At least the Giants can make a plausible argument for not taking a QB. But the Browns must get a QB and dealing out of #1 means they get the 3rd QB (at best) in the draft.
If the Browns have all 4 QB's ranked somewhat equally, Â
This doesn't sound like something Dorsey would do. Browns need a QB of the future, three of the four top QBs could be gone by the time they pick at 4. But on the other hand if true, the Browns will not only own this draft, but probably next year as well.
Then they almost certainly would trade #4 to move up with Giants. Think of how much bills would give up to get to #1. Browns could the next offer Giants a really good package to go to #2. Maybe Browns really want Darnold and bills want Allen. Browns move down to #4 and prob get bills 2 #1’s this year 2 #2’a, 2 #3’s and a 2019 #1 and #3.
Browns could offer Giants #22 from bills #4 and a second rounder next year to move up from 4 to 2. Which would be a no brained for Gmen.
This would be an ideal scenario for Gmen if this happened. And honestly I think a great move for browns
Bills are talking to the Browns about the 1st pick. Yet nothing on the Giants 2nd pick. Hmmm probably because they want a QB.
That's a stretch. The Jets-Colts deal wasn't overwhelming so no reason for the Giants to take that at this juncture. We're still a month from the draft and if anything, the Jets-Colts deal upped the value of the Giants pick for a team that wants a QB, since it guarantees 2, if not 3, QBs will be off the board after the first 3 picks.
With all the smoke around the Giants-Bills making a deal, this screams "Bills front office" leak to try and pressure the Giants to take their deal now.
Then they almost certainly would trade #4 to move up with Giants. Think of how much bills would give up to get to #1. Browns could the next offer Giants a really good package to go to #2. Maybe Browns really want Darnold and bills want Allen. Browns move down to #4 and prob get bills 2 #1’s this year 2 #2’a, 2 #3’s and a 2019 #1 and #3.
Browns could offer Giants #22 from bills #4 and a second rounder next year to move up from 4 to 2. Which would be a no brained for Gmen.
This would be an ideal scenario for Gmen if this happened. And honestly I think a great move for browns
I don't know if they would be inclined to do so, but if they did, I imagine the Giants would pounce.
Taking a RB at 2, in a completely stacked RB draft given the holes on this team is unforgivable. And I love Barkley as a prospect, but passing up the chance to transform the team is madness, and something you only do for the QB.
Makes me really question Gettleman if he does this. I don’t see a game breaker nor a game changer with Barkley. He’s flashy athletically but I want to take a chance on a player who can be a cornerstone for 10 years or more, not a guy who if we are lucky makes it to a second contract.
Taking a RB at 2, in a completely stacked RB draft given the holes on this team is unforgivable. And I love Barkley as a prospect, but passing up the chance to transform the team is madness, and something you only do for the QB.
I'd rather go QB too... but why would your decision to pass or not on Barkley be contingent on the "depth" at the position in one draft.
Its the #2 overall pick in the draft - you're looking for a guy that will be a superstar for you for 10+ years. Your approach seems incredibly short-sighted and dangerous.
RE: IF TRUE the Browns just don’t fucking get it Â
this is a media flag planted by the Bills to pressure the Giants.
No chance the Browns trade out of the first pick.
This. You don't acquire Tyrod Taylor and trade your only potential long term QB (Kizer) if you don't plan on taking a QB.
They gave up the first pick in the third round for Taylor. I see the point about Kizer, i dont understand the point about Taylor. That is an incredibly rich price to pay - borderline incompetent, if not outright - for a stopgap guy to give you ~8 games before handing it off to the #1 overall pick.
possible that the Giants could trade down with Denver and still get Â
Barkley. If Denver or Buffalo crack into top 3....then obviously 1st 3 picks are QB's. I think Cleveland should strongly consider Chubb at #4. Myles Garret on 1 side and Chubb on the other? That's scary.
