Draft Discussion 2.0

[buno67]

1 hour ago, bruceb said:

Not me.

I want to trade it for a boatload of picks, and maybe a player.

That's the highest value of the pick.

Browns dont need buttload of picks, they need talent!

[bruceb]

1 hour ago, buno67 said:

Browns dont need buttload of picks, they need talent!

And it ain't there at #4, imho.

Better to take more bites at the apple.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 hour ago, buno67 said:

Browns dont need buttload of picks, they need talent!

Dafuq you think those picks are for?

[Rod Johnson]

1 hour ago, buno67 said:

Browns dont need buttload of picks, they need talent!

Agree and disagree

I don't want the Browns to use all the picks they have right now to bring in a massive rookie class, let alone trade for more and make that class bigger.  But, if trading down the #4 because we think the talent is somewhat equal through the middle of the first allows us more flexibility to combine assets move back into the 1st/2nd round, then I'm all for it.  We can easily get 3 picks in the 1st round as is, if we trade down we could get 4-5 which is insane to think about.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

18 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Agree and disagree

I don't want the Browns to use all the picks they have right now to bring in a massive rookie class, let alone trade for more and make that class bigger.  But, if trading down the #4 because we think the talent is somewhat equal through the middle of the first allows us more flexibility to combine assets move back into the 1st/2nd round, then I'm all for it.  We can easily get 3 picks in the 1st round as is, if we trade down we could get 4-5 which is insane to think about.

For me it’s has nothing to do with this year, we have plenty of picks either way (5 other picks in the top 65, excluding pick 4all together).  I want picks in future years, so each year looks like this one, with s ton of draft capital.

There is no reason to blow our wad on one pick this year when we could add multiple picks over multiple years just by moving down a few picks.

[Rod Johnson]

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

For me it’s has nothing to do with this year, we have plenty of picks either way (5 other picks in the top 65, excluding pick 4all together).  I want picks in future years, so each year looks like this one, with s ton of draft capital.

There is no reason to blow our wad on one pick this year when we could add multiple picks over multiple years just by moving down a few picks.

That's where our rift between how the youth on our team differs comes into play.  Getting multiple picks next year is great as well to me, but in the interest of combining them.  For instance if we don't get our blue chipper at QB in the draft this year, and play ourselves into mediocrity, we will have picks next year to combine for a great QB prospect that will walk onto a more stable team.  I like the idea of tons of picks for flexibility but only in the interest of getting guys we really, really want; not to keep adding wave after wave of young guys.  That's where Sashi ideology about the draft really turns sour in my mind.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, Rod Johnson said:

That's where our rift between how the youth on our team differs comes into play.  Getting multiple picks next year is great as well to me, but in the interest of combining them.  For instance if we don't get our blue chipper at QB in the draft this year, and play ourselves into mediocrity, we will have picks next year to combine for a great QB prospect that will walk onto a more stable team.  I like the idea of tons of picks for flexibility but only in the interest of getting guys we really, really want; not to keep adding wave after wave of young guys.  That's where Sashi ideology about the draft really turns sour in my mind.

Statistically speaking, this is complete idiocy, but different strokes and all that.

You’re essentially trading in multiple lottery tickets for one specific one because you got a “feelin in yer gut about the numbers”.

[Rod Johnson]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Statistically speaking, this is complete idiocy, but different strokes and all that.

You’re essentially trading in multiple lottery tickets for one specific one because you got a “feelin in yer gut about the numbers”.

Disagree.

Belichek has been avoiding bringing in tons of young guys for years now because the new agreement limits time to prepare them for the season.  The average age on our team is already ridiculously low and we need to figure out who is worth keeping of these guys by their contract years.  As proven by years of letting decent players we drafted walk, it's difficult to discern who truly helps our team when you're winning no more than 4 games a season.  As proven by our last 2 years, it's nearly impossible to win even that many games when you have guys in their 1st and 2nd year playing significant time across the board.

We've already thrown a lot of darts in the draft and need to take the blindfold off.

[buno67]

1 hour ago, Rod Johnson said:

Agree and disagree

I don't want the Browns to use all the picks they have right now to bring in a massive rookie class, let alone trade for more and make that class bigger.  But, if trading down the #4 because we think the talent is somewhat equal through the middle of the first allows us more flexibility to combine assets move back into the 1st/2nd round, then I'm all for it.  We can easily get 3 picks in the 1st round as is, if we trade down we could get 4-5 which is insane to think about.

I rather the Browns trade up and up, so they dont have a massive rookie class but they have a rookie class loaded with talent. I rather keep 1 and 4 and then use the 2nd and 3rd rd picks to get back into the 1st or higher into the 2nd

[buno67]

41 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

For me it’s has nothing to do with this year, we have plenty of picks either way (5 other picks in the top 65, excluding pick 4all together).  I want picks in future years, so each year looks like this one, with s ton of draft capital.

