Browns Open to Trading No.1 Overall Pick in 2018 NFL Draft

[Fantasy Island]

Why trade up with the Browns for Fitzpatrick?

[Jetsplayer21]

8 hours ago, Patriot Killa said:

All good. It’s not much of news to me though. Browns probably would need to be blown away in order to trade it though. Similar to the Giants and the #2 pick yesterday.

That’s always been the case past few yrs for #1 or 2 , always will be. The chart geeks can throw their little charts out the window when it comes to the first two picks. Why I’m not in favor of jets doing it. They chose not to position themselves for the 1 or 2 pick by not letting petty and hack play all last yr. Makes no sense to throw away so many valuable picks now for that spot now. We have too many holes to give up those picks.

[Smashmouth]

6 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

A great RB is fantastic to have and Barkley is just that, but it would be incredibly stupid to pass on a QB at 1 for a RB unless you like the top 3 QBs and don't care which you get at 4.

If you know the Giants are targeting Barkley and you want Barkley you take him at 1 if you don't want Rosen or Darnold. The word is the Browns like Allen so you get both players. If you take Allen with the first pick you lose out on Barkley.

Its not a far fetched move based on what you want knowing what other teams may be targeting.

[Jetscreen]

11 hours ago, Warfish said:

Or trade with the idiot Jets, and select the BAP QB left at #4 (Mayfield?), get Barkley at #6, and select THREE players in round 2 after getting both Jets 2nd Rounders, and have the 2019 Jets #1 to go with your own #1.

Be nice

[Philc1]

Why not trade up for Darnold?  Macc’s draft sign have been crappy you guys think the 2 DB’s he takes in round 2 are the difference between us and the pats

[Philc1]

5 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Darnold is the only quarterback I'd consider trading up for and I'm still not quite sold it would be worth the price.  

Like a lot of people have already said in this thread, we'd likely have to give up both seconds this year and our first next year.  If you think the guy is truly elite, then I think it's worth it.  If Darnold ends up performing at the Philip Rivers/Kirk Cousins tier of quarterbacks, then we gave up too much. 

I'm not sold yet.     

Either overpay for Darnold or overpay for Cousins otherwise we are stuck with the next  Mark Sanchez at 6 Baker Manziel

[bla bla bla]

2 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

If you know the Giants are targeting Barkley and you want Barkley you take him at 1 if you don't want Rosen or Darnold. The word is the Browns like Allen so you get both players. If you take Allen with the first pick you lose out on Barkley.

Its not a far fetched move based on what you want knowing what other teams may be targeting.

There is no way to know what the Giants or whoever picks 3rd will do. I don't think it makes sense to risk your QB being there at 4 when you have the opportunity to take him at 1. Only way it makes sense is if you genuinely don't care which of the 3 QBs you get.

[Philc1]

54 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

There is no way to know what the Giants or whoever picks 3rd will do. I don't think it makes sense to risk your QB being there at 4 when you have the opportunity to take him at 1. Only way it makes sense is if you genuinely don't care which of the 3 QBs you get.

Colts have the #3 pick.  Jim Irsay loves Saquon Barkley they are either drafting him or Chubb

 

 

Andrew Luck has resumed throwing in practice btw

[BCJet]

7 hours ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

Knowing Mcloughan he’ll be really pushing for Nelson after they grab their QB. Remember he picked Scherff leaving Leo to Jets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Browns spent good money last year on both guard spots.

The browns are currently picking 1, 4, 33 and 35 (we are 37 and 49).  Hugh Jackson doesnt want to start a rookie, and he isnt the hand picked coach of the GM.  So lets say that they sign AJ Mccarron as the veteran and "continue to develop kizer"

I dont see them trading out of 1 simply because 1-3 could wind up being Darnold, Barkley and Chubb which means they wind up with a QB they might not want in Allen and then minkah which is not a great haul for 2 top 4 picks even if they get a 1 next year.

I think it would be smarter for Mac to engage them in a conversation for 4 to get in front of Denver and allow cleveland to get another pick and also their future QB.

[Philc1]

2 minutes ago, BCJet said:

The Browns spent good money last year on both guard spots.

The browns are currently picking 1, 4, 33 and 35 (we are 37 and 49).  Hugh Jackson doesnt want to start a rookie, and he isnt the hand picked coach of the GM.  So lets say that they sign AJ Mccarron as the veteran and "continue to develop kizer"

I dont see them trading out of 1 simply because 1-3 could wind up being Darnold, Barkley and Chubb which means they wind up with a QB they might not want in Allen and then minkah which is not a great haul for 2 top 4 picks even if they get a 1 next year.

I think it would be smarter for Mac to engage them in a conversation for 4 to get in front of Denver and allow cleveland to get another pick and also their future QB.

