I trade down from 4 and grab Lamar Jackson. They would have their developmental guy and the depth at QB to do some really interesting things on offense with a mobile QB.
If they hadn't done that last time and look stupid because of it, I might agree. Kizer similar to Jackson.
Because they also have Kizer, it's precisely why that thought crossed my mind. You would need to go 3 deep at QB if you start gameplanning to run your QB consistently. I highly doubt that's their plan but it would be an incredibly interesting experiment, especially when you factor in the surprising amount of talent on that offense.
and the best they can do is Taylor? I get that he's a stop gap but still. There must be better competitive options in the meantime. Or, you know, for a franchise that has sucked at QB forever, they can just spend and get the sure thing in Cousins.
Unless Cousins doesn't want to go there.
The only thing that seems evident in this draft is expectations will Â
They will still take a QB in the first round but now they might wait until the 4th pick. This could be great news for the Giants but bad news for Barkley fans.
They will still take a QB in the first round but now they might wait until the 4th pick. This could be great news for the Giants but bad news for Barkley fans.
Why would they wait until the 4th pick and run the risk of missing out on their highest graded QB?
and the best they can do is Taylor? I get that he's a stop gap but still. There must be better competitive options in the meantime. Or, you know, for a franchise that has sucked at QB forever, they can just spend and get the sure thing in Cousins.
You pick your best QB prospect at 1 and there will be no hoopla surrounding the decision. Don't give Cousins a Garrapolo deal when the team that knows him best would not. Get and excellent, financially controlled QB and win like Seattle has. I think what they are is looking very very good and not signing Cousins to a megadeal is the best part of it. They are going to have room and get some really good buys if they are patient.
I trade down from 4 and grab Lamar Jackson. They would have their developmental guy and the depth at QB to do some really interesting things on offense with a mobile QB.
If they hadn't done that last time and look stupid because of it, I might agree. Kizer similar to Jackson.
Because they also have Kizer, it's precisely why that thought crossed my mind. You would need to go 3 deep at QB if you start gameplanning to run your QB consistently. I highly doubt that's their plan but it would be an incredibly interesting experiment, especially when you factor in the surprising amount of talent on that offense.
Agree with you there, if they live by that kind of QB they better have at least 2.
Cleveland selects their QB at 1 or 4. It only tells us that Taylor is short-term and they're going to take a quarterback. They still need to get this pick right. Cleveland is still trying to select their that QB that is going to be the face of the franchise for the next 10 years. They can't screw this up. Remember. They have 3 second round draft picks that they can also use for on arunning back. By no means does this is a guarantee that Barkley goes #1.
Cleveland selects their QB at 1 or 4. It only tells us that Taylor is short-term and they're going to take a quarterback. They still need to get this pick right. Cleveland is still trying to select their that QB that is going to be the face of the franchise for the next 10 years. They can't screw this up. Remember. They have 3 second round draft picks that they can also use for on arunning back. By no means does this is a guarantee that Barkley goes #1.
Exactly. I don't see any way they aren't drafting at QB at 1 which I believe is Darnold.
RE: Think this means they’re taking Barkley at 1 Â
Why 4? They would risk missing out on their highest rated QB.
Think they would rather not miss out on their highest rated player in the draft which looks like Barkley.
They've been searching for a QB for ever and traded away their chances at Wentz and Watson. Whoever they rate the highest at QB has to be their 1st pick priority.
@RapSheet
Source: The #Packers have traded for QB DeShone Kizer. From the #Browns to Green Bay.
browns will def take a QB...at 1 or 4 is the question...personally id want my pick and take Darnold or allen at 1 and then help the defense at 4 since we have done plenty to help the offense this offseason....
@RapSheet
Source: The #Packers have traded for QB DeShone Kizer. From the #Browns to Green Bay.
browns will def take a QB...at 1 or 4 is the question...personally id want my pick and take Darnold or allen at 1 and then help the defense at 4 since we have done plenty to help the offense this offseason....
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
I trade down from 4 and grab Lamar Jackson. They would have their developmental guy and the depth at QB to do some really interesting things on offense with a mobile QB.
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Too much risk if the Colts trade that pick, then the Browns get the third QB. They'll get their franchise QB at 1.
Let's not act like this team doesn't need stars. I'd rather take Nelson than trade down to the 20s. That's dumb.