Agreed. If that is the case, the ideal scenario would be to trade back with Denver and take him at #5. This would have shades of the Chargers taking LdT at #5. Get the best player in the draft AND extra picks.
They gave up the first pick in the third round for Taylor. I see the point about Kizer, i dont understand the point about Taylor. That is an incredibly rich price to pay - borderline incompetent, if not outright - for a stopgap guy to give you ~8 games before handing it off to the #1 overall pick.
3rd round pick for a QB is nothing. The Browns still have more cap space than anyone and haven't extended Taylor who's in the last year of his deal. If you think he's more than a stop-gap, I don't know what to tell you.
And then flip #4 and #22 to the Giants to get up to #2.
Everyone wins. Jets lose, Broncos lose.
That would be highway robbery for Giants. My guess is they would swap #22 with our #34. Which I would do especially if the target is Barkley and not a QB.
Honestly, I'm most comfortable with the Giants staying at 2 Â
cannot gamble on Number 4. They have to trade for 1 or 2 if they want a QB.
Agreed. You are going to give up a LOT of assets to get to #4 and then possibly take your #3 rated QB. If you give up that much you might as well give up a little more and get who you really want.
Barkley. If Denver or Buffalo crack into top 3....then obviously 1st 3 picks are QB's. I think Cleveland should strongly consider Chubb at #4. Myles Garret on 1 side and Chubb on the other? That's scary.
Your scenario (trading down with DEN) was always the best one. It's all contingent on the Browns taking a QB at 1 so you can't until draft day. DEN then gets shaky knees knowing the Jets are picking 3rd and makes a strong offer. Take it. If CLE goes QB at 1, trading down to 5 guarantees Barkley, Chubb or Nelson + plus a bevy of extra picks.
That's max value.
RE: If the Browns have all 4 QB's ranked somewhat equally, Â
Those trade-down scenarios are tempting. But at 2, the Giants can pick any player they want, except for whoever the Browns pick at 1.
And the Browns #1 pick almost for sure has to be a QB, unless they have three or more QBs basically equally rated.
That's why my preference, assuming they don't love any of the QBs, is to deal down to #5. Then, QBs (likely) go in the first 3 picks and Giants get Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, or Fitzpatrick, though I'd wager that the Browns take either Barkley or Chubb at #4.
I'm on record as saying I would take the QB. But I don't think the Giants are going to do that. I think they want Barkley and if he is isn't there, they will draft Chubb or Nelson.
RE: RE: If the Browns have all 4 QB's ranked somewhat equally, Â
this...would be beyond stupid. How would a scouting department go..."well we will be happy with any of the 4 so who cares". This is the conviction you want from your franchise that has been desperate for a franchise QB since its re-emergence into the NFL?
Taking a RB at 2, in a completely stacked RB draft given the holes on this team is unforgivable. And I love Barkley as a prospect, but passing up the chance to transform the team is madness, and something you only do for the QB.
I'd rather go QB too... but why would your decision to pass or not on Barkley be contingent on the "depth" at the position in one draft.
Its the #2 overall pick in the draft - you're looking for a guy that will be a superstar for you for 10+ years. Your approach seems incredibly short-sighted and dangerous.
It's about time left with Eli. If you're not taking a QB this year, we're riding the Eli train until the wheel fall off. That's what 2/3 years at most?
Lets say we did a trade with the Bills, and stuck at 12 (I personally think we could probably get back up to 6 by trading with the Colts).
We'd have 12, 22, 34, 53, and almost certainly either 56 or 65 as well as a 2019 2nd. And that's at a minimum. It's a deep draft until well into the 3rd round.
We could sort out the interior of the oline (potentially getting both Hernandez and Price for instance), get one of the 2nd tier RB, get at least one of a number of very good CB, before the end of the 2nd round. Or we could get some LB depth, FS help. That's far more valuable to me than a RB or Guard no matter how talented they are. If we were a Barkley away then fine, but we're simply not.
At 2, you're looking for an exceptional pass rusher or a franchise QB. I'm not even sure you necessarily look for a LT these days.