Browns are going Darnold and Chubb at 1 and 4

 

Chubb is a good guy to line opposite Myles Garret who had 7 sacks in 11 games last season

[ChuckkieB]

Mac needs to do whatever it takes to trade up to #1 or #2 if either are available. He needs to turn this franchise around once and for all and what better way to do it then with a top 2 pick?  I don't care how many draft picks it takes, he needs to make a big move to show he's trying to save this franchise instead of playing it safe to save his job.  

[Philc1]

1 minute ago, ChuckkieB said:

Mac needs to do whatever it takes to trade up to #1 or #2 if either are available. He needs to turn this franchise around once and for all and what better way to do it then with a top 2 pick?  I don't care how many draft picks it takes, he needs to make a big move to show he's trying to save this franchise instead of playing it safe to save his job.  

Macc’s drafts haven’t been good.  Why not simply trade up for the best qb in the draft Darnold

[JustInFudge]

14 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

If the Browns were smart they would use the Number 1 pick on Barkley and then take a QB with their next pick insuring them an amazing backfield for the next 10-15 years. Then they can realize their coach is an Idiot and they can bring in a real coach with a very talented young roster and what still amounts to a lot of draft picks and good cap space

Hmmm...a few more picks for a team that just went 0-16 or a RB at #1 overall???  I think the smarter move would be to acquire more picks and completely rebuild the roster from top to bottom. 

 

[Charlie Brown]

Simple question how much better is Darnold than Mahomes?

Then we will be able to fully value what you would have to do to move up in this year’s draft. 

[ChuckkieB]

In my humble, non-expert opinion, Darnold is the best QB in this class and if the Jets have the opportunity, they have to trade up to get him, or whoever else they value as the best. 

[ZachEY]

14 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

If the Browns were smart they would use the Number 1 pick on Barkley and then take a QB with their next pick insuring them an amazing backfield for the next 10-15 years. Then they can realize their coach is an Idiot and they can bring in a real coach with a very talented young roster and what still amounts to a lot of draft picks and good cap space

If the Browns were smart, they would do nothing resembling this.  This is an aggressively bad idea.  They have an unreal chance to secure a QB.  They should take Darnold/Rosen at one and then Mayfield/Allen at 4.  Then you draft your RB at 33.

They have a rare opportunity here, would be a shame for them if they blew it.  Potentially good for the Jets though, so I guess I hope it happens.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

There's clearly a chance the Browns trade out of the pick even if it's just to squeeze the Giants for something. Rosen can't come to Cleveland but I think when all is said and done it may be possible that he has to go #1 in which case something would have to give.

[ZachEY]

25 minutes ago, JiF said:

Hmmm...a few more picks for a team that just went 0-16 or a RB at #1 overall???  I think the smarter move would be to acquire more picks and completely rebuild the roster from top to bottom. 

 

No.  Take 2 QBs.  When was the last time they had one?

[ZachEY]

1 minute ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

There's clearly a chance the Browns trade out of the pick even if it's just to squeeze the Giants for something. Rosen can't come to Cleveland but I think when all is said and done it may be possible that he has to go #1 in which case something would have to give.

What do you think it takes to go from 6 to 1 this year?  1, 2, 2019 1?

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

2 minutes ago, gEYno said:

If the Browns were smart, they would do nothing resembling this.  This is an aggressively bad idea.  They have an unreal chance to secure a QB.  They should take Darnold/Rosen at one and then Mayfield/Allen at 4.  Then you draft your RB at 33.

They have a rare opportunity here, would be a shame for them if they blew it.  Potentially good for the Jets though, so I guess I hope it happens.

This is so trivial. If the Browns come out of this draft and their big regret is not taking Saquon Barkley people here will be borderline not even caring that LeBron is gone.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

What do you think it takes to go from 6 to 1 this year?  1, 2, 2019 1?

Something like 1/2/3/4/2019 1 I think.

[ZachEY]

4 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Something like 1/2/3/4/2019 1 I think.

I don't think you can do that for any of these QBs.  Darnold's turnovers, Rosen's health, Allen's overall terribleness, Mayfield's well Mayfield.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

3 minutes ago, gEYno said:

I don't think you can do that for any of these QBs.  Darnold's turnovers, Rosen's health, Allen's overall terribleness, Mayfield's well Mayfield.

I'm looking at it like your offer is kind of a wash with the deal Philadelphia made to go 8 to 2, with the second-rounder two years sooner but without the third and fourth. I think 6 to 1 costs more so it would have to be both. Right?

[Jetsfan80]

11 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

"Still Just a RB ?"  thats pretty funny

Well you can Pose that Question to 90 % of all SB winners that had dynamic RB's on their squads and the Dynasties of the 70's Steelers with Harris the 90's Cowboys with Smith, The 70's Cowboys with Dorsett, The Niners Dynasties with Craig and Watters The greatest show on Turf with Marshall Faulk The Redskins with John Riggins. The list is long but there are even teams who didn't win SB's who had great RB's and were always in the playoff Picture. 