I tend to agree...but if the following offer came to Gettleman I'm not sure he'd pass:
21, 22, 53, 65, 1st 2019
I bet he wouldn't, but if people are convinced that the Giants (stupidly) want to pretend they have a 2-year window, and won't draft a QB, filling the roster with rookies is an unprecedented way to "win now".
Or Taylor not sure they needed to make this move he is not a QB to teach the young guy they will draft so is this just to eat up some CAP space? Or is the belief that we can win now while still building for the future just imagine he does make them winners what do you do then with him? Kizer now traded to GB he must have really done something terrible to get the no talent stamp after his rookie first year starting.
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Too much risk if the Colts trade that pick, then the Browns get the third QB. They'll get their franchise QB at 1.
They need to like 3 QBs equally to afford this scenario. It's possible, but risky.
RE: RE: RE: Moving down to 21 is out of the question to me. Â
Let's not act like this team doesn't need stars. I'd rather take Nelson than trade down to the 20s. That's dumb.
I tend to agree...but if the following offer came to Gettleman I'm not sure he'd pass:
21, 22, 53, 65, 1st 2019
I bet he wouldn't, but if people are convinced that the Giants (stupidly) want to pretend they have a 2-year window, and won't draft a QB, filling the roster with rookies is an unprecedented way to "win now".
I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. However I don't think they'd give the 2019 #1, I think they'd negotiate a player or maybe a 2nd in 2019. I think I'd still do that too. We'd get 4 premium picks, and likely starters, for this season
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Too much risk if the Colts trade that pick, then the Browns get the third QB. They'll get their franchise QB at 1.
They need to like 3 QBs equally to afford this scenario. It's possible, but risky.
Dorsey is too smart to take that big of a risk. He's be second guessed forever if either of the 2 QBs picked before become stars.
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Why do you assume the Colts won't trade their pick? I can absolutely see the Broncos or jets seeing the quarterback they want available at 3 and they will know the browns will take a qb at 4 (If they don't take one at 1) and will move heaven and earth to get their guy.
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Why do you assume the Colts won't trade their pick? I can absolutely see the Broncos or jets seeing the quarterback they want available at 3 and they will know the browns will take a qb at 4 (If they don't take one at 1) and will move heaven and earth to get their guy.
+1. I'd say it's almost given they go QB with their 1st pick. I'm sticking with Darnold as their choice.
agree the Browns are now likely to take a QB at #1. Taylor is a bridge. They won't chance that the QB they really like will still be available at #4. Darnold is probably that guy, but as someone said, the NFL likes big, and that is certainly Allen.
I wouldn't trade with Buffalo. I wouldn't hate it, but don't want to do so. The drop is too far. I also don't think Buffalo would pay the astronomical price in draft picks required to jump from #21 to #2. That seems like draftniks with not enough to do.
agree the Browns are now likely to take a QB at #1. Taylor is a bridge. They won't chance that the QB they really like will still be available at #4. Darnold is probably that guy, but as someone said, the NFL likes big, and that is certainly Allen.
I wouldn't trade with Buffalo. I wouldn't hate it, but don't want to do so. The drop is too far. I also don't think Buffalo would pay the astronomical price in draft picks required to jump from #21 to #2. That seems like draftniks with not enough to do.
It'll be Barkley or Rosen sitting there at #2 for the Giants to decide.
agree the Browns are now likely to take a QB at #1. Taylor is a bridge. They won't chance that the QB they really like will still be available at #4. Darnold is probably that guy, but as someone said, the NFL likes big, and that is certainly Allen.
I wouldn't trade with Buffalo. I wouldn't hate it, but don't want to do so. The drop is too far. I also don't think Buffalo would pay the astronomical price in draft picks required to jump from #21 to #2. That seems like draftniks with not enough to do.
It'll be Barkley or Rosen sitting there at #2 for the Giants to decide.
I would take Barkley unless there is a really fantastic trade offer, which might happen because Rosen will still be available. Rosen is the best player in the draft, but his injury history is probably preclusive.
Cleveland selects their QB at 1 or 4. It only tells us that Taylor is short-term and they're going to take a quarterback. They still need to get this pick right. Cleveland is still trying to select their that QB that is going to be the face of the franchise for the next 10 years. They can't screw this up. Remember. They have 3 second round draft picks that they can also use for on arunning back. By no means does this is a guarantee that Barkley goes #1.