There is no reason to blow our wad on one pick this year when we could add multiple picks over multiple years just by moving down a few picks.

you say you want each draft season to look like this, with tons of draft capital. I think that is unreasonable. To get a draft loaded with this many picks, it took years of trading down and pulling of a crazy salary trade. 

[Rod Johnson]

3 minutes ago, buno67 said:

I rather the Browns trade up and up, so they dont have a massive rookie class but they have a rookie class loaded with talent. I rather keep 1 and 4 and then use the 2nd and 3rd rd picks to get back into the 1st or higher into the 2nd

I would too but that will be dependent on our evaluation of the talent at that pick.  I agree with you on the overall strategy we should have for the next couple of drafts but I don't think just by trading down once we subvert that strategy overall, rather it could be a better way to trade up more.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

11 minutes ago, buno67 said:

you say you want each draft season to look like this, with tons of draft capital. I think that is unreasonable. To get a draft loaded with this many picks, it took years of trading down and pulling of a crazy salary trade. 

Unreasonable to do what’s already been done? When we have a higher set of picks than ever before?

That’s an interesting way to look at things....

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

40 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Disagree.

There’s nothing to disagree with, what I stated was a statistical fact.

40 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Belichek has

..... drafted in the top 10 twice as the Pats HC, but somehow managed to field a competent team.

40 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

been avoiding bringing in tons of young guys for years now because the new agreement limits time to prepare them for the season. 

But they have been using those picks to improve the team (Cooks), which is great.  I never said we had to use all those picks in the draft, simply that I want the assets.

40 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

The average age on our team is already ridiculously low and we need to figure out who is worth keeping of these guys by their contract years. 

So is the Rams.  So what?  We don’t need to continue to go full rebuild mode moving forward, but it never hurts to have a plethora of young, cheap and valuable assets.

40 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

As proven by years of letting decent players we drafted walk, it's difficult to discern who truly helps our team when you're winning no more than 4 games a season.  As proven by our last 2 years, it's nearly impossible to win even that many games when you have guys in their 1st and 2nd year playing significant time across the board.

Again, having valuable assets doesn’t mean playing only first and second year players. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

40 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

We've already thrown a lot of darts in the draft and need to take the blindfold off.

How was the blindfold on?  Not drafting high enough you mean? I’ll take your 2016 draft (because I mean we did take the first overall player in 2017) and raise you 75% of the drafts we’ve had since ‘99 where we’ve drafted high, whiffed and ended up with nothing.

And we can both draft high, bring in 3-4 picks in the top 75 each year and have a vet team.

[Thomas5737]

9 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Unreasonable to do what’s already been done? When we have a higher set of picks than ever before?

That’s an interesting way to look at things....

To be fair it probably is unreasonable when you are talking about multiple regimes. Not impossible by any means, the hard, or perhaps risky part has already been done and if we had the same people in charge I would expect similar outcomes. It is the smart way to do things and most 4th graders can understand it after being told once but for whatever reason it is rarely used and never over a lengthy span that I can recall.

Maybe there is validity to it too. Sashi would probably still be employed if we took the players who were selected at the draft spot we traded back from in either year. Still, I can't mathematically say it isn't a good idea there is just risk involved. I think if you have a QB already in place that risk would be very low. Without one it increases by a decent margin if what happened happens.

[Rod Johnson]

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

There’s nothing to disagree with, what I stated was a statistical fact.

..... drafted in the top 10 twice as the Pats HC, but somehow managed to field a competent team.

But they have been using those picks to improve the team (Cooks), which is great.  I never said we had to use all those picks in the draft, simply that I want the assets.

So is the Rams.  So what?  We don’t need to continue to go full rebuild mode moving forward, but it never hurts to have a plethora of young, cheap and valuable assets.

Again, having valuable assets doesn’t mean playing only first and second year players. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

How was the blindfold on?  Not drafting high enough you mean? I’ll take your 2016 draft (because I mean we did take the first overall player in 2017) and raise you 75% of the drafts we’ve had since ‘99 where we’ve drafted high, whiffed and ended up with nothing.

And we can both draft high, bring in 3-4 picks in the top 75 each year and have a vet team.

Our disagreement is more nuanced on this matter than I suspected.

I definitely don't disagree that acquiring more draft assets is a great priority to have.  My only sentiment is that we shouldn't bring 10 more rookies onto the roster like we did in the Sashi years.  I don't know why you think the 2016 draft was good, we got a few players that will cap out between average-above average and a lot of crap (including Coleman who the jury is definitely still out on if he's a complete bust).  Combining assets to move up and get high ceiling guys and still acquiring assets to do that next year aren't mutually exclusive either (which is why I am fine with trading down 4 on the basis that it will allow us to do that more).

The Rams were never as comparably young as we are right now, they were "the most" young, but we were still significantly younger than they ever were.

I'm not sure we disagree much at all.  I'd love to trade some mid-round picks for veterans like we did with Jaime Collins (hopefully it pans out a bit better than that though).