Rams-Browns trade shouldn't be ruled out

The fact that Browns G.M. Tom Heckert has openly talked about openly talking with the Rams about a move up for the first pick in the 2010 draft likely means that a trade never will happen.

But let’s rewind to our item from April 11, which was based on an article from Howard Balzer of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, which was based on the comments from Browns president Mike Holmgren regarding his reluctance to trade multiple picks for Donovan McNabb.

“The only way I was going to take all those early draft picks in rounds
1, 2 and 3 and use them would be for a young draft choice that I thought
could be the quarterback for the next 15 years,” Holmgren said.

Given the outdated draft trade chart, “all those early draft picks in rounds 1, 2 and 3” (i.e., No. 7, No. 38, No. 71, No. 85, and No. 92), would put the Browns somewhere between the second and third picks in the draft.

If the Rams really want out of the top spot — and if they have doubts about quarterback Sam Bradford (more on that later tonight) — they could do that deal, slide down to number 7, take Jimmy Clausen at a much lower price tag, and pick up three more picks.

35 responses to “Rams-Browns trade shouldn't be ruled out

  1. That draft trade chart is ridiculous. The Browns would be getting hosed if they had to give up all 4 of those picks to move up 4.5 spots (which is what the chart says they would move up). The first overall pick is worth nowhere near that amount.

  2. “more on that later tonight”???
    man, some of us hit the town on Friday nights, can’t you go ahead and post it?! Please??
    Just push the next Big Ben post to later tonight, for the five people left on the planet who wonder what he did…

  3. Forget about it! The Ram’s need to create some excitement not just more bodies. Uncapped year go for broke like us season tix owners!

  4. There’s talk that it could be the Browns 1, 2 , next year’s 1 and players. As long as “players” does not equal Joe Thomas, Alex Mack, or Rubin, I’m more than OK with this trade.

  5. As a Rams’ fan, if that’s the deal you take it and don’t look back. No way there’s that much of a differential b/t Bradford and Clausen when you figure in relative compensation, injury possibility/likelihood and one pick versus three or four. My guess is, however, that the deal for all those picks is not the one they offered STL.

  6. Yes, it needs to be ruled out. In yesterdays press conference Holmgren made a point to mention it would be unrealistic in the real world to give up that much considering the Browns “holes” that need filled. In related “hole filling news” reports out of Pissburgh say Big Benny’s Mullet hairs have been charged for dry humping an unnamed hairstylists shoes shortly after Ben went all business for the “meeting” with the Commish.! Stay classy Steelers! go browns!

  7. Too many holes to fill. A good deep draft to do it in, too. Who needs a QB w a glass shoulder? The QB can come later or even next year. BUILD THE FOUNDATION FIRST!

  8. The thing you’re forgetting is the Browns have a billion holes. You give away your future for 1 unproved QB, or you take a QB in the 2nd or 3rd and use those other 4 picks on what likely would be starters.
    You don’t just give away full drafts when you have so many holes, it makes no sense. Enough with this story already, it’s not going to happen.

  9. If the Rams really want out of the top spot — and if they have doubts about quarterback Sam Bradford (more on that later tonight) — they could do that deal, slide down to number 7, take Jimmy Clausen at a much lower price tag, and pick up three more picks.
    ————————————–
    sounds like somebody watched Around the Horn tonight.. We’ll pretend that was your original thought though.
    Nevertheless, it sounds like a smart move to me. I think Clausen and Bradford are pretty even, so such a scenario makes sense to me.

  10. There is no logical reason for a team to want the first overall pick. Not this year in any case. Bradford isn’t a once in a decade prospect or anything remotely close to that. Behind him you have some defensive tackles who can clog up the line of scrimmage. Yay. Why don’t we give up a bunch of medium picks then pay these guys stupid money?

  11. Here’s a wild idea. Maybe the browns could just wait for Clausen and keep the 3 picks.
    Or even better: just ignore all the hype and draft Berry.
    Or even better: try to trade down. After all, it’s “the best draft since 1983”, with an overrated QB class so who in their right mind would trade UP?

  12. Is this draft news? Florio, you are going to ruin this football site with football draft news if you keep this up. Please post some more Big Ben stories. It has been a few minutes since the last one.

  13. Before all of you bloggers say this is stupid for the Browns, you are only right if Bradford doesnt work out. If he ends up being the next Manning or Brady, Holmgren would have been a genius, and St Louis will look foolish. Any smart team would drop 3 early picks for a franchise QB that is ofr a pro bowl caliber. QB’s win superbowls, and if they can build a dynasty around Bradford it is worth the picks. Id say if this happens ( i doubt it will) judge it in 4 years, not today.

  14. The “chart” is a bunch of crap! because of the money at stake. St Louis should be willing to do it for clev’s one and two and it saves them $40 mil. Once there is a rookie cap then the chart will be relevant again.

  15. The more it sounds that St. Louis wants out of the spot, the less the asking price will be. A fair trade would be a 1, 2 – 3’s, and maybe a 2nd next year.

  16. If the Browns put all their eggs in Bradford’s basket, spend a zillion on him (Stafford-PLUS) and he winds up being anything less than Peyton Manning, Phil Savage would go down as a hero compared to Heckert and Coach Holmgren won’t even be able to park in near Cleveland. There are w-a-a-a-a-a-y too many decent QBs available, even in round 2 or 3. It would make more sense for Big Mike to draft one of the top two DBs in the first round and pick up a couple of QBs to see how they work out. That would make a lot more sense.