Exactly. I don't see any way they aren't drafting at QB at 1 which I believe is Darnold.
I just don't see any indication that Darnold is the #1 player on the Browns' board -- or any team's board for that matter.
Quote:
I trade down from 4 and grab Lamar Jackson. They would have their developmental guy and the depth at QB to do some really interesting things on offense with a mobile QB.
If they hadn't done that last time and look stupid because of it, I might agree. Kizer similar to Jackson.
Because they also have Kizer, it's precisely why that thought crossed my mind. You would need to go 3 deep at QB if you start gameplanning to run your QB consistently. I highly doubt that's their plan but it would be an incredibly interesting experiment, especially when you factor in the surprising amount of talent on that offense.
Unless Cousins doesn't want to go there.
Why would they wait until the 4th pick and run the risk of missing out on their highest graded QB?
Quote:
In comment 13856595 AcesUp said:
Quote:
I trade down from 4 and grab Lamar Jackson. They would have their developmental guy and the depth at QB to do some really interesting things on offense with a mobile QB.
If they hadn't done that last time and look stupid because of it, I might agree. Kizer similar to Jackson.
Because they also have Kizer, it's precisely why that thought crossed my mind. You would need to go 3 deep at QB if you start gameplanning to run your QB consistently. I highly doubt that's their plan but it would be an incredibly interesting experiment, especially when you factor in the surprising amount of talent on that offense.
Exactly. I don't see any way they aren't drafting at QB at 1 which I believe is Darnold.
Why 4? They would risk missing out on their highest rated QB.
Quote:
And staying at 4 where they’ll take a QB.
Why 4? They would risk missing out on their highest rated QB.
Think they would rather not miss out on their highest rated player in the draft which looks like Barkley.
Wish I knew why people were so motivated to assume a meaning for every transaction.
Quote:
In comment 13856619 jeff57 said:
Quote:
And staying at 4 where they’ll take a QB.
Why 4? They would risk missing out on their highest rated QB.
Think they would rather not miss out on their highest rated player in the draft which looks like Barkley.
They've been searching for a QB for ever and traded away their chances at Wentz and Watson. Whoever they rate the highest at QB has to be their 1st pick priority.
I agree.
Source: The #Packers have traded for QB DeShone Kizer. From the #Browns to Green Bay.
Where Taylor sits on the "franchise QB" scale isn't as important as how much the Browns like Barkley more than a QB they think will get to 4.
Wish I knew why people were so motivated to assume a meaning for every transaction.
1+
Source: The #Packers have traded for QB DeShone Kizer. From the #Browns to Green Bay.
browns will def take a QB...at 1 or 4 is the question...personally id want my pick and take Darnold or allen at 1 and then help the defense at 4 since we have done plenty to help the offense this offseason....
Source: The #Packers have traded for QB DeShone Kizer. From the #Browns to Green Bay.
They are going with a QB at 1.
Quote:
@RapSheet
Source: The #Packers have traded for QB DeShone Kizer. From the #Browns to Green Bay.
browns will def take a QB...at 1 or 4 is the question...personally id want my pick and take Darnold or allen at 1 and then help the defense at 4 since we have done plenty to help the offense this offseason....
They're going with Darnold in my view.
Yet some are insistent on trading down...
Exactly. Darnold, Barkley, Chubb, Nelson (in a trade down). No matter what. The Giants or sitting pretty.
Quote:
The Giants will either have a shot at their QB1(likely Darnold) or the BPA in the entire draft (Barkley or Chubb)
Yet some are insistent on trading down...
Exactly. Darnold, Barkley, Chubb, Nelson (in a trade down). No matter what. The Giants or sitting pretty.
Giants are going to get the best player in the draft Barkley or Rosen in my view.
Quote:
In trading up to get a QB. Buffalo has two 1s and two 2s and two 3s
I would need every single one of those picks and next years first.
It’s going to take something damn close to that to move that far back. I would love all the picks. Draft weekend will be so freaking fun.
Jackson blows.
Too much risk if the Colts trade that pick, then the Browns get the third QB. They'll get their franchise QB at 1.
I tend to agree...but if the following offer came to Gettleman I'm not sure he'd pass:
21, 22, 53, 65, 1st 2019
Quote:
Let's not act like this team doesn't need stars. I'd rather take Nelson than trade down to the 20s. That's dumb.
