Printable View
Browns Get:
Steven Jackson
6th Overall
Rams Get:
4th Overall
67th Overall
Let's tak the Browns at there word that they want to surround Colt McCoy with weapons. By adding Steven Jackson they get a proven RB that is also a threat to catch out of the backfield and still can add the draft's best WR in Blackmon
at 6.
4-Trent Richardson
33-Alshon Jeffrey
39-Janoris Jenkins
65-LaMichael James
67-Alameda Ta'amu
96-Bryan Anger, P, Cal
Unrealistic trade, followed by the selection of two players (Jeffery, Jenkins) I've taken off my board.
Words cannot describe how much I dislike this mock.
So the Browns get a great RB who can catch out of the backfield, and the best WR in the draft? You state this as the reason the Browns make this trade, because it will give the Browns weapons for McCoy...but the Rams need weapons for Bradford, and yet we give them all to the Browns? Why don't WE want to have a great RB who can catch out the backfield and the best WR in the draft? What do we get out of this deal? An unproven RB and a 2nd tier WR with work ethic problems? I'm not sure why we'd give the Browns what you seem to hype as the better package.
Horrible, horrible situation.
Why would Browns trade for RB Jackson when they could just draft RB Richardson. He can play for years to come at a cheap price. Jackson's got a big Veteran contract and has maybe 2 - 3 years to play. Richardson won't even be done with his rookie contract.
I still think the Browns draft WR Blackmon at four. No way to change that. Browns have alot of picks in the 2012 draft.
They still get Blackmon either way, why wouldn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan the Ram Man
But why would we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Draftniksince1985
In that case, why would the Rams trade Steven Jackson and the chance to draft Blackmon, just for Trent Richardson?Quote:
Originally Posted by Draftniksince1985
Why create a hole on the team?
This might actually be a lose-lose scenario. That's actually a hard feat to accomplish.
To get younger. Jackson has the ammount of touches that guys retire with, and he doesn't shy away from contact either. I'd prefer not have to resign Jackson to a big deal and have him eating up cap space for 3+ years after he's toast. We aren't the Redskins.
Richardson is the biggest sure-thing in the draft other than Luck. If pounding the ball 25+ times a game will be part of the gameplan for the next 5+ years that might be good not to pass on a chance at Richardson.
But we have time to get running backs, Jackson isn't over the hill yet. We don't have WRs. We could have a great RB, no WRs, and another year of offensive futility (Unless you'd like to argue that the Rams did just fine with Sjax and no WRs) or have a great RB and finally have a WR, with a couple of years to find that next RB. I choose option 2 every way from Sunday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draftniksince1985
In summary:
With trade: Great RB, no WR
Without trade, Great RB, WR
So remind me again why we do this?
Oh and as far as the "biggest sure thing" in the draft goes, how well is Aaron Curry, the last "biggest sure thing" doing?