I'm on record as saying I would take the QB. But I don't think the Giants are going to do that. I think they want Barkley and if he is isn't there, they will draft Chubb or Nelson.
with no trade down? That would be an epic fail by gettleman. I could live with Barkley I suppose at #2 because he is the best player in the draft...but picking nelson or chubb at #2 would be an epic fail since you would most likely get either at 5 or 6...
They gave up the first pick in the third round for Taylor. I see the point about Kizer, i dont understand the point about Taylor. That is an incredibly rich price to pay - borderline incompetent, if not outright - for a stopgap guy to give you ~8 games before handing it off to the #1 overall pick.
3rd round pick for a QB is nothing. The Browns still have more cap space than anyone and haven't extended Taylor who's in the last year of his deal. If you think he's more than a stop-gap, I don't know what to tell you.
He very well might be, I have no idea. Chances are high they take a QB with either #1 or #4, i'm not disputing that.
But NO, throwing away the top pick in the third round for a free agent to be QB as a stop-gap... just because "a third rounder for a QB is nothing" (note: I have no idea what that means - is your point that they will somehow trade him to recoup the pick in October.... that seems optimistic... will they franchise him after the season? That would be a lot of money for this talent level) -- is incompetent if the plan all along was to have him play 8 games and then hand over the reigns.
You could have just signed Bridgewater or Bradford or any other 8 game stopgap and kept your #65 overall pick.
I'm on record as saying I would take the QB. But I don't think the Giants are going to do that. I think they want Barkley and if he is isn't there, they will draft Chubb or Nelson.
a few weeks ago that the Bills really want Rosen and would go a long way to get him. Sounds logical hearing this. Bills think they have enough team to do very well next season with the right QB.
At least the Giants can make a plausible argument for not taking a QB. But the Browns must get a QB and dealing out of #1 means they get the 3rd QB (at best) in the draft.
the giants and browns are both in the same boat, the only plausible argument not to take a qb is that there are no worthy QBs. Just because the Giants have a regressing Eli, which puts us in a better position for the next two years with a 3-13 roster, both teams need a qb in the worst way.
I'm on record as saying I would take the QB. But I don't think the Giants are going to do that. I think they want Barkley and if he is isn't there, they will draft Chubb or Nelson.
All the chatter and moves so far seem to indicate Giants are in love with Barkley and won't budge.
Hopefully a RB needy team like the Eagles won't jump us!
They aren't "In talks" they just contacted the Bills... Â
Dan Patrick says on @dpshow the #Bills have contacted #Browns about No. 1 pick in draft. Was reported over the weekend #Jets called before moving up to 3. John Dorsey said to call & teams are.
I refuse to believe the top 3 QBs are worse than what they have now
They draft their QB, and if Barkley gets taken by the Giants, they trade out of #4.
Fixed
I think this is looking more and more likely.
Browns could offer Giants #22 from bills #4 and a second rounder next year to move up from 4 to 2. Which would be a no brained for Gmen.
This would be an ideal scenario for Gmen if this happened. And honestly I think a great move for browns
That's a stretch. The Jets-Colts deal wasn't overwhelming so no reason for the Giants to take that at this juncture. We're still a month from the draft and if anything, the Jets-Colts deal upped the value of the Giants pick for a team that wants a QB, since it guarantees 2, if not 3, QBs will be off the board after the first 3 picks.
With all the smoke around the Giants-Bills making a deal, this screams "Bills front office" leak to try and pressure the Giants to take their deal now.
NYG- QB/Barkley
NYJ- QB
BUF- QB
DEN- Chubb/Nelson
IND- Chubb/Nelson
This would put Denver in a bind if they want a QB & would allow NYG to move down to 5 and still potentially land Barkley.
Browns could offer Giants #22 from bills #4 and a second rounder next year to move up from 4 to 2. Which would be a no brained for Gmen.
This would be an ideal scenario for Gmen if this happened. And honestly I think a great move for browns
No chance the Browns trade out of the first pick.