I tend to agree...but if the following offer came to Gettleman I'm not sure he'd pass:
21, 22, 53, 65, 1st 2019
I bet he wouldn't, but if people are convinced that the Giants (stupidly) want to pretend they have a 2-year window, and won't draft a QB, filling the roster with rookies is an unprecedented way to "win now".
Quote:
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Too much risk if the Colts trade that pick, then the Browns get the third QB. They'll get their franchise QB at 1.
They need to like 3 QBs equally to afford this scenario. It's possible, but risky.
Quote:
In comment 13856670 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
Let's not act like this team doesn't need stars. I'd rather take Nelson than trade down to the 20s. That's dumb.
I tend to agree...but if the following offer came to Gettleman I'm not sure he'd pass:
21, 22, 53, 65, 1st 2019
I bet he wouldn't, but if people are convinced that the Giants (stupidly) want to pretend they have a 2-year window, and won't draft a QB, filling the roster with rookies is an unprecedented way to "win now".
I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. However I don't think they'd give the 2019 #1, I think they'd negotiate a player or maybe a 2nd in 2019. I think I'd still do that too. We'd get 4 premium picks, and likely starters, for this season
Quote:
In comment 13856666 LS said:
Quote:
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Too much risk if the Colts trade that pick, then the Browns get the third QB. They'll get their franchise QB at 1.
They need to like 3 QBs equally to afford this scenario. It's possible, but risky.
Dorsey is too smart to take that big of a risk. He's be second guessed forever if either of the 2 QBs picked before become stars.
Taylor will usher in the new era until whichever QB they draft takes the reins.
Why do you assume the Colts won't trade their pick? I can absolutely see the Broncos or jets seeing the quarterback they want available at 3 and they will know the browns will take a qb at 4 (If they don't take one at 1) and will move heaven and earth to get their guy.
Quote:
is only one QB the Browns would be happy with. If they take Barkley at 1, that means they at worst they get their second QB choice (don't see the Colts going QB) at 4. If there is only one top QB in this draft, and the Browns go QB at 1 then according to all the people who wanted a QB here have to think we are screwed at 2. And no one knows who will actually end up being the best QB in this draft anyway. And remember, this is the Browns. If they knew who the "right picks" were, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Why do you assume the Colts won't trade their pick? I can absolutely see the Broncos or jets seeing the quarterback they want available at 3 and they will know the browns will take a qb at 4 (If they don't take one at 1) and will move heaven and earth to get their guy.
+1. I'd say it's almost given they go QB with their 1st pick. I'm sticking with Darnold as their choice.
I wouldn't trade with Buffalo. I wouldn't hate it, but don't want to do so. The drop is too far. I also don't think Buffalo would pay the astronomical price in draft picks required to jump from #21 to #2. That seems like draftniks with not enough to do.
I wouldn't trade with Buffalo. I wouldn't hate it, but don't want to do so. The drop is too far. I also don't think Buffalo would pay the astronomical price in draft picks required to jump from #21 to #2. That seems like draftniks with not enough to do.
It'll be Barkley or Rosen sitting there at #2 for the Giants to decide.
Quote:
agree the Browns are now likely to take a QB at #1. Taylor is a bridge. They won't chance that the QB they really like will still be available at #4. Darnold is probably that guy, but as someone said, the NFL likes big, and that is certainly Allen.
I wouldn't trade with Buffalo. I wouldn't hate it, but don't want to do so. The drop is too far. I also don't think Buffalo would pay the astronomical price in draft picks required to jump from #21 to #2. That seems like draftniks with not enough to do.
It'll be Barkley or Rosen sitting there at #2 for the Giants to decide.
I would take Barkley unless there is a really fantastic trade offer, which might happen because Rosen will still be available. Rosen is the best player in the draft, but his injury history is probably preclusive.
Quote:
Cleveland selects their QB at 1 or 4. It only tells us that Taylor is short-term and they're going to take a quarterback. They still need to get this pick right. Cleveland is still trying to select their that QB that is going to be the face of the franchise for the next 10 years. They can't screw this up. Remember. They have 3 second round draft picks that they can also use for on arunning back. By no means does this is a guarantee that Barkley goes #1.
Exactly. I don't see any way they aren't drafting at QB at 1 which I believe is Darnold.
I just don't see any indication that Darnold is the #1 player on the Browns' board -- or any team's board for that matter.
I think the Jets end up with AJ McCarron now