CBrownsman Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said: I think Ward will be gone by the time we pick at 12, so it would be a trade-off between what he is and the next best guy (Jackson I'm assuming). Overdrafting Ward may be the only option if we want to get him, but I have no qualms with selecting somebody before they are projected especially when we are talking a different between 5 or so selections. But then the trade-off is between Ward and a player that doesn't play CB like you mentioned. I don't disagree that ward might/will be gone by 12, but I don't like over drafting him at 4. Personally if we were picking at 4 I think our team would be better with a better pass rush (i.e. Chubb at 4 and using Ogbah in rotation) and using pick 33 for a CB (Jaire Alexander, Mike Huges, Carlton Davis, etc) than selecting the best CB at 4 and sticking Ogbah across from Garrett and having Chris Smith and Nate Orchard rotating in... So moral of the story for me is I wouldn't mind trading down and getting ward and a future 1st, but I wouldn't sit at 4 and take him...not with Chubb available.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Johnson Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, CBrownsman said: I don't disagree that ward might/will be gone by 12, but I don't like over drafting him at 4. Personally if we were picking at 4 I think our team would be better with a better pass rush (i.e. Chubb at 4 and using Ogbah in rotation) and using pick 33 for a CB (Jaire Alexander, Mike Huges, Carlton Davis, etc) than selecting the best CB at 4 and sticking Ogbah across from Garrett and having Chris Smith and Nate Orchard rotating in... So moral of the story for me is I wouldn't mind trading down and getting ward and a future 1st, but I wouldn't sit at 4 and take him...not with Chubb available.... If we do trade down to 12 and Ward is selected before us, who would you take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Hammer Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 12 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said: If we do trade down to 12 and Ward is selected before us, who would you take? It's a tough spot because it's arguably just outside of the range of the blue chippers. I would possibly look to someone like Derwin James or Tremaine Edmunds if they are available. But I would be more inclined to try and get back up from 12 for a falling Ward, Fitz, maybe even Nelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrownsman Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 17 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said: If we do trade down to 12 and Ward is selected before us, who would you take? I assume if we trade down to 12 we get 22 also. Personally I would look at a LT, I know not a TON agree with me but I am a huge fan of Connor Williams, but I could see McGlinchey at 12 too. Also it wouldn't hurt to look at a WR if Calvin Ridley is still there. Then at 22 (obviously depending on what we get at 12) I look to the best CB available like Josh Jackson CB, or if we didn't get the WR Cameron Sutton, Maybe even Davenport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candyman93 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 New mock that I did. Our 2019 needs would be a 3-tech, WR, and OT. 1. Sam Darnold, QB, USC 1. Denzel Ward, CB, OSU 2. Jaire Alexander, CB, Louisville 2. Harold Landry, DE, Boston College 2. Royce Freeman, RB, Oregon 4. Josey Jewell, LB, Iowa 5. Jaylen Samuels, FB / TE / RB, NC State 6. Godwin Igwebuike, FS, Northwestern 6. Josh Adams, RB, Notre Dame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheeRealDeal Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 23 hours ago, buno67 said: Trading down like that shows the browns want quantity over quality. Browns really need to improve the quality of players on this team not just adding more rookies. Browns need to stay in the top7 so they can get one of the blue chip players. If a player falls to the teens the have plenty of ammo to trade up and get them. I rather draft two players in the top 10 and then trade up for another player in the top 20 1995 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 1996 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers 12-45 1997 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 1998 3 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 1999 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2000 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2001 6 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 16 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2002 2 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 7 Pow Bowlers in 12-45 2003 3 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 11 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2004 6 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2005 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2006 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2007 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 16 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2008 2 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 11 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2009 1 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 11 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2010 6 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2011 7 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 9 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2012 1 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2013 2 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 12 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2014 3 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 78 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 in 20 Years. A Pro Bowler 55.71 % 217 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 Range in 20 Years. A Pro Bowlers 35% So if we keep pick #4 then we are looking at a 55.71% chance of landing a pro bowl player. If we trade the #4 pick for 2 picks in the 12-45 range each pick being a 35% chance of happening but we get two picks the chances go up. The is a 65% chance we miss on one pick or .65 and a (.65)(.65) = .4225 or 42.25% chance that we miss on both picks. Which means there is a 57.75% chance that we get at least one pro bowler with those 2 selections. Now if we are talking about landing 3 or 4 picks in the Top 45 selection then sign me up for that all day long. My math could be a little off or a little rusty but it is not far from reality. I may not remember the exact mathematics behind it(Been years since I've done probability) but I understand the concept. Maybe @mistakey can help with the math. I hear tell he is a math wizard. Either way the notion that staying in the Top 7 is an absolute must and the Browns are giving up on quality in favor