Red Mosquito

4/5 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:April Fifth, it's not beyond the Browns to do something this stupid - commit so much draft capital on one position in the same year - I wouldn't be surprised to see them trade back in the first with the #4 pick to still land their new OT, but get a 1st for next year to conceivably go to the rookie-deal QB well again. If they hadn't turned over their front office they might have actually done this exact thing, b/c "look at us, we're unconventional baseball-sabermetrics guys."

Alas, they will take Josh Allen at #1 (I think he's a bust) and Mike McGlinchey at #4 (will probably be good, but not Joe Thomas good) and then get 7 games out of Tyrod before he's injured, ineffective, or just himself, but then the coaches will decide to role with Allen too early and they'll ruin him and be the Browns for the next 3 years until everything is turned over again.

So why exactly would my proposed alternative be so stupid if you think what they're probably going to isn't going to work at all? I understand it's a lot of draft capital, but any team that has ever traded two firsts for one first is essentially using two first round picks on one position. In this case at least they'd get two guys at the same position with those two picks.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Dez Bryant seems like a perfect Belicheck project.

elliseamos wrote:
1- your idea doesn't work bc only one guy is on the field at a time. So the alocation of picks is very different than trading two picks to land a #1 guy at a position. Say, WR. Bc in doing so that one player gets all the prep that is needed to succeed. In the case of drafting two top QBs, neither guy can get all the first team reps and secure the rapport the position requires. While simultaneously being underminded by the prospect of the other guy getting called on at a moment's notice

4/5 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:
1- your idea doesn't work bc only one guy is on the field at a time. So the alocation of picks is very different than trading two picks to land a #1 guy at a position. Say, WR. Bc in doing so that one player gets all the prep that is needed to succeed. In the case of drafting two top QBs, neither guy can get all the first team reps and secure the rapport the position requires. While simultaneously being underminded by the prospect of the other guy getting called on at a moment's notice

But this is always true of the QB position, whether it’s a 1st round pick and a journeyman or whatever. Or if it’s a young guy getting reps behind Brady. I don’t think that’s enough of a reason to not try to scratch off two QB lottery tickets at the same time.

I really think if there were a time for this it’d be now for the Browns. Two top 5 picks, enough supposedly 1st round QB’s available that they could trade out of #1 to recoup some of their lost positional value by getting two QB’s.

Would you feel less queasy if they took a second one in the 2nd round?

elliseamos wrote:

4/5 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:
1- your idea doesn't work bc only one guy is on the field at a time. So the alocation of picks is very different than trading two picks to land a #1 guy at a position. Say, WR. Bc in doing so that one player gets all the prep that is needed to succeed. In the case of drafting two top QBs, neither guy can get all the first team reps and secure the rapport the position requires. While simultaneously being underminded by the prospect of the other guy getting called on at a moment's notice

But this is always true of the QB position, whether it’s a 1st round pick and a journeyman or whatever. Or if it’s a young guy getting reps behind Brady. I don’t think that’s enough of a reason to not try to scratch off two QB lottery tickets at the same time.

I really think if there were a time for this it’d be now for the Browns. Two top 5 picks, enough supposedly 1st round QB’s available that they could trade out of #1 to recoup some of their lost positional value by getting two QB’s.

Would you feel less queasy if they took a second one in the 2nd round?

yes. Getting top 5 talent at 2 positions and then 2nd QB at 33 would seem more economical. I'm certainly not an expert, it just seems like a better move. You also make a good point in trading #1 to move back only slightly and get more picks. That would be wise, and reminds me of Ainge and the Tatum pick last year.

4/5 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

4/5 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:
1- your idea doesn't work bc only one guy is on the field at a time. So the alocation of picks is very different than trading two picks to land a #1 guy at a position. Say, WR. Bc in doing so that one player gets all the prep that is needed to succeed. In the case of drafting two top QBs, neither guy can get all the first team reps and secure the rapport the position requires. While simultaneously being underminded by the prospect of the other guy getting called on at a moment's notice

But this is always true of the QB position, whether it’s a 1st round pick and a journeyman or whatever. Or if it’s a young guy getting reps behind Brady. I don’t think that’s enough of a reason to not try to scratch off two QB lottery tickets at the same time.

I really think if there were a time for this it’d be now for the Browns. Two top 5 picks, enough supposedly 1st round QB’s available that they could trade out of #1 to recoup some of their lost positional value by getting two QB’s.

Would you feel less queasy if they took a second one in the 2nd round?

yes. Getting top 5 talent at 2 positions and then 2nd QB at 33 would seem more economical. I'm certainly not an expert, it just seems like a better move. You also make a good point in trading #1 to move back only slightly and get more picks. That would be wise, and reminds me of Ainge and the Tatum pick last year.

I hear you. I wouldn’t fault them for that either. Btw this thought represents a 180 degree turn from my usual thought on the matter, so I certainly don’t begrudge you for not liking it. It just seems to me if your franchise has been spinning its wheels for two decades cuz it can’t find a QB, at least in part cuz they’ve followed my previous preferred belief that you shouldn’t reach on a QB, then maybe it’s time to try something radically different. If it doesn’t work I don’t think it sets them back any more than taking Josh Allen and watching him inevitably flame out would.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Dez Bryant seems like a perfect Belicheck project.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Dez Bryant seems like a perfect Belicheck project.

Orpheus wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Dez Bryant seems like a perfect Belicheck project.

Isn't the NE playbook famously difficult for outside WRs? Lots of sight adjustments and route conversions IIRC. Dez kinda sucks at that.

durdencommatyler wrote:CJ Anderson cut.

Green Habit wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:CJ Anderson cut.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:CJ Anderson cut.

Are surprised by that move? Or did you see it coming?

Green Habit wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:CJ Anderson cut.

Are surprised by that move? Or did you see it coming?

Not really surprised, but I disagree with the move. Anderson just came off a 1000 yard season, and $4.5M wasn't an unreasonably overpay for a veteran RB of his level. I just really hope he doesn't go to the Raiders (he's a Bay Area native and went to Cal for college) or the Dolphins (because fuck Adam Gase).

Green Habit wrote:I don't think Booker has looked good at all. Only had 299 yards last season, and has averaged less that 4 yards per carry in his career. Some of that can be blamed on the QB and OL, but not all of it. I now expect them to draft a RB somewhere in the mid level rounds.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I don't think Booker has looked good at all. Only had 299 yards last season, and has averaged less that 4 yards per carry in his career. Some of that can be blamed on the QB and OL, but not all of it. I now expect them to draft a RB somewhere in the mid level rounds.

Oh really? Why did I think Booker looked good? Did you light up the Chiefs?

Green Habit wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I don't think Booker has looked good at all. Only had 299 yards last season, and has averaged less that 4 yards per carry in his career. Some of that can be blamed on the QB and OL, but not all of it. I now expect them to draft a RB somewhere in the mid level rounds.

Oh really? Why did I think Booker looked good? Did you light up the Chiefs?

Broncos haven't been able to light up the Chiefs since that Jamaal Charles fumble.