Quote:
will take Barkley.
I think this is looking more and more likely.
Taking a RB at 2, in a completely stacked RB draft given the holes on this team is unforgivable. And I love Barkley as a prospect, but passing up the chance to transform the team is madness, and something you only do for the QB.
Quote:
will take Barkley.
I think this is looking more and more likely.
Makes me really question Gettleman if he does this. I don’t see a game breaker nor a game changer with Barkley. He’s flashy athletically but I want to take a chance on a player who can be a cornerstone for 10 years or more, not a guy who if we are lucky makes it to a second contract.
If they want Mayfield or Allen both of whom Dorsey supposedly rates then I could see that.
That would really put the pressure on Denver to move up.
Other QB hungry teams too.
Taking a RB at 2, in a completely stacked RB draft given the holes on this team is unforgivable. And I love Barkley as a prospect, but passing up the chance to transform the team is madness, and something you only do for the QB.
I'd rather go QB too... but why would your decision to pass or not on Barkley be contingent on the "depth" at the position in one draft.
Its the #2 overall pick in the draft - you're looking for a guy that will be a superstar for you for 10+ years. Your approach seems incredibly short-sighted and dangerous.
I refuse to believe the top 3 QBs are worse than what they have now
Why can't they get one with the 4th pick?
Quote:
Browns get a boatload (including bills #1 next year) to go from 1 to 12/22 and then trade up from 4 to 2 with us.
If they want Mayfield or Allen both of whom Dorsey supposedly rates then I could see that.
The problem for them is if they do this Allen, Rosen, Darnold are all gone by 4.
I don’t see Mayfield for them.
Dorsey: Silence....Bye Brandon.
Dorsey would be a fool to trade the first. They are more likely talking about Cleveland's 4th.
No chance the Browns trade out of the first pick.
This. You don't acquire Tyrod Taylor and trade your only potential long term QB (Kizer) if you don't plan on taking a QB.
Quote:
They NEED a franchise quarterback at the top of the draft.
I refuse to believe the top 3 QBs are worse than what they have now
Why can't they get one with the 4th pick?
They *could*. But with the potential for QBs to go 1-2-3, why would they want to risk getting their 4th rated QB?
Quote:
this is a media flag planted by the Bills to pressure the Giants.
No chance the Browns trade out of the first pick.
This. You don't acquire Tyrod Taylor and trade your only potential long term QB (Kizer) if you don't plan on taking a QB.
They gave up the first pick in the third round for Taylor. I see the point about Kizer, i dont understand the point about Taylor. That is an incredibly rich price to pay - borderline incompetent, if not outright - for a stopgap guy to give you ~8 games before handing it off to the #1 overall pick.
Quote:
will take Barkley.
I think this is looking more and more likely.
Agreed. If that is the case, the ideal scenario would be to trade back with Denver and take him at #5. This would have shades of the Chargers taking LdT at #5. Get the best player in the draft AND extra picks.
Everyone wins. Jets lose, Broncos lose.
They gave up the first pick in the third round for Taylor. I see the point about Kizer, i dont understand the point about Taylor. That is an incredibly rich price to pay - borderline incompetent, if not outright - for a stopgap guy to give you ~8 games before handing it off to the #1 overall pick.
3rd round pick for a QB is nothing. The Browns still have more cap space than anyone and haven't extended Taylor who's in the last year of his deal. If you think he's more than a stop-gap, I don't know what to tell you.
Everyone wins. Jets lose, Broncos lose.
That would be highway robbery for Giants. My guess is they would swap #22 with our #34. Which I would do especially if the target is Barkley and not a QB.
And the Browns #1 pick almost for sure has to be a QB, unless they have three or more QBs basically equally rated.
Agreed. You are going to give up a LOT of assets to get to #4 and then possibly take your #3 rated QB. If you give up that much you might as well give up a little more and get who you really want.
