if we judge this draft to be deficient in qb's fine, don't take one. But, the problem is not going away. We have no right side of an offensive line, and I would imagine we would do this because we think we would get Barkley at 4. This problem doesn't fix our long-term need at the most important position. In other words, we must sell our capital this year for future years capital so that when a QB that we do think is a franchise one is available, we can pounce. Getting another first round pick is a good deal for this draft, I agree, but not sure it does much for the future in any meaningful way. We need to leave this draft with a qb or enough capital to get one in next year's or the year after's draft. That is the strength of the number 2 pick and we must take full advantage of it.
I know some old school people value early 2nd more than late 1sts (which confuses me a little), but in this CBA, the 5th year option, might significantly make late 1sts (like 22) more valuable than early 2nds (like 34).
Yes, the 5th year option is a high price, but it's likely lower than a 2nd contract would be and gives you an extra year with the player before having to pull the trigger on a FT year or a 2nd contract.
Plus, someone posted on another thread all the 2015 1st round draft picks who have been traded. When teams decide not to exercise the 5th year option, it signals that player is "in limbo" and is a good trade target and allows teams to recoup draft picks a year sooner than they would a comp pick.
As for the trade I don't think CLE does it without BUF 1st round pick in 2019 and then BUF gives up three 1st and some 3rds (at least) to move up, not sure they do that.
No interest in taking that long of a break from the action.
Buffalo has enough assets to compensate us and Cleveland, but they're going to have to dip into 2019.
We get 4 and 22 but give up nothing other than #2.
Cleveland can take 2, 12, Buffalo's 2nd's and 2019 1st.
^^^This...And not so much taking the break as much as just giving up that pick. Cleveland's 4 represents the switch in this instance. Moving from 4 to 2 warrants more back than just swapping 34 to 22 and a couple 3rds. I'd want the 22 outright to move from 2-4.
don't think I'd give up pick #34, but as someone said, it's all hypothetical, because none of this will happen. The Giants will stay at #2 in all likelihood.
so basically we give up #2 and #34 for #4 and #22.
how is that horrible? We move up 12 spots to drop 2.
exactly and we are getting 65 (which is the first pick int he 3rd round which is a premium pick).
And if the draft goes:
CLE - Darnold
BUF - QB
NYJ - QB
we would still get our pick of the best positional player (Barkley most likely or Chubb at #4..but moving up to #22 allows us to get another 1st round pick). And add pick 65 giving us now 3 of the 1st 5 picks in the 3rd round. Could easily deal 2 of those picks back into the early 2nd round to draft a player that we wanted to.
the talent drop off from 22 to 34 is not much at all in this draft. Why would we move down 2 spots in the first only to move up 12 spots? Get out of here. Jets gave up 3 second rounders to move up 3 spots and we only move up 12 spots and drop 2?
the talent drop off from 22 to 34 is not much at all in this draft. Why would we move down 2 spots in the first only to move up 12 spots? Get out of here. Jets gave up 3 second rounders to move up 3 spots and we only move up 12 spots and drop 2?
if we are going to take Barkley we would wind up with Barkley anyway two spots down. So we would just get Barkley for a cheaper salary and pick move up 12 spots in the 1st round plus get the 1st pick in the 3rd round.
Like JonC says if Darnold is still on the board this deal is off the table but if CLE goes Darnold we do this deal with CLE/BUF and we still end up with Barkley @4 instead of @2 get him from cheaper and get a few assets along the way.
We'd get the top position player of our choice. Either Barkley,Chubb or Nelson and end up with six of the top 69 players in the draft, including another 1st round pick.
The extra 1st could be one of the top O-Linemen or RB's depending on what they do at 4.
But why on earth would Cleveland do this? They have two top 5 picks in the first two rounds. Unless they are getting premium picks in 2019, it makes no sense. Eventually you have to turn these picks into players. If you keep kicking the can down the road to stock pile draft picks, what are you accomplishing? Dorsey is no fool and he saw the mistakes made by the previous regime resulted in them missing out on Goff/Wentz/Tribusky.
