Browns Don't Rule Out Trading Up For A Quarterback

by Joel Thorman on Mar 2, 2010 11:00 AM CST in 2010 Kansas City Chiefs Draft

Though many disagree with me, I've stated my position that the best scenario for the Kansas City Chiefs is for one quarterback to be on the board when it comes time to pick in the 2010 NFL Draft. My assertion is based on two things: Trading back is the ideal scenario for the Chiefs and teams generally only trade up for a quarterback.

That said, the Cleveland Browns have said they've listened to teams call about their pick (7th overall) and aren't ruling out anything, including a trade up.

"I don't think we're closing the door on anything," Browns GM Tom Heckert said at the NFL Combine. "We're not shutting the door on moving up or even moving back. We're listening to a lot of different teams. It's still early. We have talked to teams about moving up and moving back. We're not closing the door on any position."

Browns head coach Eric Mangini noted that while with the New York Jets they traded up to get CB Darrelle Revis and LB David Harris so he wouldn't rule anything out.

If one of the two quarterbacks are available -- and it's possible they will be with the Washington Redskins massive hole at left tackle -- then it's possible GM Scott Pioli could call his old friend Eric Mangini to swing a deal.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

so theyd want to bump over seattle?

meaning what would we get? their 1st and 3rd for our 1st ? but we probably wouldnt lose value because Seattle and clevelend both want QBS?

by deflep1691 on Mar 2, 2010 11:03 AM CST reply actions

If the Browns jump over Seattle to take a QB

this would likely force Seattle to choose another position so we’d only lose out on whomever they picked. They could also be forced to make a better offer than the Browns to move into our spot…in which case we would lose no value.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KCSatchmo on Mar 2, 2010 11:06 AM CST up reply actions

Nah.

Everyone’s forgetting that there are at least three franchise QBs in this draft. Seattle would just have to take the other one. What they’d be bidding on, in this scenario, is choice.

Presuming Claussen’s already gone (to St. Louis), that means that McCoy and Bradford are still available. Most people think Bradford’s higher quality, but he’s been dinged up with shoulder problems. McCoy’s been thought to be every bit the QB Bradford is (see also: the Heisman committee) and could do just as well leading a team.

So whichever team wants our spot is bidding on their favored QB, not the only remaining QB. If Cleveland jumps Seattle to take one or the other, the other QB is still available and worthy of consideration for a team in need of a franchise QB.

by JacinB on Mar 2, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions

McCoy in the Top 5. Really? Really?

by TonyG88 on Mar 2, 2010 11:44 AM CST up reply actions

Uh, no.

Us moving out of the Top 5 doesn’t magically move two teams into it.

Further, Mayock’s still got McCoy as the third best QB available. If a team is in desperate need of a QB, and there’s reason to think someone else after you might take them before your next pick comes around (as is the case with Seattle), why would you not go ahead and take ‘your guy’ … ?

by JacinB on Mar 2, 2010 1:07 PM CST up reply actions

There would be a lot of broken hearts here

if Berry was on the board when our name was called at #5 and they announce we’ve traded out.

D.J. #56 - Pay The Man & Play The Man
The only thing more lame than mock draft's is the sarcasm font.

by KansasCityShuffle on Mar 2, 2010 11:07 AM CST reply actions

yeah, but honestly theres enough depth in this draft

that wed still get a great talent plus a potential starter with a 3rd rd

by deflep1691 on Mar 2, 2010 11:10 AM CST up reply actions

If the compensation was good

I’d quickly get over it.

The studs from the 2010 draft class will be: DT Ndamukong Suh, S Eric Berry, RB C.J. Spiller, RB Jahvid Best, WR Arrelious Benn, WR Golden Tate, WR Mardy Gilyard, OT Charles Brown, CB Kyle Wilson and S Chad Jones

by kc_radrh8r on Mar 2, 2010 11:22 AM CST up reply actions

You don't want McClain?

Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.

by 306008 on Mar 2, 2010 11:22 AM CST up reply actions

Yes...if Berry isn't the answer for us

to stop the bleeding on pass defense, then who would be? The value is only there if we can get two above average DB starters for this year out of the draft if we end up not taking Berry.

The future is ours KC Chiefs fans!!!!!
N. Gift

by giftedchiefsfan on Mar 2, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions

</3

Totally. I’m all into the Berry Koolaid.

by Bims on Mar 2, 2010 11:26 AM CST via mobile up reply actions

Maybe still get him

If Berry is available at #5 and we trade out and cleveland takes 2nd QB with #5 we may still get berry. #1 Bradford, #2 Suh, #3 McCoy, #4Okung #5Claussen #6 seattle-prob take next best LT. #7 Berry to KC, move down 2 spots and don’t lose our guy whether that is Berry, Mcclain whomever. Don’t think seattle taking anyone other than a QB or Left Tackle. We get our guy and an extra third rounder. Cleveland is best case trading partner,

by Chief of NY on Mar 2, 2010 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

not really

i love berry, and think that if he’s there we need to grab him. but i’m also not blind to the fact that we have a lot of holes so trading down for more picks will always be the best option. i say pick berry because trading down isn’t guaranteed so you have to be ready to pick at your spot and no one is better for us at 5 than berry.

Seriously mates, when have I ever been sarcastic?

Oh and in case you were wondering, that hug offer is still there when you are ready UC :p

by Leaf on Mar 2, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions

I'd be okay with dropping 2 spots

There are 3 “elite” O-tackles in this draft IMO and we would still be able to snatch up one of those guys and have more picks later in the draft. We need quality, but we also need quantity.

Yes, I'm still alive. Sorry to disappoint you.

by royaldaddy on Mar 2, 2010 11:32 AM CST via mobile reply actions

As long as Seattle doesn't take our guy at #6 we would be safe.

Oh how Eric Berry is enticing with his coverage skills.

by TonyG88 on Mar 2, 2010 11:46 AM CST reply actions

If one of the top two QB's is still on the board . . .

Seattle will pick a QB at #6. Hasselbeck will turn 35 next season with health concerns (at least offensive line concerns!) and the last 2 seasons has had 22 TD’s and 27 INT’s. I say this to make the point that Seattle WILL take a QB if one of the two are available. That is great news for KC if you want an opportunity to trade down. However, I personally believe both QB’s will be gone and we will not have a trade down possibility (but hope we do). In this case, while it’s not flashy, we will take Okung or even Bulaga and solidify the O-line (Pioli way). Then go defense exclusively in round two with Mt. Cody and a LB.

by Dallas Chief on Mar 2, 2010 2:35 PM CST reply actions

Pioli has only drafted one lineman in the first round.

While he does believe in solidifying the lines he tends to focus much more on solidifying defense than he does offense. It was reported quite extensively that the Patriots during their dynasty years lived on defense and Weis had to make his offensive players good. Ones that were normally picked in the later rounds. That being said if we can’t trade back i still believe Pioli reaches for Dan Williams.

The first 3 picks of the draft will be defense. Pioli loves him some defense.

by ChiefsfanJon on Mar 2, 2010 3:17 PM CST up reply actions