Cleveland Browns 2022 off-season thread

[bob2the2nd]

A few points

No, it's not only Stafford. Off the top of my head Jalen Ramsey and Keyshawn Johnson were traded for multiple 1sts and won Super Bowls with the team that acquired them

If you're going to say it is "Super Bowl or Bust", I think including "any player" like a Jamal Adams or Khalil Mack has to change the expectations. The Adams trade is a massive bust but I think the Khalil Mack trade was overall good. We know a franchise QB is the ultimate difference maker. If you want to make this argument, think it should be only focused on QBs. And namely ones that has some sort of established base level (disqualifying an unknown commodity, like a Trey Lance)

So if we only focus on veteran/established QBs traded for multiple 1st round picks, we get the below. Apologies if I missed any

-1972 Roman Gabriel. Rams to Eagles. Noting the Eagles were a 2-11-1 team when trading for Gabriel

-1975 John Hadl. Rams to Packers. Hadl was 34 and is apparently deemed one of the worst trades in NFL history

-1976. Jim Plunkett. Patriots to 49ers. 5 pretty mediocre seasons with NE prior to being traded, likely living off his college name. 2 more mediocre seasons with 49ers before ultimately being released. Goes to Raiders and win 2 Super Bowls

-1994. Jeff George. Colts to Falcons. 41 TD to 46 INT prior to being traded to Atlanta.

-2009 Jay Cutler. Broncos to Bears. 1 playoff appearance in 8 seasons. Not great

-2021. Matt Stafford. Lions to Rams. Super Bowl Year 1



I think Stafford is the only guy here who measures up to Watson's talent and what he's shown in the NFL thus far. Maybe you argue Cutler who was coming off a Pro Bowl season prior to being traded to Chicago

You are right I missed Johnson.

However you are ignoring the fact that it's not just that teams typically don't trade their starting QBs. It's also that team don't trade multiple first round picks (well besides the current rams). I got jumped all over this post (as I knew I would) but if any number of things happen to waston to include injury/suspension/sucking this goes down a franchise crippling trade. There is a reason teams don't make these sorts of trades from both sides.

There are several posters saying "we shouldn't judge the success of this trade based on if the browns win a Superbowl" which woo boy. I don't know the mental gymnastics needed on that one. You already have a playoff team and you trade 3 first rounders+ and give 200 million guaranteed money to a QB and say "hey the goal isnt to win a Superbowl".

 

[Mr. Orange]

You are right I missed Johnson.

However you are ignoring the fact that it's not just that teams typically don't trade their starting QBs. It's also that team don't trade multiple first round picks (well besides the current rams). I got jumped all over this post (as I knew I would) but if any number of things happen to waston to include injury/suspension/sucking this goes down a franchise crippling trade. There is a reason teams don't make these sorts of trades from both sides.

There are several posters saying "we shouldn't judge the success of this trade based on if the browns win a Superbowl" which woo boy. I don't know the mental gymnastics needed on that one. You already have a playoff team and you trade 3 first rounders+ and give 200 million guaranteed money to a QB and say "hey the goal isnt to win a Superbowl".

The Browns didn’t make the playoffs. They likely would have if they didn’t have bottom 10 QB play.

 

[Jack Brickman]

You are right I missed Johnson.

However you are ignoring the fact that it's not just that teams typically don't trade their starting QBs. It's also that team don't trade multiple first round picks (well besides the current rams). I got jumped all over this post (as I knew I would) but if any number of things happen to waston to include injury/suspension/sucking this goes down a franchise crippling trade. There is a reason teams don't make these sorts of trades from both sides.

There are several posters saying "we shouldn't judge the success of this trade based on if the browns win a Superbowl" which woo boy. I don't know the mental gymnastics needed on that one. You already have a playoff team and you trade 3 first rounders+ and give 200 million guaranteed money to a QB and say "hey the goal isnt to win a Superbowl".

I’d look at it this way…giving up three years’ worth of firsts is totally worth it if Watson comes in, plays like a franchise QB, and signs another contract with the Browns. If Watson is here for a decade or more, those firsts will be long forgotten by the time he’s gone.

 

[Vee-Rex]

You are right I missed Johnson.

However you are ignoring the fact that it's not just that teams typically don't trade their starting QBs. It's also that team don't trade multiple first round picks (well besides the current rams). I got jumped all over this post (as I knew I would) but if any number of things happen to waston to include injury/suspension/sucking this goes down a franchise crippling trade. There is a reason teams don't make these sorts of trades from both sides.

This makes no sense. The lack of availability of those starting QBs (particularly the elite ones) is the reason you don't see multiple first round picks traded often.

If Mahomes, Herbert, Burrow, etc... all suddenly became available, you'd see first round picks flying all over the place.

There are several posters saying "we shouldn't judge the success of this trade based on if the browns win a Superbowl" which woo boy. I don't know the mental gymnastics needed on that one. You already have a playoff team and you trade 3 first rounders+ and give 200 million guaranteed money to a QB and say "hey the goal isnt to win a Superbowl".

If that's your takeaway then you probably need to reread what was said.

 

[Selby]

I agree with @bob2the2nd to a certain point. Everyone, including most on this forum, were saying "the Browns are just a QB away from being a Super Bowl team" and well...now we supposedly have the QB. In the grand scheme of things we might be in for the best decade of Browns football in our lifetime, so I would not call the trade a "bust" if we are consistent title contenders. But I don't think it is crazy to say it would be disappointing if Watson did not deliver a Super Bowl victory. We didn't make this trade to be relevant/contenders for a decade, we made this trade to win a ring.

 

[Vee-Rex]

I agree with @bob2the2nd to a certain point. Everyone, including most on this forum, were saying "the Browns are just a QB away from being a Super Bowl team" and well...now we supposedly have the QB. In the grand scheme of things we might be in for the best decade of Browns football in our lifetime, so I would not call the trade a "bust" if we are consistent title contenders. But I don't think it is crazy to say it would be disappointing if Watson did not deliver a Super Bowl victory. We didn't make this trade to be relevant/contenders for a decade, we made this trade to win a ring.

Of course we'd be disappointed if we don't win.

That's not really what he was saying, however. He's attempting to pit the trade for Watson solely against a Super Bowl win. No other way to measure it. Watson could throw for 6000 yards, 50 TDs, and no INTs, but we come short of a super bowl due to XYZ reason. "Well if we win the Super Bowl then it was worth it, if not then it was a bad trade." If you apply that logic across any and every transaction, it would get pretty silly, right?

"We gave Garrett 125 million but we didn't win a super bowl so that was a bad extension. That money could have been spent elsewhere."

A Super Bowl is NEVER guaranteed no matter what player is acquired. But a team is generally better off obtaining a player at the most important position in the NFL that gives them a good opportunity to win one, ESPECIALLY if the rest of the team is well put together. It's just that hard to get a franchise QB. That's why we saw a team like the Denver Broncos trade multiple 1sts and 2nds for Russell Wilson.

 

[red.]

 

[Otsego Mar]

I'll be bummed if Watson is suspended, and pissed if it's over 4 games (strictly for football reasons).

 

[JDailey23]

I'll be bummed if Watson is suspended, and pissed if it's over 4 games (strictly for football reasons).

Same. Unfortunately, I don’t see any way possible he isn’t suspended 4 games at minimum. I agree with you that he shouldn’t be, but they can’t just let the allegations and bad PR go without. My guess, 4 games.

 

[Selby]

If you apply that logic across any and every transaction, it would get pretty silly, right?

In any and every transaction, yes. But this situation is different in my opinion. The Browns gave up so much draft capital AND awarded him the largest guaranteed contract in NFL history - this isn't the same as drafting a player at #1 overall or re-signing a star player. The team expectations are much higher with Watson, and they will continue to go up if the team stays competitive each year. I agree it is so hard to win a Super Bowl in this league, so many things have to go your way. But when those expectations continue to go up it'll be tough if we don't win a single ring with Watson. And maybe it isn't fair, but I think many would look back at the trade and say it wasn't an objectively bad trade, but we gave up an awful lot and didn't reach our ultimate goal.

Just my thoughts, I could very well be overthinking this as I try to kill time at work.

 

[Urban]

You are right I missed Johnson.

However you are ignoring the fact that it's not just that teams typically don't trade their starting QBs. It's also that team don't trade multiple first round picks (well besides the current rams). I got jumped all over this post (as I knew I would) but if any number of things happen to waston to include injury/suspension/sucking this goes down a franchise crippling trade. There is a reason teams don't make these sorts of trades from both sides.

There are several posters saying "we shouldn't judge the success of this trade based on if the browns win a Superbowl" which woo boy. I don't know the mental gymnastics needed on that one. You already have a playoff team and you trade 3 first rounders+ and give 200 million guaranteed money to a QB and say "hey the goal isnt to win a Superbowl".

I think the reason is because franchise QBs in their prime very, very rarely become available in trade.

Let's say Watson puts in his 5 years here and ultimately decides to move on because the Browns can't go over the hump. The Browns make the playoffs in 4 of the 5 years, but never make it to the Super Bowl. Does that make the trade a bust? I don't think so. But yes, the goal is ultimately of course to win the Super Bowl. And the trade would certainly not be franchise crippling. It'd be franchise crippling if shit goes really off the rails and the Browns are giving up 2+ Top 10 picks, which is certainly within the realm of possibility.

 

[Cement]

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

In any and every transaction, yes. But this situation is different in my opinion. The Browns gave up so much draft capital AND awarded him the largest guaranteed contract in NFL history - this isn't the same as drafting a player at #1 overall or re-signing a star player. The team expectations are much higher with Watson, and they will continue to go up if the team stays competitive each year. I agree it is so hard to win a Super Bowl in this league, so many things have to go your way. But when those expectations continue to go up it'll be tough if we don't win a single ring with Watson. And maybe it isn't fair, but I think many would look back at the trade and say it wasn't an objectively bad trade, but we gave up an awful lot and didn't reach our ultimate goal.

Just my thoughts, I could very well be overthinking this as I try to kill time at work.

The Browns effectively gave up a draft package that was on par with what the 49ers had to trade to get Lance. I repeat, the Browns gave up the same draft compensation for a 3-time Pro Bowl QB that hasn’t hit his prime as the 49ers did for a guy with major question marks surrounding his ability to even play in the NFL, let alone become a top 5 QB. The cost in draft compensation likely would’ve been greater next year to move up and get someone like Stroud or Young, and depending on how the draft order falls we may not have been able to get in position to get one of those guys anyway. Plus, it highly possible neither of those guys make it in the NFL.

Had Baker panned out, we’d be giving him a similar contract as Watson. Maybe not as much, but it likely would’ve wound up over $40M/year. The FO had been planning on holding that space in the event Baker needed to be resigned, so it’s not like it’s cap room that up and vanished. In the FO’s plans it was likely earmarked for a QB.

The cap will likely go up at some point during Watson’s initial contract, and they can re-negotiate and add years in order to create room if needed.

 

[red.]

 

[Kbiz]

Change of pace from Freddie or Hue's go-to presentation.

It's nice to have competent coach.