Your scenario (trading down with DEN) was always the best one. It's all contingent on the Browns taking a QB at 1 so you can't until draft day. DEN then gets shaky knees knowing the Jets are picking 3rd and makes a strong offer. Take it. If CLE goes QB at 1, trading down to 5 guarantees Barkley, Chubb or Nelson + plus a bevy of extra picks.
That's max value.
This
And the Browns #1 pick almost for sure has to be a QB, unless they have three or more QBs basically equally rated.
That's why my preference, assuming they don't love any of the QBs, is to deal down to #5. Then, QBs (likely) go in the first 3 picks and Giants get Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, or Fitzpatrick, though I'd wager that the Browns take either Barkley or Chubb at #4.
Quote:
it makes a lot of sense.
This
this...would be beyond stupid. How would a scouting department go..."well we will be happy with any of the 4 so who cares". This is the conviction you want from your franchise that has been desperate for a franchise QB since its re-emergence into the NFL?
LOL that would laughable by the browns...
Quote:
Taking a RB at 2, in a completely stacked RB draft given the holes on this team is unforgivable. And I love Barkley as a prospect, but passing up the chance to transform the team is madness, and something you only do for the QB.
I'd rather go QB too... but why would your decision to pass or not on Barkley be contingent on the "depth" at the position in one draft.
Its the #2 overall pick in the draft - you're looking for a guy that will be a superstar for you for 10+ years. Your approach seems incredibly short-sighted and dangerous.
It's about time left with Eli. If you're not taking a QB this year, we're riding the Eli train until the wheel fall off. That's what 2/3 years at most?
Lets say we did a trade with the Bills, and stuck at 12 (I personally think we could probably get back up to 6 by trading with the Colts).
We'd have 12, 22, 34, 53, and almost certainly either 56 or 65 as well as a 2019 2nd. And that's at a minimum. It's a deep draft until well into the 3rd round.
We could sort out the interior of the oline (potentially getting both Hernandez and Price for instance), get one of the 2nd tier RB, get at least one of a number of very good CB, before the end of the 2nd round. Or we could get some LB depth, FS help. That's far more valuable to me than a RB or Guard no matter how talented they are. If we were a Barkley away then fine, but we're simply not.
At 2, you're looking for an exceptional pass rusher or a franchise QB. I'm not even sure you necessarily look for a LT these days.
with no trade down? That would be an epic fail by gettleman. I could live with Barkley I suppose at #2 because he is the best player in the draft...but picking nelson or chubb at #2 would be an epic fail since you would most likely get either at 5 or 6...
Quote:
They gave up the first pick in the third round for Taylor. I see the point about Kizer, i dont understand the point about Taylor. That is an incredibly rich price to pay - borderline incompetent, if not outright - for a stopgap guy to give you ~8 games before handing it off to the #1 overall pick.
3rd round pick for a QB is nothing. The Browns still have more cap space than anyone and haven't extended Taylor who's in the last year of his deal. If you think he's more than a stop-gap, I don't know what to tell you.
He very well might be, I have no idea. Chances are high they take a QB with either #1 or #4, i'm not disputing that.
But NO, throwing away the top pick in the third round for a free agent to be QB as a stop-gap... just because "a third rounder for a QB is nothing" (note: I have no idea what that means - is your point that they will somehow trade him to recoup the pick in October.... that seems optimistic... will they franchise him after the season? That would be a lot of money for this talent level) -- is incompetent if the plan all along was to have him play 8 games and then hand over the reigns.
You could have just signed Bridgewater or Bradford or any other 8 game stopgap and kept your #65 overall pick.
you mean at #2 if Browns take Barkley #1?
the giants and browns are both in the same boat, the only plausible argument not to take a qb is that there are no worthy QBs. Just because the Giants have a regressing Eli, which puts us in a better position for the next two years with a 3-13 roster, both teams need a qb in the worst way.
All the chatter and moves so far seem to indicate Giants are in love with Barkley and won't budge.
Hopefully a RB needy team like the Eagles won't jump us!