There's been a lot of back and forth on whether the Browns will go Darnold or Allen at number 1. One scenario I wouldn't rule out is where the Browns take Darnold at 1, watches what happens with Allen at 2 and 3, and if he drops to 4, can decide on whether they want him or Darnold then.
Taking Darnold at 1 essentially hedges the riskier option of Allen, however if Allen drops to 4, then you can exchange the Darnold hedge for all of the draft picks the Bills would offer for one of the QBs. Choice of QB at 4 plus 5-6 picks from Buffalo sets you up a lot better than QB at 1 and Saquan/Chubb at 4 IMO
Which leads me to the Giants. There isn't a player in this draft worth NOT capitalizing on the leverage we currently have at pick 2. Barkley is not better than the 5-6 draft picks we could acquire from the Bills and the draft-pick-capital-freedom it gives us in the near future. Thus, if we decide whether none of the QBs are special, or if the one we liked was taken by the Browns, the optimal option for us is a trade back. Compile that with the inherit risk of taking a running back and the decision to trade back just swings that much more in our direction. Also, it doesn't limit us to selecting at pick 12, if anything, if gives us the freedom to move up for the player we want that slides, be that Nelson, Barkley, Chubb or Edmunds.
(Slams head on desk repeatedly)
browns most likely will take a QB one, i doubt they just say okay we will take the third best QB on our board or hope our top guys falls to 4. they go QB 1 and chubb at 4....
browns most likely will take a QB one, i doubt they just say okay we will take the third best QB on our board or hope our top guys falls to 4. they go QB 1 and chubb at 4....
I don't necessarily see the Giants as a team that lacks blue chippers, if anything were a team that lacks a solid group of core players. I also don't believe Barkley goes in the top 5 if we pass on him at 2 and he could very well slide to 6/7 where we could move up for him and take advantage of the drop.
I believe if we trade back, QBs go 1-2-3, then Chubb, then potentially QB4 or Nelson, leaving Barkley at 6 or 7. I would move up for him there, and the trade back gives us the assets and time to observe a bit and then try to make a move.
Why is there zero chance to consider this scenario? They could very well decide Darnold is the safer pick at one, BUT if Allen dropped to 4, they could reconsider the choice and talk to Buffalo while on the clock about a deal for whichever one they decide on. Its unprecedented,yes, but how many teams have had two top 4 picks in a draft with 4 top QBs?
That would be a winning team in 18.
Quote:
most of the time the team that trades down, loses on the trade after a couple years of eval. stay at 2 and take a blue chipper IMO.
browns most likely will take a QB one, i doubt they just say okay we will take the third best QB on our board or hope our top guys falls to 4. they go QB 1 and chubb at 4....
I don't necessarily see the Giants as a team that lacks blue chippers, if anything were a team that lacks a solid group of core players. I also don't believe Barkley goes in the top 5 if we pass on him at 2 and he could very well slide to 6/7 where we could move up for him and take advantage of the drop.
I believe if we trade back, QBs go 1-2-3, then Chubb, then potentially QB4 or Nelson, leaving Barkley at 6 or 7. I would move up for him there, and the trade back gives us the assets and time to observe a bit and then try to make a move.
You're assuming that whoever picks at 6 and 7 (Colts and Bucs I believe) will WANT to trade out of that pick and not simply take Barkley themselves.
That's what some appear to be missing with all this 'Just trade back!' or 'Just trade up!' talk. It takes two to tango. Saying simply 'Trade up' or 'Trade back' is a lot easier than actually doing it considering you want to get as much fair value as you want back. So the Giants trade all the way back to pick #12, for instance, with the thought 'Well... we'll just trade up to 6 with the Colts to get our guy.'... except, what's to stop the Colts from saying 'Why should we trade with you guys? We have the consensus #1 player in the draft staring us in the face at pick 6 and you want us to trade out of this spot? Hell no! We'll take Barkley thank you very much.'.
There is no "back and forth" other than BBI.
Browns are going QB with their #1 pick.
This could certainly be the case if they believed the Giants would jump on Darnold leaving Barkley at 4.
Of all the sceneri other than them taking Darnold, this makes the most sense to me.
Quote:
Dorsey is getting his QB (probably Darnold) with the 1st pick. They aren't settling for leftovers at 4.
Why is there zero chance to consider this scenario? They could very well decide Darnold is the safer pick at one, BUT if Allen dropped to 4, they could reconsider the choice and talk to Buffalo while on the clock about a deal for whichever one they decide on. Its unprecedented,yes, but how many teams have had two top 4 picks in a draft with 4 top QBs?
The last GM was fired because he thought he was cute not picking a QB with their 1st pick, Dorsey is smarter, so yes zero chance.