Not to mention if you have a great RB it takes all that pressure off your young QB or any QB for that matter.. Ask Drew Brees how much a great RB helps him especially one that can also pick up a blitz. They give a QB so many options beyond just the called play and are a great safety valve. Teams like the Jets that basically ignore the position have been and always will be sh*t on offense as long as they take that approach

 

How many RECENT teams have needed a dynamic RB to win the Super Bowl?  I.E. since the rule changes made the NFL of the 70s, 80s and 90s completely obsolete?

[JustInFudge]

17 minutes ago, gEYno said:

No.  Take 2 QBs.  When was the last time they had one?

Meh, I understand the logic but I think it just doesnt make a ton of sense to go that route.   Especially as you just pointed out, this is a very flawed group.  

If I were the Browns, I'd take the Redskins approach but revised a little.  If they're in love with a QB at 1, take him.  If they're not and they're splitting hairs between the top 4 guys, I'd try to trade out of #1 and take the BAP at #4.  Then I'd take a guy in the mid rounds, like Faulk, Lauretta, White, Ferguson, etc.  And role into next season with Kizer, Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield/Allen, Faulk/Lauretta/White/Ferguson and let them a battle it out in camp.

[Jetsfan80]

Answer:  0.  Unless you consider Marshawn Lynch "dynamic". 

[JustInFudge]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

How many RECENT teams have needed a dynamic RB to win the Super Bowl?  I.E. since the rule changes made the NFL of the 70s, 80s and 90s completely obsolete?

Lynch - Seattle. 

That's it.  Pretty much every other team in the SB has been RBC.

[JustInFudge]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Answer:  0.  Unless you consider Marshawn Lynch "dynamic". 

 

Just now, JiF said:

Lynch - Seattle. 

That's it.  Pretty much every other team in the SB has been RBC.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

2 minutes ago, JiF said:

Meh, I understand the logic

I don't think you do. They don't have a quarterback. Investing 1 and 4 is nothing. Especially if you think these guys are high-variance. There should be no argument about this.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

2 minutes ago, JiF said:

Lynch - Seattle. 

That's it.  Pretty much every other team in the SB has been RBC.

And he's not even the first running back off the board in hindsight. Is Barkley really anything close to Peterson or Bo Jackson? Those are the only two guys in our lifetime I would even consider taking first.

[bla bla bla]

1 hour ago, Philc1 said:

Colts have the #3 pick.  Jim Irsay loves Saquon Barkley they are either drafting him or Chubb

 

 

Andrew Luck has resumed throwing in practice btw

I don't think there is any harm in the Browns taking Minkah or Nelson either though. I think the hope would be Barkley but I don't think it is the end of the world. I'd have to imagine their top choice at QB is more valuable than their top choice at RB.

[prime21]

Darnold-Rosen-Mayfield.....Allen.   Are any of theses guys way better than the other 3?

Trading the first pick will bring in a haul of picks and you can still land a franchise caliber QB with the 4th pick.  If they are totally smitten with one of the the QB's then make the pick.  If not then you have to consider trades. 

IMO, Barkley at #1, one of the 4 QB's at #4 and you have won the draft without making another pick.   Cleveland has 3 second round picks.  They have a shot to be a pretty good team in a few years.

[JustInFudge]

7 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

I don't think you do. They don't have a quarterback. Investing 1 and 4 is nothing. Especially if you think these guys are high-variance. There should be no argument about this.

No, I do...I just disagree with it because I'm not 100% convinced the difference between the 2nd tier and the 1st tier is that great.  Hence the double down strategy with a mid-rounder as opposed to two top 5 picks at QB.

 

[JustInFudge]

10 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

And he's not even the first running back off the board in hindsight. Is Barkley really anything close to Peterson or Bo Jackson? Those are the only two guys in our lifetime I would even consider taking first.

No where near it.  I think he's a better receiver than RB.  He's a bit on the soft side.  You're taking Barkley that high but you're also looking to compliment him with a goalline/short yardage back because he cant push the pile.  That's not the type of RB I'm taking at #10 overall, let alone #1.  These other dudes that have been going early you never need to take out of the game...Gurley, Zeke, Fournette.  That's not Barkley.

[UntouchableCrew]

8 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Darnold is the only quarterback I'd consider trading up for and I'm still not quite sold it would be worth the price.  

Like a lot of people have already said in this thread, we'd likely have to give up both seconds this year and our first next year.  If you think the guy is truly elite, then I think it's worth it.  If Darnold ends up performing at the Philip Rivers/Kirk Cousins tier of quarterbacks, then we gave up too much. 

I'm not sold yet.     

If you can assure me any of these QBs will be as good as Philip Rivers I think I'd be all over it in an instant.