Chuck Powell interesting idea - trade Russell

[Anthony!]

Chuck made a pretty compelling argument the other day. Since the highest paid qbs never win Super Bowls, it is smarter for us to go super cheap at quarterback? We could get two very high first rounders from Cleveland. We could get Watson and pay him pennies on the dollar for four years, spend the extra money on a couple more pro-bowlers, keep our picks and add another from Cleveland. We may even be able to get more!

You found this to be a compelling argument?

Trade away a franchise QB, the best QB our team has ever had, in his prime, for a couple of draft picks?

And then use one of those picks on a guy that will be exceptionally lucky to ever become even remotely as good as Russ already is right now?

So we would almost certainly end up with a giant, and I mean GIANT, downgrade at QB and one high draft pick. For a franchise QB in his prime.

I'm not seeing how this is a compelling argument.

It's not a compelling argument at all, its just a media guy trying to get clicks, by saying something stupid and hoping for someone to run with it, It worked but its still stupid

 

[sdog1981]

3 pages of this? Yes if the team could build a time machine go into the future and identify the next 3rd round draft pick that can win a Superbowl, then they should trade wilson.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

3 pages of this? .

Welcome to the off season, let me show you around.

 

[sdog1981]

3 pages of this? .

Welcome to the off season, let me show you around.

Oh why thank you. Where are the air sickness bags located? What other amenities could you direct me to good sir?

 

[Uncle Si]

3 pages of this? Yes if the team could build a time machine go into the future and identify the next 3rd round draft pick that can win a Superbowl, then they should trade wilson.

Pick any other player on the team and tell me if they are untouchable, though.

Would you trade Sherman for the right package? Bennett? Baldwin? Thomas?

Of course you would. So, while we all agree that it's not what we would the team to do, it doesn't mean it's not a worthy conversation. It's really no different than the contract threads from a couple years ago.

 

[sdog1981]

3 pages of this? Yes if the team could build a time machine go into the future and identify the next 3rd round draft pick that can win a Superbowl, then they should trade wilson.

Pick any other player on the team and tell me if they are untouchable, though.

Would you trade Sherman for the right package? Bennett? Baldwin? Thomas?

Of course you would. So, while we all agree that it's not what we would the team to do, it doesn't mean it's not a worthy conversation. It's really no different than the contract threads from a couple years ago.

With salary cap considerations it makes it hard for a team to trade a QB.

Bennett? Yes
Baldwin? Yes
Thomas? Yes

They all have deals that could be moved.

 

[Chapow]

Chuck made a pretty compelling argument the other day. Since the highest paid qbs never win Super Bowls, it is smarter for us to go super cheap at quarterback? We could get two very high first rounders from Cleveland. We could get Watson and pay him pennies on the dollar for four years, spend the extra money on a couple more pro-bowlers, keep our picks and add another from Cleveland. We may even be able to get more!

You found this to be a compelling argument?

Trade away a franchise QB, the best QB our team has ever had, in his prime, for a couple of draft picks?

And then use one of those picks on a guy that will be exceptionally lucky to ever become even remotely as good as Russ already is right now?

So we would almost certainly end up with a giant, and I mean GIANT, downgrade at QB and one high draft pick. For a franchise QB in his prime.

I'm not seeing how this is a compelling argument.

I dunno, isn't there like a sell high argument to be made here? Getting two firsts for the 14th rated passer in the league, that is at the least showing signs of regression doesn't seem like too awful of a deal. I mean, I dunno, it's really risky, but could be exactly what this franchise needs.

Sure, but isn't there a sell high argument to made for any good QB in the league then? :229031_shrug:

I still think it's an awful argument and the chances of setting the franchise back, and possibly WAY back, are a hell of a lot higher than the chances that getting rid of a franchise QB for 2 draft picks is going to improve the team or the results on the field.

 

[erik2690]

I love Russell but it became pretty obvious this year that Marshawn and the defense stirred the drink. Seems kind of a waste to pay any qb a bunch of money. The more we pass, the worse we get. We don't even have to take Watson. What if we took Fournette? Maybe Watson makes it near 25? We could have the running game, the young running qb, have money to get the best tackle in free agency, and still get the Browns' top-3 pick next season as well. Remember, we won with a cheap qb. Let's get back to our roots and win championships.

This is so confusing. Why is an injury riddled 2016 reflective of the future? That makes no sense. He didn't have Marshawn most of 2015 and played great. I don't see how 2016 is more reflective than other years particularly with the injuries.

 

[Anthony!]

I love Russell but it became pretty obvious this year that Marshawn and the defense stirred the drink. Seems kind of a waste to pay any qb a bunch of money. The more we pass, the worse we get. We don't even have to take Watson. What if we took Fournette? Maybe Watson makes it near 25? We could have the running game, the young running qb, have money to get the best tackle in free agency, and still get the Browns' top-3 pick next season as well. Remember, we won with a cheap qb. Let's get back to our roots and win championships.

This is so confusing. Why is an injury riddled 2016 reflective of the future? That makes no sense. He didn't have Marshawn most of 2015 and played great. I don't see how 2016 is more reflective than other years particularly with the injuries.

Because it fits his agenda that's why

 

[erik2690]

Chuck made a pretty compelling argument the other day. Since the highest paid qbs never win Super Bowls, it is smarter for us to go super cheap at quarterback? We could get two very high first rounders from Cleveland. We could get Watson and pay him pennies on the dollar for four years, spend the extra money on a couple more pro-bowlers, keep our picks and add another from Cleveland. We may even be able to get more!

You found this to be a compelling argument?

Trade away a franchise QB, the best QB our team has ever had, in his prime, for a couple of draft picks?

