah, I get it. There have been so many bad players picked from those trade downs that his is easy to forget Mangini.

I would trade down from 4 a few spots, but not 1. They need a QB. Unless they are swapping with NYG you stay at 1.

I would have no issue moving from 4, but would stay in the top 10. 1-10 is still a great haul with an additional first in 2018. But moving to 21-22 from 4, even then getting 3 first this year, seems like too far a drop imo.

It’s not about former GM’s and their shitiness. It’s about the teams every year who just stay where they’re at and draft who’s best available. Look at the saints, they absolutely nailed their first 4 picks this year. And because of it, they’re going to be a playoff team for a long time. They didn’t try and get cute and be the smartest person in the room. They didn’t need a RB, but they liked Kamara and they drafted him. They needed defense, and they spent a ton of high picks on defense and now their defense is loaded. It’s not fucking rocket science. Just stay at 1 and 4, and pick good players. If anyone shouldn’t try to outsmart anyone, it’s the browns. 

posted by SportsAndLady

It’s not about former GM’s and their shitiness. It’s about the teams every year who just stay where they’re at and draft who’s best available. Look at the saints, they absolutely nailed their first 4 picks this year. And because of it, they’re going to be a playoff team for a long time. They didn’t try and get cute and be the smartest person in the room. They didn’t need a RB, but they liked Kamara and they drafted him. They needed defense, and they spent a ton of high picks on defense and now their defense is loaded. It’s not fucking rocket science. Just stay at 1 and 4, and pick good players. If anyone shouldn’t try to outsmart anyone, it’s the browns. 

lol, you're forgetting that the Saints tried to trade up for Mahomes.

posted by Commander of Awesome

lol, you're forgetting that the Saints tried to trade up for Mahomes.

Maybe they did maybe they didn’t. 

Fact is, they stayed where they were and had an amazing draft. Browns should just do that. 

posted by SportsAndLady

Maybe they did maybe they didn’t. 

Fact is, they stayed where they were and had an amazing draft. Browns should just do that. 

So, if the jets or broncos called and offered an additional first round pick (plus probably other picks), you would turn it down?

Edit:  I am talking about the 4th pick.  No way in hell I am trading the 1st pick.  Draft the QB. 

posted by Verbal Kint

Hopefully Fitzpatrick is there and they don't need to consider

I don't think you're going to have to worry about Fitzpatrick (or Chubb) being there at #4. I bet the Colts take a QB at #3. News out of Indy that Luck is likely going to need more shoulder surgery and isn't close to returning. He may be done, or at least in a Peyton Manning-like (end of his career with the neck issues) state.

After yesterday, I think the Colts may be more dysfunctional than the Browns.....and Josh McDaniels is a bitch.

posted by like_that

So, if the jets or broncos called and offered an additional first round pick (plus probably other picks), you would turn it down?

 

Edit:  I am talking about the 4th pick.  No way in hell I am trading the 1st pick.  Draft the QB. 

Nope. I’m taking BPA at 4. 

posted by SportsAndLady

Nope. I’m taking BPA at 4. 

I normally agree with you, but that is dumb as fuck.  Think about what you are saying here.  The Browns would draft a QB at #1, which is our top priority.  If the Jets and Broncos are calling to trade to #4, they are doing so to get a QB.  The Browns would only drop 1 or 2 spots depending which team they trade with.  They would still be able to pick their BPA on their board, since those two teams will be drafting a QB and the Browns already drafted their QB.  Come on man, use your fucking head.  Turning down that trade would be a fireable offense. 

I can see the argument with trading with the Bills, but I can't see any logical argument with turning down a trade to go down one or two spots, especially if it means we aren't passing on a QB. 

posted by like_that

I normally agree with you, but that is dumb as fuck.  Think about what you are saying here.  The Browns would draft a QB at #1, which is our top priority.  If the Jets and Broncos are calling to trade to #4, they are doing so to get a QB.  The Browns would only drop 1 or 2 spots depending which team they trade with.  They would still be able to pick their BPA on their board, since those two teams will be drafting a QB and the Browns already drafted their QB.  Come on man, use your fucking head.  Turning down that trade would be a fireable offense. 

 

I can see the argument with trading with the Bills, but I can't see any logical argument with turning down a trade to go down one or two spots, especially if it means we aren't passing on a QB. 

If we used my strategy we’d have Julio Jones and Carson Wentz. I’ll stick with the CRAZY thought process that better talent is available the higher pick you have, so stay there and pick them. 

This dumbass “moneyball” idea already failed here. We tried to get cute and make all these trades instead of staying put and just picking the talent available at the current position. 

Now, if the trade is to move down to the 5 spot so that someone can pick a QB at 4, then sure lol but that won’t be happening. 

posted by SportsAndLady

If we used my strategy we’d have Julio Jones and Carson Wentz. I’ll stick with the CRAZY thought process that better talent is available the higher pick you have, so stay there and pick them. 

This dumbass “moneyball” idea already failed here. We tried to get cute and make all these trades instead of staying put and just picking the talent available at the current position. 

 

Now, if the trade is to move down to the 5 spot so that someone can pick a QB at 4, then sure lol but that won’t be happening. 

Yes it would.  Denver isn't trading up for a non QB.  Neither are the Jets.  It would be beyond moronic to pass up on a additional first round pick to move down 1-2 spots, just because you are paranoid about previous GMs making dumbass picks.

Again, just because collecting assets failed before, doesn't mean it would fail again.  Take a look at the Julio draft, the trich/weeden draft, and the gilbert/manziel draft.  If our GMs made the right pick(s) (plenty to choose from) we would be looking golden right now. What makes you think that these GMs would have made the right pick if they didn't move down?  The gilbert/manzil draft alone could have changed the franchise entirely and set them browns up for long term success. 

