Draft Discussion 3.0

[CBrownsman]

10 hours ago, H2ThaIzzo said:

I think Barkley went out the door the minute Hyde was signed. I do see us probably drafting a RB, but I don't think it will be early. 

 

10 hours ago, AkronsWitness said:

I feel it, but its not like Hyde is some all world RB. He is a slight improvement over Crowell but he is also injury prone. The Browns will have either Chubb/Barkley sitting at 4 and with everybody saying that Barkley is the best overall player in this draft, how do you not take the best overall player at #4. I dont think Hyde makes you not upgrade the position.

I don't think Barkley went out the door the minute we signed Hyde.

Though I do think Barkley was never in their plans so they did sign Hyde.

I've been hearing a lot that this front office doesn't want to take Barkley.  I think they Signed Hyde with the intention of drafting a RB in the second round or later...

Nothing wrong with that line of thinking if you think there are more valuable options at #4, and you sured up your options at RB to make sure you were okay if you couldn't get your guy later.

 

[Aztec Hammer]

I don't think we will take Barkley. Two things stick in my mind. The positional importance pyramid of Dorsey, which has RB very low. And Barkley's comments in an interview which implied he knows the Browns are probably going in a different direction but it's important to talk with them because you might be a free agent in 4-5 years.

[MWil23]

I’m 100% on board with positional value as long as it works out.

I would rather get another stud at a different position than Barkley and then get a RB later.

That being said, if Barkley ends up being a STUD and we draft a worse player than him at another position and Hardesty/Prentice/West 2.0 in the 2nd or 3rd, then I’m going to bash that decision.

We have struggled to draft quality picks in the first round period and people are now concerned that we will draft a stud RB who may only have a 7-8 year window while our longest tenured 1st rounders is Corey Coleman who may still get dealt.

This line of thinking is dangerous.

[candyman93]

I want Barkley, but I don’t think Dorsey does. I think for Dorsey it’s:

 

1. Chubb

2. Ward

[Aztec Hammer]

13 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I’m 100% on board with positional value as long as it works out.

I would rather get another stud at a different position than Barkley and then get a RB later.

That being said, if Barkley ends up being a STUD and we draft a worse player than him at another position and Hardesty/Prentice/West 2.0 in the 2nd or 3rd, then I’m going to bash that decision.

We have struggled to draft quality picks in the first round period and people are now concerned that we will draft a stud RB who may only have a 7-8 year window while our longest tenured 1st rounders is Corey Coleman who may still get dealt.

This line of thinking is dangerous.

Exactly this. Regardless of subjective ideas of positional importance, there's something to be said for just taking the stud player when he is available.

Now if you don't believe Saquon is the most likely stud player available, then that's fair.

[candyman93]

97.9 SPARQ Score and would fill a need. Our secondary would be solidified.

 

 

[Aztec Hammer]

That being flagged is a disgrace, let alone targeting. I'm cool with Ward. At 4 would feel steep, but I'd be okay with it if we were able to trade back a bit and still get him. His tape shows him to be a super sticky, ultra athlete. But I have noticed he doesn't get his head turned often enough and he might become a PI machine in the NFL if he can't correct that.

I think if I had the choice, I'd rather take Jackson at 33 than Ward at 4. Jackson is a zone guy but he's a ridiculously big time playmaker and I like corners that can change the game in an instant. Like Marcus Peters.

[Mastercheddaar]

Barkley is a luxury pick that isn't BPA when Chubb is still on the board. I'd be cool if we did call his name at #4 but at the same time I think Chubb would be BPA. Ward could be as well. Hyde is a good back, so is Duke. Then there is a bunch of "we could be good backs" available in the 2nd round. Chubb and Garrett on the same Dline would be scary good. Ward could be a lock down corner we need as well. 

So my draft order is: (After QB of course) ((subject to change on who's highlight reel I watch next)) 
1 - Chubb
2 - Ward
3 - Trade back for more picks
4 - Barkley. 

These all look pretty good actually. I love our #4 spot this year. 

That is all

mastercheddaar

[Aztec Hammer]

Which trade would you rather have?

a. Denver: 4 for 5 and 40

or

b. Buffalo: 4 for 12, 22 and 53

[CBrownsman]

15 minutes ago, Aztec Hammer said:

Which trade would you rather have?

a. Denver: 4 for 5 and 40

or

b. Buffalo: 4 for 12, 22 and 53

Honestly? Buffalo...

This is really tough for me.

I really like the idea of 12, 22, and 53 because we could see if Ward was there at 12, if not theres WR options, OT options, CB options.

But I keep coming back to the fact that we have tons of picks and need more players.

So i think I would go with 5 and 40.

Take Chubb at 5 (assuming Denver trades up for a QB) and then use 40 to get another CB or WR or something else of need.

[MSURacerDT55]

18 minutes ago, Aztec Hammer said:

Which trade would you rather have?

a. Denver: 4 for 5 and 40

or

b. Buffalo: 4 for 12, 22 and 53

I would squeeze Denver for as much as human possible, I wish I could know who would be there at #12 I would trade down but i don't. Either one they are going to be desperate and I would squeeze the hell out of both. I'm trading for my convenience, not theirs 

[AkronsWitness]

1 hour ago, CBrownsman said:

 

I don't think Barkley went out the door the minute we signed Hyde.

Though I do think Barkley was never in their plans so they did sign Hyde.

I've been hearing a lot that this front office doesn't want to take Barkley.  I think they Signed Hyde with the intention of drafting a RB in the second round or later...

Nothing wrong with that line of thinking if you think there are more valuable options at #4, and you sured up your options at RB to make sure you were okay if you couldn't get your guy later.

 

If the Browns can get Darnold/Chubb/Michel at #33......I may or may not pound 50 cans of O'Douls and see what happens

[AkronsWitness]

4 hours ago, candyman93 said:

Hyde is old so he shouldn’t really deter us from drafting a guy. Also, what if Duke walks? Then we have ZERO runningbacks long term. Just do what Philly did last year.

Hyde is 27 and has only played 4 years in the league haha Hes technically in his prime. However, they have been saying for a month now that they are trying to get Duke resigned and Duke came out and said he wants to retire here so I cant see him walking.

[Aztec Hammer]

I read we had Vita Vea in for a visit. Got me thinking about Dorsey’s pyramid of positional importance; DT was relatively high up I think.

Maybe he’s a target at 12 after a trade back with Buffalo.

[candyman93]

1 hour ago, Aztec Hammer said:

I read we had Vita Vea in for a visit. Got me thinking about Dorsey’s pyramid of positional importance; DT was relatively high up I think.

Maybe he’s a target at 12 after a trade back with Buffalo.

We just traded Danny Shelton.