or quantity if they do trade down is absolute false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrownsman Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 10 minutes ago, TheeRealDeal said: 1995 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 1996 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers 12-45 1997 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 1998 3 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 1999 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 8 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2000 5 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2001 6 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 16 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2002 2 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 7 Pow Bowlers in 12-45 2003 3 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 11 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2004 6 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2005 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2006 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2007 4 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 16 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2008 2 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 11 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2009 1 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 11 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2010 6 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 13 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2011 7 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 9 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2012 1 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2013 2 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 12 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 2014 3 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 10 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 78 Pro Bowlers in Top 7 in 20 Years. A Pro Bowler 55.71 % 217 Pro Bowlers in 12-45 Range in 20 Years. A Pro Bowlers 35% So if we keep pick #4 then we are looking at a 55.71% chance of landing a pro bowl player. If we trade the #4 pick for 2 picks in the 12-45 range each pick being a 35% chance of happening but we get two picks the chances go up. The is a 65% chance we miss on one pick or .65 and a (.65)(.65) = .4225 or 42.25% chance that we miss on both picks. Which means there is a 57.75% chance that we get at least one pro bowler with those 2 selections. Now if we are talking about landing 3 or 4 picks in the Top 45 selection then sign me up for that all day long. My math could be a little off or a little rusty but it is not far from reality. I may not remember the exact mathematics behind it(Been years since I've done probability) but I understand the concept. Maybe @mistakey can help with the math. I hear tell he is a math wizard. Either way the notion that staying in the Top 7 is an absolute must and the Browns are giving up on quality in favor or quantity if they do trade down is absolute false. Love the use of probability! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheeRealDeal Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 8 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Are you referring to the JJ chart? Teams have moved away from that for a while now. https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart Also, the second bit in that article about the top picks being ad hoc. That’s exactly what folks are talking about. The team who trades up to 4 isn’t going to be the one who puts together the first package of picks to equal pick 4, it’ll be the best total package, so someone is going to overpay if the idea that Allen/Mayfield is as desired as we’re to believe. As it stands, we’ve heard rumblings about AZ, BUF and Denver. Now, if we REALLY want Barkley or Chubb or whoever, perhaps we take moderate compensation and move down 1 spot so Denver can get their guy. But if we’re trading with either Buffalo or AZ the deal will likely far exceed the trade chart as we’re essentially trading away the last “top tier” QB. I like that chart a lot better than JJ's but it is still far from accurate. The idea that a 5th round pick has any significantly more value than a 7th round pick is just incredibly flawed. Theoretically a team could accumulate every pick from 225 to 256 and then trade it for pick #83 is outrageous. The progressive increase in value of picks should honestly not start until pick 120ish and then as I have found over and over again when I look into it there is a big drop off in the 45 range as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEARtheELF Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I think Maurice Hurst would be a steal if he were to fall to the 2nd. I would take him without looking back. He is the interior pass rush guy that Gregg Williams wants. Him and Chubb would make the dline very special imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrownsman Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, FEARtheELF said: I think Maurice Hurst would be a steal if he were to fall to the 2nd. I would take him without looking back. He is the interior pass rush guy that Gregg Williams wants. Him and Chubb would make the dline very special imo. I do like Mo Hurst. I think him and Chubb would make our D-Line set for a decade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruceb Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 8 hours ago, dawgdish said: otherwise it's not worth us moving all the way back to 12 and risking missing out on the top tier premium players. Sure it is, since there are no non-QB "top tier premium players" in this year's draft except for Barkley and Nelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkronsWitness Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 6 hours ago, Aztec Hammer said: It's a tough spot because it's arguably just outside of the range of the blue chippers. I would possibly look to someone like Derwin James or Tremaine Edmunds if they are available. But I would be more inclined to try and get back up from 12 for a falling Ward, Fitz, maybe even Nelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candyman93 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I want a 3-tech next year. It will be loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosko1616 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 13 minutes ago, candyman93 said: I want a 3-tech next year. It will be loaded. Wilkinson,Lawerance, Oliver oh my god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownie man Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 4 hours ago, bosko1616 said: Wilkinson,Lawerance, Oliver oh my god Rashaan Gary too I wanna trade down with Buffalo bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.