But why on earth would Cleveland do this? They have two top 5 picks in the first two rounds. Unless they are getting premium picks in 2019, it makes no sense. Eventually you have to turn these picks into players. If you keep kicking the can down the road to stock pile draft picks, what are you accomplishing? Dorsey is no fool and he saw the mistakes made by the previous regime resulted in them missing out on Goff/Wentz/Tribusky.
Reasoning :
Cleveland goes from 4 to 12 (1800-1200=600 pts owed)
Cleveland total=600pts owed
NY goes from 2 to 4 (2600-1800=800pts owed)
NY total=800pts owed
So NY goes to 4 and gets 22 + 65 (22=780pt +265 pts=1045 pts)
And Cleveland stays at 1 and goes to 12 and gets 53+ 56 ( 370+ 340 pts=710 pts) and 2019 2nd rd pick (300 pts minimum)= 1010pts
As for why this could work (from George in PA):
Strategic Trade Down while still drafting BPA. Yesterday’s 3-team trade rumor has me intrigued because it is win for all 3 teams. Buffalo seems to be willing to trade away the farm to move up for a QB. The Giants seems to be open to a small trade down (not 12) and The Browns 2 biggest needs are QB and LT. They will get the QB with their 1st pick but their 2nd @ 4 is too early for McGlinchey, possibly the best LT in the draft (or Connor Williams/Kolton Miller), so I understand why moving to 12 is not such a bad idea……and getting a few extra premium picks.
-Cleveland gets their top Qb and then fills their 2nd biggest need LT (likely Kolton Miller or Mike McGlinchey) while getting 3 additional second rounders (2 this year, one in 2019)
-Buffalo gets the 2nd QB off the board and fulfills their 'all-out give up the farm' objective of landing their signal caller for the next 10-15 years.
Three picks in the 60s is not enough incentive to do this. Â
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
This is exactly the type of trade they should and only do IMO. Stay in the top 4, get some extra picks including the valuable 22, ( which would give us 3 of the top 34 picks) and end up with their pick of the top position players in the draft.
they give #2 and #34 to get #4 and #22 plus some 3rds?
We are getting #22 as well though.
Buffalo has enough assets to compensate us and Cleveland, but they're going to have to dip into 2019.
We get 4 and 22 but give up nothing other than #2.
Cleveland can take 2, 12, Buffalo's 2nd's and 2019 1st.
I do this if I’m “all in” on Eli.
I’m not, but I think the NYG are.
Bills have two firsts, 12 and 22.
I don't see how this trade works.
Buffalo gets #2
Giants get #4 and #22 and some 3rds
What does Cleveland get for trading #4? #12 and #34?
Does that work for Cleveland?
Buffalo gets 1
Cleveland gets 2, 12, 53, 56, 65 and 2019 1st from Buffalo.
NYG gets 4 and 22.
Yes, the 5th year option is a high price, but it's likely lower than a 2nd contract would be and gives you an extra year with the player before having to pull the trigger on a FT year or a 2nd contract.
Plus, someone posted on another thread all the 2015 1st round draft picks who have been traded. When teams decide not to exercise the 5th year option, it signals that player is "in limbo" and is a good trade target and allows teams to recoup draft picks a year sooner than they would a comp pick.
As for the trade I don't think CLE does it without BUF 1st round pick in 2019 and then BUF gives up three 1st and some 3rds (at least) to move up, not sure they do that.
Buffalo has enough assets to compensate us and Cleveland, but they're going to have to dip into 2019.
We get 4 and 22 but give up nothing other than #2.
Cleveland can take 2, 12, Buffalo's 2nd's and 2019 1st.
^^^This...And not so much taking the break as much as just giving up that pick. Cleveland's 4 represents the switch in this instance. Moving from 4 to 2 warrants more back than just swapping 34 to 22 and a couple 3rds. I'd want the 22 outright to move from 2-4.
We keep our other picks
Bills have two firsts, 12 and 22.
I don't see how this trade works.
Buffalo gets #2
Giants get #4 and #22 and some 3rds
What does Cleveland get for trading #4? #12 and #34?
Does that work for Cleveland?
I would assume some of Buffalo's 2nd round picks
how is that horrible? We move up 12 spots to drop 2.
Buffalo gets 1
Cleveland gets 2, 12, 53, 56, 65 and 2019 1st from Buffalo.
NYG gets 4 and 22.
The browns aren't giving up #1...BUF would be moving up to 2..not to 1...not enough value to get up to #1.
It would be something like this
CLE Gets 12, 34, 53, and 56
NYG get 4, 22, and 65
BUF gets 2
+1. Unless we get the 33 too.
Quote:
so basically we give up #2 and #34 for #4 and #22.
how is that horrible? We move up 12 spots to drop 2.
exactly and we are getting 65 (which is the first pick int he 3rd round which is a premium pick).
And if the draft goes:
CLE - Darnold
BUF - QB
NYJ - QB
we would still get our pick of the best positional player (Barkley most likely or Chubb at #4..but moving up to #22 allows us to get another 1st round pick). And add pick 65 giving us now 3 of the 1st 5 picks in the 3rd round. Could easily deal 2 of those picks back into the early 2nd round to draft a player that we wanted to.
Its a perfect deal if we aren't going QB.
Look at George's 10:22 post. The trade being discussed doesn't include us giving up the #34
if we are going to take Barkley we would wind up with Barkley anyway two spots down. So we would just get Barkley for a cheaper salary and pick move up 12 spots in the 1st round plus get the 1st pick in the 3rd round.
Like JonC says if Darnold is still on the board this deal is off the table but if CLE goes Darnold we do this deal with CLE/BUF and we still end up with Barkley @4 instead of @2 get him from cheaper and get a few assets along the way.
I'd do it then.
We'd get the top position player of our choice. Either Barkley,Chubb or Nelson and end up with six of the top 69 players in the draft, including another 1st round pick.
The extra 1st could be one of the top O-Linemen or RB's depending on what they do at 4.
LOL. Ok thats alot better now.
I still believe this trade includes getting Barkley but I could be wrong.
Buffalo gets 1
Cleveland gets 2, 12, 53, 56, 65 and 2019 1st from Buffalo.
NYG gets 4 and 22.
Easy no on that trade.
Reasoning :
Cleveland goes from 4 to 12 (1800-1200=600 pts owed)
Cleveland total=600pts owed
NY goes from 2 to 4 (2600-1800=800pts owed)
NY total=800pts owed
So NY goes to 4 and gets 22 + 65 (22=780pt +265 pts=1045 pts)
And Cleveland stays at 1 and goes to 12 and gets 53+ 56 ( 370+ 340 pts=710 pts) and 2019 2nd rd pick (300 pts minimum)= 1010pts
As for why this could work (from George in PA):
Strategic Trade Down while still drafting BPA. Yesterday’s 3-team trade rumor has me intrigued because it is win for all 3 teams. Buffalo seems to be willing to trade away the farm to move up for a QB. The Giants seems to be open to a small trade down (not 12) and The Browns 2 biggest needs are QB and LT. They will get the QB with their 1st pick but their 2nd @ 4 is too early for McGlinchey, possibly the best LT in the draft (or Connor Williams/Kolton Miller), so I understand why moving to 12 is not such a bad idea……and getting a few extra premium picks.
-Cleveland gets their top Qb and then fills their 2nd biggest need LT (likely Kolton Miller or Mike McGlinchey) while getting 3 additional second rounders (2 this year, one in 2019)
-Buffalo gets the 2nd QB off the board and fulfills their 'all-out give up the farm' objective of landing their signal caller for the next 10-15 years.
Not necessarily true in this smokescreen period two days pre-draft
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
They wouldn't be giving it up. It was just omitted but later corrected to say they'd be keeping it.
Quote:
Don't settle.
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
This is exactly the type of trade they should and only do IMO. Stay in the top 4, get some extra picks including the valuable 22, ( which would give us 3 of the top 34 picks) and end up with their pick of the top position players in the draft.
Win -win IMO.
then trade 12, a 2nd and 2 3rds to move back up to 5 or 6 and take whom ever is left of the 4 qbs Barkely or Chubb and go from there.
Think Denver would move down if no Qb is left, Indy if Barkely is gone
So we would have 8 draft picks with 2 first round, 1 second round. 3 early third round picks, plus the 4th and 5th rounders.
Sign me up.