And then use one of those picks on a guy that will be exceptionally lucky to ever become even remotely as good as Russ already is right now?

So we would almost certainly end up with a giant, and I mean GIANT, downgrade at QB and one high draft pick. For a franchise QB in his prime.

I'm not seeing how this is a compelling argument.

I dunno, isn't there like a sell high argument to be made here? Getting two firsts for the 14th rated passer in the league, that is at the least showing signs of regression doesn't seem like too awful of a deal. I mean, I dunno, it's really risky, but could be exactly what this franchise needs.

You are trolling at this point. He was injured last year. The year before he played great. So a 5th year QB who is injured plays middle of the pack football and that is regression? That doesn't hold water to me. He's the 2nd highest rated passer in history so that is a very odd stat to use.

 

[GeekHawk]

Didn't read the whole thread. Who the hell is Chuck Powell? And why does anyone pay him any attention?

 

[Sports Hernia]

Chuck made a pretty compelling argument the other day. Since the highest paid qbs never win Super Bowls, it is smarter for us to go super cheap at quarterback? We could get two very high first rounders from Cleveland. We could get Watson and pay him pennies on the dollar for four years, spend the extra money on a couple more pro-bowlers, keep our picks and add another from Cleveland. We may even be able to get more!

You found this to be a compelling argument?

Trade away a franchise QB, the best QB our team has ever had, in his prime, for a couple of draft picks?

And then use one of those picks on a guy that will be exceptionally lucky to ever become even remotely as good as Russ already is right now?

So we would almost certainly end up with a giant, and I mean GIANT, downgrade at QB and one high draft pick. For a franchise QB in his prime.

I'm not seeing how this is a compelling argument.

I dunno, isn't there like a sell high argument to be made here? Getting two firsts for the 14th rated passer in the league, that is at the least showing signs of regression doesn't seem like too awful of a deal. I mean, I dunno, it's really risky, but could be exactly what this franchise needs.

So you'd trade Brady and AR too? Both those 2 guys "values" are sky high too and even higher than RW in most people's eyes..... .....just imagine the draft picks those 2 teams could get. Rosterbation heaven I tell ya!!!

 

[seahawkfreak]

So you'd trade Brady and AR too? Both those 2 guys "values" are sky high too and even higher than RW in most people's eyes..... .....just imagine the draft picks those 2 teams could get. Rosterbation heaven I tell ya!!!

Glad someone said this. Could not have said it better. If this is such a smart concept why aren't teams with great QBs doing it?

 

[Seymour]

....I dunno, isn't there like a sell high argument to be made here?.....

Yes there is, but I believe that should be more related to the market price rather than the condition of the seller. :snack:

 

[Tical21]

So you'd trade Brady and AR too? Both those 2 guys "values" are sky high too and even higher than RW in most people's eyes..... .....just imagine the draft picks those 2 teams could get. Rosterbation heaven I tell ya!!!

Glad someone said this. Could not have said it better. If this is such a smart concept why aren't teams with great QBs doing it?

Because all anybody has ever done is pay and keep qbs that win a SB, the vast majority wrongfully so. We dominated with running and defense. The further we get from that, the more and more ordinary we become.

 

[Anthony!]

So you'd trade Brady and AR too? Both those 2 guys "values" are sky high too and even higher than RW in most people's eyes..... .....just imagine the draft picks those 2 teams could get. Rosterbation heaven I tell ya!!!

Glad someone said this. Could not have said it better. If this is such a smart concept why aren't teams with great QBs doing it?

Because all anybody has ever done is pay and keep qbs that win a SB, the vast majority wrongfully so. We dominated with running and defense. The further we get from that, the more and more ordinary we become.

We had that before Wilson and did nothing, so much for that.

 

[Sports Hernia]

So you'd trade Brady and AR too? Both those 2 guys "values" are sky high too and even higher than RW in most people's eyes..... .....just imagine the draft picks those 2 teams could get. Rosterbation heaven I tell ya!!!

Glad someone said this. Could not have said it better. If this is such a smart concept why aren't teams with great QBs doing it?

Because all anybody has ever done is pay and keep qbs that win a SB, the vast majority wrongfully so. We dominated with running and defense. The further we get from that, the more and more ordinary we become.

I'm not trying to be a Richard Cranium, but you didn't answer my question. I'm genuinely curious to see how consistent you are with your theory.

 

[WmHBonney]

Huh? Trade away a franchise QB? OK. Makes sense to me.

 

[Tical21]

So you'd trade Brady and AR too? Both those 2 guys "values" are sky high too and even higher than RW in most people's eyes..... .....just imagine the draft picks those 2 teams could get. Rosterbation heaven I tell ya!!!

Glad someone said this. Could not have said it better. If this is such a smart concept why aren't teams with great QBs doing it?

Because all anybody has ever done is pay and keep qbs that win a SB, the vast majority wrongfully so. We dominated with running and defense. The further we get from that, the more and more ordinary we become.

We had that before Wilson and did nothing, so much for that.

When was this?

 

[Hawkpower]

So you'd trade Brady and AR too? Both those 2 guys "values" are sky high too and even higher than RW in most people's eyes..... .....just imagine the draft picks those 2 teams could get. Rosterbation heaven I tell ya!!!

Glad someone said this. Could not have said it better. If this is such a smart concept why aren't teams with great QBs doing it?

Because all anybody has ever done is pay and keep qbs that win a SB, the vast majority wrongfully so. We dominated with running and defense. The further we get from that, the more and more ordinary we become.

We had that before Wilson and did nothing, so much for that.

We did not have a dominating defense and running game before Wilson was here.

And I love RW, but can we quit asking "would you trade Brady?"

Russ is not Tom Brady.