Also, who is to say if we drafted Julio Jones, that we would have been in position to draft Carson Wentz 6 years later? 

“Paranoid”? LOL it’s not paranoia, it’s fact: trading down hasn’t helped us and hasn’t helped anyone. Fact: better talent is available higher in the draft. Fact: staying at 4 gives us a shot at the best or second best defensive player on the board (assuming another QB goes 2 and/or 3). It isn’t paranaoi, like that, it’s just not what your opinion is. Doesn’t mean it’s “dumb as fuck”. 

Why would the broncos move up from 5 to 4 when they know the browns aren’t taking a QB at 4? There are 3-4 QBs in this draft that are supposed to be top QBs off the board—if they feel, say the jets, are going to move up in front of them why would the broncos give up a first round pick instead of just taking another QB available at 5? 

Also, you keep saying “just because trading down failed us before doesn’t mean it will fail us again” well guess what it also doesn’t guarantee it won’t fail again. 

The top 3 picks in this draft (CLE/NYG's/INDY) are probably going to be QB's so whoever would want to trade up to #4 is likely getting a fringe QB (Josh Allen? Mason Rudolph?)

posted by SportsAndLady

“Paranoid”? LOL it’s not paranoia, it’s fact: trading down hasn’t helped us and hasn’t helped anyone. Fact: better talent is available higher in the draft. Fact: staying at 4 gives us a shot at the best or second best defensive player on the board (assuming another QB goes 2 and/or 3). It isn’t paranaoi, like that, it’s just not what your opinion is. Doesn’t mean it’s “dumb as fuck”. 

Why would the broncos move up from 5 to 4 when they know the browns aren’t taking a QB at 4? There are 3-4 QBs in this draft that are supposed to be top QBs off the board—if they feel, say the jets, are going to move up in front of them why would the broncos give up a first round pick instead of just taking another QB available at 5? 

Also, you keep saying “just because trading down failed us before doesn’t mean it will fail us again” well guess what it also doesn’t guarantee it won’t fail again. 

 

Probably because they would feel the jets are trying to pick the QB they want?  Or there is another team willing to trade up to that spot not named the jets and take the QB they want?  There are many reasons.  I will bet you anything neither team would try to trade for the #4 spot for another position.  

The fact you wouldn't trade down one spot, because you have ptsd over previous regimes fucking up picks, tells me it is paranoia.  You're holding previous regimes against the new regime from collecting assets.  FACT: Many teams have traded down, collected draft picks and are now successful because of it. 

Also " Fact: staying at 4 gives us a shot at the best or second best defensive player on the board (assuming another QB goes 2 and/or 3)."  This isn't a fact.  If the Browns traded down one spot they still would ahve a shot at teh best or second best defensive player on the board.  I am not sure why you can't grasp this, unless you truly think the jets/broncos (both need a gm) would actually trade up to not pick a QB. 

You're right, trading down again doesn't mean it is fail proof, just like it isn't fail proof to stay at 4 and pass up on going down one spot.  It all comes down to the GM making the right picks. Give me the extra picks to move down 1-2 spots easily.  That's not even close to being a huge risk.  You're acting like the #4 pick is a sure fire 12 year starter going to the HOF.   The whole irony in this argument is the same guy we would want at 4 would be at 5 or 6.  That's why I say it is paranoia.  

Anyway, during the OC mock draft I am trading down the Browns pick 10 times. 

What really matters is the quality of the picks. It doesn't matter whether you trade or don't trade if the players you pick are a disaster. Assuming this regime is better at talent evaluation than the last, I trade down all day. Except for quarterback, two solid starters > one star and a nobody.

posted by like_that

Probably because they would feel the jets are trying to pick the QB they want?  Or there is another team willing to trade up to that spot not named the jets and take the QB they want?  There are many reasons.  I will bet you anything neither team would try to trade for the #4 spot for another position.  

The fact you wouldn't trade down one spot, because you have ptsd over previous regimes fucking up picks, tells me it is paranoia.  You're holding previous regimes against the new regime from collecting assets.  FACT: Many teams have traded down, collected draft picks and are now successful because of it. 

Also " Fact: staying at 4 gives us a shot at the best or second best defensive player on the board (assuming another QB goes 2 and/or 3)."  This isn't a fact.  If the Browns traded down one spot they still would ahve a shot at teh best or second best defensive player on the board.  I am not sure why you can't grasp this, unless you truly think the jets/broncos (both need a gm) would actually trade up to not pick a QB. 

You're right, trading down again doesn't mean it is fail proof, just like it isn't fail proof to stay at 4 and pass up on going down one spot.  It all comes down to the GM making the right picks. Give me the extra picks to move down 1-2 spots easily.  That's not even close to being a huge risk.  You're acting like the #4 pick is a sure fire 12 year starter going to the HOF.   The whole irony in this argument is the same guy we would want at 4 would be at 5 or 6.  That's why I say it is paranoia.  

Anyway, during the OC mock draft I am trading down the Browns pick 10 times. 

Even if the Browns were to trade down to #6, I'm pretty confident that either Fitzpatrick or Chubb will be available. If they trade down, the first 4 picks off the board are likely going to be QB's with either the Jets or the Donks able to pick one of those two guys. Unless there's a complete turnaround on Andrew Luck's shoulder, I'd bank on Indy taking a QB unless they go the FA/trade route.

And I lol'd at your "trade down 10x's" comment.