  17. If the Browns put all their eggs in Bradford’s basket, spend a zillion on him (Stafford-PLUS) and he winds up being anything less than Peyton Manning, Phil Savage would go down as a hero compared to Heckert and Coach Holmgren won’t even be able to park in near Cleveland. There are w-a-a-a-a-a-y too many decent QBs available, even in round 2 or 3. It would make more sense for Big Mike to draft one of the top two DBs in the first round and pick up a couple of QBs to see how they work out. That would make a lot more sense.

  18. I wouldn’t be shocked if the Rams traded out of the #1 spot
    Saves them money and saves them the bad press of drafting a bust in Bradford

  19. tbeetles said – “If he ends up being the next Manning or Brady, Holmgren would have been a genius”. “if they can build a dynasty around Bradford it is worth the picks.”
    First, put someone like Tom Brady on the current Browns and they win 8 games. Second, you can’t build a dynasty around him to get to the next level if you’ve traded away essentially a year’s draft class.

  20. The ‘draft trade chart’ really doesn’t mean all that much.
    In the 2008 draft the Ravens traded the #8 pick to the Jaguars for the Rd. 1 (pick 21), Rd. 3 (pick 71), Rd. 3 (pick 89) and Rd. 4 (pick 125).
    #8 pick ‘worth’ 1400
    #21 ‘worth’ 800
    #71 ‘worth’ 235
    #89 ‘worth’ 145
    #125 ‘worth’ 47
    …or a total of 1227
    So that’s a difference of 273 (equivalent to pick 63 or 64 at the end of Rd. 2). And I remember the ‘experts’ saying that the JAGUARS gave up TOO MUCH to move up, when according to the chart, the Ravens got screwed out of a late 2nd Rd pick.
    When all was said and done, the Jaguars got DE Derrick Harvery while the Ravens ended up with Joe Flacco, LB Tavares Gooden and veteran CB Fabian Washington.
    Point is… if one of the NFL’s top GM’s accepts a draft day trade where he is getting screwed out of a 2nd rd pick… then I wouldn’t pay any attention to the chart in trying to predict a possible Rams-Browns trade.
    If I am the Rams, and the Browns came to me saying they wanted the #1 pick. I think a fair price would be:
    Rams #1
    Rams #226 (Rd. 7)
    for
    Browns #7
    Browns #38 (Rd. 2)
    Browns #71 (Rd. 3) – which somehow you conveniently forgot to mention in their picks
    Browns #134 (Rd. 5)
    Browns 2011 2nd-rd pick
    While the chart would say Browns receive 3002.8, and the Rams would receive 2529… I would think this would be a good enough deal for the Rams to move down and select Jimmy Clausen at #7. I would do that anyway because I think Clausen will be the better NFL QB (and I CAN NOT STAND Notre Dame) and you are picking up some very quality picks in a deep draft. Not to mention Clausen’s contract will save you a lot of money compared to what Bradford’s will be.

  21. NO WAY IN HELL that happens! thats WAY to many pics with all the holes this team has! if that happens ill be hittin the Tequila pretty hard that night!…Nor do i want mr.overrated aka claussen or Tebow..Stay put and draft Berry if he is there if not take Haden.We dont wanna screw up and miss out on good defensive players like we did last yr

  22. I can’t believe how much traction this story has gotten. Is everyone that desperate for some juicy breaking story?
    There’s probably several teams who have inquired about what it would take to get the #1 pick. It’s like going to the European car dealership to check out the new Porsche. You really, really like it, but you know can’t afford it and you know you shouldn’t buy it… but you still take a look at the price tag.
    Move on, this story is old.

  23. If I were the Rams I would get the hell out of that #1 spot. Shoot, I would take Cleveland’s #7 and #38 pick, maybe a pick in next years draft also…and get the hell out of that #1 spot. Way too much $$$ to pay somebody like Bradford.

  24. I think Ben Roethlisberger has a better chance of getting elected President of the National Organization of Women than of this alleged traded happening.
    I honestly dont think there is that much more upside to Sam Bradford over Clausen. He is not going to be a top 5 elite QB. His injury concerns are still a major red flag. If I am the Rams I would take Suh or trade down.

  25. If they could get all those additional draft choices and take Clausen, it would be great for the Rams. Of course if Clausen was to be taken at #4 by Washington, at #5 by Kansas City or at #6 by Seattle, then the Rams would need to take Tebow or Colt McCoy far to soon at #7, or hope that one of these two are still available at #33 or when the Rams can trade back into the first round. If the Rams really are worried about taking Bradford at #1, the much safer way to go is just to take Clausen #1.

  26. Why? Because PFT will have nothing to hype??
    Am I at PFT, or TMZ??? This is a non-story…go to the Browns sites FLORIO!@! And see Holmgren say it for yourself. This so-called rumor has no traction except at THIS site. In fact, all of this so-called “smoke” has been generated right here. It is now registering on the “TOTAL B.S. METER.”
    Let it go already.

  27. Why does it take so many picks to move up 7 spots?
    If the Rams DON’T want Bradford, they why wouldn’t they drop baqck to #7 for just a third rounder?
    Isn’t that better than taking a QB off of shoulder surgery, paying him 45M guarenteed only to HOPE he is good enough?
    If you were trading up from #20 to #1, I could understand giving up 5+ picks…but not #7 to #1. The draft chart is SO outdated, and doesn’t consider the fact that no one wants to pick #1 because of the guarrenteed money.
    If they enforce a slotted salary guide for rookies in the new CBA, then EVERYONE (who can afford it) will want the first overall pick. There is no risk, because they know exactly what he will be paid!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.