12th overall this year

1st round 2016

3rd round 2015


I would say yes just because next years first is most likely top 10. However, I would be pushing hard for an extra 2nd or 3rd rounder regardless of which year it's in.

 

I will admit I am not to familiar with pick values and common logic so forgive my ignorance here. Would it be possible to say something like 2015 1st 2015 3rd 2016 1st if the first is a top 10 pick then we simply get those 3 however if its 11-32 we get an additional pick? I know I have heard of player for pick trades where the pick is conditional, but I dont know if I've ever heard of a pick for pick conditional. Just wondering.

---

"Don't argue with an idiot, people watching may not be able to tell the difference."

I will admit I am not to familiar with pick values and common logic so forgive my ignorance here. Would it be possible to say something like 2015 1st 2015 3rd 2016 1st if the first is a top 10 pick then we simply get those 3 however if its 11-32 we get an additional pick? I know I have heard of player for pick trades where the pick is conditional, but I dont know if I've ever heard of a pick for pick conditional. Just wondering.

---

I've never heard of that in the nfl. It's common in the nba.

---

I'd take that deal.  An extra third would be great, and then having an extra first next year?  That would be awesome.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

12th

next year 1st round

this years 3rd 

our 5th for their 4th this year.

---

If I had to guess, I'd say the general consensus on this board would be "no."  But I've been wrong before.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foot...on-at-no-1

 

In relevant part...

No give me both 1st this year and we have a deal, dont even have to add anything else 

 

With that we can get a Pass rusher like Ray, Dupree or even Beasley if he falls to 12, and we can prob grab the RB before they start to go off the board

---

<B><FONT color=cyan>Jags this is your year</FONT></B>

No give me both 1st this year and we have a deal, dont even have to add anything else 

 

With that we can get a Pass rusher like Ray, Dupree or even Beasley if he falls to 12, and we can prob grab the RB before they start to go off the board

Agreed. I definitely would not do the initial trade that was proposed. Beasley and Melvin Gordon would be a heck of a haul.

---

I'm always a fan of trading back, but I'd want more than that.  I think I'd rather have both first round picks this year, a mid tier picks this year, as well as some future picks.  doesnt have to be their 2016 1st rounder.  but maybe their 2nd.  

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

No I'm with the other poster who said 3 first rounders. I am given you a "franchise" qb. Sorry but you are gonna have to pay for that. Plus I'm moving my self from potential drafting a game changer. The rams went from 2 to 6 and got a haul of a life time. This drop is much more significant than that. If the trade is not something almost identical to that trade than I'd have to pass of that. 

---

I would. And if Beasley and Dupree are gone, I'd waste no time taking Gurley or Gordon

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

No I'm with the other poster who said 3 first rounders. I am given you a "franchise" qb. Sorry but you are gonna have to pay for that. Plus I'm moving my self from potential drafting a game changer. The rams went from 2 to 6 and got a haul of a life time. This drop is much more significant than that. If the trade is not something almost identical to that trade than I'd have to pass of that.

This.


I really have no idea why people are so content with getting an extra third and a 1st for giving up a "franchise" QB that is rumored to have multiple teams courting him.


ATL gave up two 1sts for a WR. If Cleveland got an elite QB for the next 10-15 years, people would be calling us idiots taking a third and next years 1st.

---

This.


I really have no idea why people are so content with getting an extra third and a 1st for giving up a "franchise" QB that is rumored to have multiple teams courting him.


ATL gave up two 1sts for a WR. If Cleveland got an elite QB for the next 10-15 years, people would be calling us idiots taking a third and next years 1st.

Yea its rather baffling to me too. Sometimes the want for extra picks shouldn't override the value of the trade you are receiving. You want the qb then you have to pay for him. If not the the highest bidder will get him. I'm almost certain Washington was the only team trying to trade up for RGIII they just had the best offer. Especially for a drop that far, it should take no less than their 2 first this year, a first next year and the 2nd rounder this year and next. That to me would be the minimum trade that should be accepted. 

---

I'd take that all day.   Browns 2016 may be 1st overall.  I'd also be cool if that was the outcome.

Totally agree.

---

I'd take that all day.   Browns 2016 may be 1st overall.  I'd also be cool if that was the outcome.

 

Cleveland's not nearly that bad of a team, their pick is likely to fall somewhere in 8-14 range again next season. Pettine's a solid coach and Mariota is better than what they were trotting out there at QB last season, assuming they don't bench him the whole season in favor of McCown. They also made some slight upgrades at a few positions with the only real departure being Jordan Cameron.

---

I'd take it in a hearbeat.

---

BORTLES ISN'T A FRANCHISE QB. FOURNETTE WILL BE A BUST.

This.


I really have no idea why people are so content with getting an extra third and a 1st for giving up a "franchise" QB that is rumored to have multiple teams courting him.


ATL gave up two 1sts for a WR. If Cleveland got an elite QB for the next 10-15 years, people would be calling us idiots taking a third and next years 1st.

 

Would you take the deal if it's the only offer? Also didn't ATL trade up from like 26 or something? Would a good deal be both their firsts this year and their first next year? 

---

"Don't argue with an idiot, people watching may not be able to tell the difference."

If it's Cleveland then I'd want at least 3 firsts


Would maybe consider 2 firsts a second and Gipson

---

Cleveland's not nearly that bad of a team, their pick is likely to fall somewhere in 8-14 range again next season. Pettine's a solid coach and Mariota is better than what they were trotting out there at QB last season, assuming they don't bench him the whole season in favor of McCown. They also made some slight upgrades at a few positions with the only real departure being Jordan Cameron.

I can see them turning it around a bit. But I'm basing it off their chronic history of bad luck.

---

Would you take the deal if it's the only offer? Also didn't ATL trade up from like 26 or something? Would a good deal be both their firsts this year and their first next year?

Would I take a drop from 3 to 12, a third this year, and 1st next year? Absolutely not. Id rather take the top 3 player.


I doubt it would be the only offer, but that's such a low-ball offer its borderline ridiculous.A QB is the #1 most important position in football BY FAR. No way in hell I'd give a team they thought was going to be their franchise QB for the next 10-15 years without making them pay HEAVILY for it. I dont care what people THINK the Brown's record will be next year, to only get an extra 1st and a third would be complete garbage.


Julio Jones was obtained from trading two 1sts, a 2nd, and a fourth. That was for a WIDE RECEIVER. No way in hell I would take a lower deal than that for the most important position in football.


If Mariota turns out to be an elite QB, who do you think the losers of that trade would be? Regardless of the player we pick with next years 1st from Cleveland, we would of been smoked in THAT TRADE.


We would look like idiots. 3 first rounders, 2 and some other mid round picks at the very least.

---

And the Browns will win the 2015 Superbowl...

 

#becausejaguars.

---