Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Mallett to Browns???

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WazzuWheatfarmer. Show WazzuWheatfarmer's posts

    Re: Mallett to Browns???

    My 2 cents, the mythical "Mallett to Cleveland Trade" is wishful thinking.  If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  I think Mallett will be holding a clip board in a Pats uni next year.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Mallett to Browns???

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

     

    If a GM truly believes a QB can be a franchise QB he'll move mountains to get him. It's just a matter of which mountains and when. Caveat; whether or not Mallet is legit to dudes on the internet has no bearing on a GM's decision-making process.

     



    Agreed. And if Lombardi is willing to do something stupid to get him (give up the no. 6 overall pick) when it sounds like no one else is in the bidding. I hope the BB does not allow any sort of relationship with Lombardi not take full advantage of that.

     

    It is not like Lombardi actually has a good record as a personnel guy. Cleveland had one winning season while he was in charge, and the Raiders were a disaster for the last six season he was out there. 

     




     

    Stop saying "give up" the 6th pick. He still gets our 29th and SAVES money on doing so. Get it?

    Mallet, the 29th and massive $svaings for a franchise that has been hemorraging money in recent years.

    It's not like he loses a 1st rd pick he just moves back. So, he'd get his QB he wants for dirt cheap and a quality 1st rd choice as well.

    Two 1st rd quality picks is bad?



    I do not think that two quality first round picks is bad. I am saying if no one is offering something similar (a top ten pick for Mallett and the Patriots pick) it is a bad trade. If Lombardi is bidding against himself just to pry Mallett away from the Patriots, then it is not a good move.

    It is also the same thing as having two first round picks. If Mallett were a first round pick they would own him for four years. If they trade for him they get two. That basically gives them one year too decide if they want to extend him or let him enter free agency.

    Why would the Browns need to save money when they are almost $50M under the cap going into next season?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Mallett to Browns???

    OK...take this for what it's worth. My Co-Worker, who would watch the draft over a live game, told me this.

    Cleveland's 6th pick in the first round has a "value" of around 1600 points

    Patriots 29th pick in the first round has a value of around 800 points

    So if they swap positions, the Browns will require additional value of around 800 more points to make it a fair deal.

    Where does the 800 points come from?

    A low first round pick/high second round pick runs 700 to 600 points.

    Mallett, being considered a legit worth a second rounder is worth 500-600 points.

    All the Pats would need to do is throw in a low second day pick for a "fair" trade.

    The Pats could even say he's our valuable back up and if you want him take him and the 29th or don't call back.

    My co-worker seems to feel that the deal, if even real, is in the accepted ballpark of what would be considered fair value in todays NFL Draft scale.

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rbetourne. Show rbetourne's posts

    Re: Mallett to Browns???

    I say we do it in a heartbeat.  If we could trade up to #6 and get a 3rd,4th,5th rounder for Mallet and our #29--we have to make that deal.   Effectively, Lombardi gets a QB that will fit into his system and moves down in the 1st round to save money and still get a decent player.  I would do it just for Mallet and our #29---and here is why:   Dion Jordan.  6'7" and recruited to play wide receiver at Oregon.  Oregon--the place where you have to have mad speed to play.  And this guy is now a DE/LB.  DJ and CJ on opposite ends of the line--it makes Mathis and Freeney look like slow pokes.  This guy is going to be a beast.  And BB has probably already got a scouting report from Chip Kelly.  Wide receiver--at Oregon.  Then moved to TE and then to D-line.  We get Ballard and Demps back--that is like getting two more draft picks right there.  Takes care of our TE and returning duties.  Resign Vollmer, Wes and Arrington at decent contracts---then look at possible DB's.  Not sold on Talib if there are "work habit" issues.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Mallett to Browns???

    Key thing. Lombardi could easily trade down for picks. Past QBs have looked horrible (McCoy,Quinn etc..). Still speculation at this point.We'll earn more as draft approaches.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Mallett to Browns???

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

     

    If a GM truly believes a QB can be a franchise QB he'll move mountains to get him. It's just a matter of which mountains and when. Caveat; whether or not Mallet is legit to dudes on the internet has no bearing on a GM's decision-making process.

     



    Agreed. And if Lombardi is willing to do something stupid to get him (give up the no. 6 overall pick) when it sounds like no one else is in the bidding. I hope the BB does not allow any sort of relationship with Lombardi not take full advantage of that.

     

    It is not like Lombardi actually has a good record as a personnel guy. Cleveland had one winning season while he was in charge, and the Raiders were a disaster for the last six season he was out there. 

     




     

    Stop saying "give up" the 6th pick. He still gets our 29th and SAVES money on doing so. Get it?

    Mallet, the 29th and massive $svaings for a franchise that has been hemorraging money in recent years.

    It's not like he loses a 1st rd pick he just moves back. So, he'd get his QB he wants for dirt cheap and a quality 1st rd choice as well.

    Two 1st rd quality picks is bad?

     



    I do not think that two quality first round picks is bad. I am saying if no one is offering something similar (a top ten pick for Mallett and the Patriots pick) it is a bad trade. If Lombardi is bidding against himself just to pry Mallett away from the Patriots, then it is not a good move.

     

    It is also the same thing as having two first round picks. If Mallett were a first round pick they would own him for four years. If they trade for him they get two. That basically gives them one year too decide if they want to extend him or let him enter free agency.

    Why would the Browns need to save money when they are almost $50M under the cap going into next season?

     



    The cap itself has nothing to do with financials. In fact, I would argue any team that far under the cap is doing it by design because of some financial issues. Jax comes to mind immediately. Buffalo (until last year's Mario Williams desperation move), STL, etc.

     

    Cleveland has been so bad for so long even in that hotbed you can bank on them not maximizing revenue like they should have been the last decade with that new stadium.

    Lerner just sold them for 1 billion, so them not doing something at this point will continue to be a problem.

    Lerner cut his losses and got a nice price, to boot.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8225861/randy-lerner-sells-cleveland-browns-more-1b-sources-say


    There is a huge difference between "hemorraging money" like you first claimed and "not maximizing revenue". I read the article and nowhere did it say that the Cleveland Browns were losing money or anything to that effect. In fact, the link within the article states that their revenues were project to be around $250M per year.

    I have a hard time believe that any team in the NFL could actually lose money with about $175M coming in via TV and othe national revenue each year, despite what owners were saying during the lockout.

    Nowhere does the article you linked say that Lerner was trying to "cut his losses", it mentioned that he only took over the team when his father passed away and by most estimations he was not really interested in owning an NFL team.

    Finally, he did not get a "nice price" he got what would have been expected for an NFL franchise doing about $250M in revenue. Within the article you posted is another link titled: "Experts say Browns sale looks like a fair deal." Basically, the Lerner did not want to own an NFL team anymore and he sold it for fair market value. 

    If you are going to post a story, you should probably read it first and see if it supports your argument.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Mallett to Browns???

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Dude, it's one article.  Maybe hemmoraging was a tad off in terms of word choice, but there are a lot of teams struggling which is what I warned about into the lockout.

     

    Jax, Buffalo, Minny, SD Chargers, Raiders...Really, it's a lot of teams who need new stadiums OR teams who are in good markets but have stunk for a while or duped their fans (Browns or Jets).

    Just saying.

    Lerner sold when the gettin' was good but there is no way on earth he can be happy with the ROI since 1999 with that new stadium in a hot market considering what was paid for it.

    Anyway, this is a side discussion, but considering how many QBs the've blown through with Lombardi on record calling the Weeden choice by Holmgren a "panicked disaster" last year, I highly doubt Lombardi has changed his mind.

    The quickest way to sell tickets, generate revenue and have it happened season to season as you build that revenue is to legitimately hit on a QB.

    Not Mark Sanchez stuff, but a legit QB.

    I agree that it is a side discussion. I personally do not believe any NFL team is "struggling" in reality. There are teams making more or less money than others. Some of the ones making less, want more so they created a division amongst the owners. 

    Back to Mallett. I actually think getting anything more than what the Patriots spent on him (a third rounder) would be a good move. Especially, in a year that the Pats have limited draft picks.

    From Cleveland's perspective, I think it is a terrible move. Go find your own "diamond in the rough" and pick him in the third round and hold on to the 6th overall pick when you are trying to build a team from the ground up. Maybe Lombardi really is that in love with Mallett.

    Ultimately, I do not even understand why people think Lombardi is a good personnel guy. The only positive thing on his resume seems to be a friendship with BB and some time on TV. So that said, I want the Patriots to get as much as they can for Mallett. I do not care if it is a good deal for Cleveland and I do not care about BB's relationship with Lombardi. Unless, BB really plans on sticking around and replacing Brady with Mallett in the next 2-3 years, I say get as much for him as possible.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts