PDA

View Full Version : Braylon Edwards to NYG trade stalemated


LizardState
04-22-2009, 02:02 PM
Sal Palantonio has just reported that the negotiations between the NY Giants & the Browns sending WR Braylon Edwards to Cleveland have reached a stalemate.

If it's going to happen it's looking more & more like a draft day trade. Cleveland wants the Giants' 1st rd. pick as well as DE Mathias Kiwanuka while the Giants are offering a 2nd & a 5th in the 09 draft. A Giants spokesman added that Kiwi is a deal-breaker.

The needs for both teams are still there, the Giants need a veteran WR to replace the released Plaxico Burress, & HC Mangini & the Browns are embarking on what appears to be a complete rebuilding effort on both sides of the ball so they need to maximize their total draft picks. The Browns have engaged in more trades & rumors of them than any other NFL team so far this offseason, with TE Kellen Winslow dealt to Tampa Bay & QB Brady Quinn as trade bait being currently shopped with the rumored addendum of Cleveland being added to the long & growing list of teams allegedly interested in Sanchez in the 1st rd.

The two teams will likely compromise & announce a trade early this Saturday, but what will the terms be? Will the Browns back off on Kiwi? Probably, but it's obvious they want a veteran player & a pick vs. two picks. IDK if they will give up on the Giants' 1st rounder though, Cleveland wants to draft several impact rookies who can start & help restore them to the playoff team status they enjoyed in 2007.

I think Cleveland will finally settle for a 1st & a 3rd or 4th, depending on how hard a bargain NYG GM Reese negotiates, & Cleveland will draft a replacement WR in the late 1st rd. with that pick from the Giants. Or continue to wheel & deal in the early draft rounds, Mangini & company seem to have predisposition for horsetrading & maneuvering.

SimonRath
04-22-2009, 02:04 PM
there is no way the Browns trade Edwards for a 2nd

D-Unit
04-22-2009, 02:08 PM
In my mock draft, I have the Giants giving up a 2nd and 4th. I don't think I have very many right picks, but it's interesting to hear the Giants want to give up a 2nd and 5th. Because I think they could be stretched to end up giving the 2nd and 4th. Hooray for foresight if I get it right. :D

Splat
04-22-2009, 02:08 PM
"Cleveland wants the Giants' 1st rd. pick as well as DE Mathias Kiwanuka"

Put the pipe down Cleveland.

TitanHope
04-22-2009, 02:09 PM
Browns are asking for too much, and the Giants are offering too little.

Yup, sounds like a stalemate to me!

eaglesalltheway
04-22-2009, 02:09 PM
I just hope it stays stalemated. I think the Giants could trade Kiwi and it wouldn't effect them too much, as long as they stay healthy and find someone who can have a similar impact, though losing him would be tough.

Mr. Hero
04-22-2009, 02:11 PM
Losing Kiwi would really hurt. Our D can be dominant as long as we have three high caliber ends to rotate and attack QBs with. Personally I think we need to draft a fourth DE who could step up in case of an injury as a pass rusher. We're not deep enough at DE to give up on kiwi now.

fear the elf
04-22-2009, 02:14 PM
as a browns fan, the only way i'd be happy with this trade getting done is for exactly what the browns are asking for, a 1st and kiwi (which i know is crazy more than the giants will do). otherwise, we loose the only thing on our offense that might scare teams for what basically amounts to a 3rd and a 6th.

i'd say both teams offers are equally ridiculous.

killxswitch
04-22-2009, 02:34 PM
Maybe the Browns should just keep Edwards and Quinn and build the offense around them and Joe Thomas. Or am I just talking crazy?

fear the elf
04-22-2009, 02:35 PM
god would that be great.

Malaka
04-22-2009, 02:35 PM
I wouldn't mind Kiwi for Edwards straight up but a first and Kiwi, come on now...

2nd and a 4th, if not that nothing. Jerry Reese is a ******* balling GM.

Go_Eagles77
04-22-2009, 02:36 PM
I think a 3rd and Kiwi should be enough. He could be a 10+ sack guy in a 3-4.

Matthew Jones
04-22-2009, 02:37 PM
This is surprising. Personally there's no way I'd give up a first but if it's really that stalemated I say #29 seems okay. They're making this more confusing than it needs to be. The Browns seem to want to get rid of all talent on the roster.

Nalej
04-22-2009, 02:51 PM
B. Edwards > Nicks/Britt/Rowbiskie
With that said- their 1st rd pick isn't really too absurd.
If they want Kiwi as well- then I'd lower that to a 2nd or 3rd.

Kase1
04-22-2009, 02:52 PM
Kiwi is the deal breaker...... He's a young DE that is just tapping into his potential, there's no way J-Reese lets him go, ESPECIALLY packaged into a deal with a 1st round pick

2nd, 5th, and a WR of their choice..... Thats as high as I wanna go

I dont want Kiwi in this deal AT ALL!!!!

hagy34
04-22-2009, 02:53 PM
I seriously don't understand what is so tough about this for the Giants. Just get the deal done. Braylon would be a perfect guy to replace Burress and they need a go to number one. They won't get a guy with BE's talent at 29.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
04-22-2009, 02:59 PM
I seriously don't understand what is so tough about this for the Giants. Just get the deal done. Braylon would be a perfect guy to replace Burress and they need a go to number one. They won't get a guy with BE's talent at 29.

I agree. The Browns know that the Giants need Braylon or need a number one receiver. Why shouldn't the Browns make them pay for it. Even if it is a little much.

keylime_5
04-22-2009, 03:04 PM
a first and Steve Smith or a first plus a 5th and Hixon would make sense to me. If the Browns want Kiwanuka they would probably have to settle for a 2nd and maybe a later round pick in addition. Browns have more bargaining power right now, they don't have to move Edwards but the Giants will be wanting a #1 WR badly, and Edwards won't be any harder to get than Boldin. If the Browns don't get a first round pick for him then Kiwanuka better be involved.

Kase1
04-22-2009, 03:06 PM
I seriously don't understand what is so tough about this for the Giants. Just get the deal done. Braylon would be a perfect guy to replace Burress and they need a go to number one. They won't get a guy with BE's talent at 29.

And they wont get a DE with OLB potential and an avg of 5 sacks a season while playing in a rotation... not even as a full time starter and his position was getting shifted around as well

Yea Kiwi would be a MONSTER in Cleve's 3-4 system, but he's not worth letting go

If BE is gonna go 2 NY its gonna be for a few draft picks (maybe a few next yr as well) and possibly a player like Moss, Manningham, Smith or Hixon...... Not kiwi tho

Kase1
04-22-2009, 03:07 PM
J-Reese is a straight ball buster..... This deal is getting done on his terms or not at all

Mr.Regular
04-22-2009, 03:08 PM
I'm assuming the Giants love a prospect or two, and will wait to see if they fall to them at #29 before committing to dumping their first rounder.

Smokey Joe
04-22-2009, 03:08 PM
Maybe the Browns should just keep Edwards and Quinn and build the offense around them and Joe Thomas. Or am I just talking crazy?
Well, Edwards wouldn't resign with Cleveland in the first place, IMO, and Mangini wants some compensation for him because he figures he'll be gone either way. Plus, I don't think Mangini is all that big of an Edwards fan as well.

As for Quinn, I don't think Mangini likes him as the QB to build his team around. After spending a year with Favre, I assume he wants more of a strong armed QB who he feels can take the bull by the horns and lead the team. Apparently he loves Sanchez, so why not make the change if you like one, but not the other?

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
04-22-2009, 03:08 PM
And they wont get a DE with OLB potential and an avg of 5 sacks a season while playing in a rotation... not even as a full time starter and his position was getting shifted around as well

Yea Kiwi would be a MONSTER in Cleve's 3-4 system, but he's not worth letting go

If BE is gonna go 2 NY its gonna be for a few draft picks (maybe a few next yr as well) and possibly a player like Moss, Manningham, Smith or Hixon...... Not kiwi tho

It will hurt the Giants more to not get BE than to keep Kiwi IMO. Unless they get Boldin

fear the elf
04-22-2009, 03:09 PM
maybe these gms are just having a duel of egos.

reese wants to show the rookie what's up and kokinis want's to prove he's the real deal.

Kase1
04-22-2009, 03:15 PM
maybe these gms are just having a duel of egos.

reese wants to show the rookie what's up and kokinis want's to prove he's the real deal.

I can honestly see the Giants using their 1st round pick and pressuring Cleveland to take a deal with a 2nd round or walk...... J-Reese isnt one to get pushed around in a deal, as Sal Pal reported on ESPN 'Kiwi is a deal breaker' plain and simple as that

fear the elf
04-22-2009, 03:17 PM
I can honestly see the Giants using their 1st round pick and pressuring Cleveland to take a deal with a 2nd round or walk...... J-Reese isnt one to get pushed around in a deal, as Sal Pal reported on ESPN 'Kiwi is a deal breaker' plain and simple as that

if that happens, i hope kokinis has the balls to say "go **** yourself"

Mr. Hero
04-22-2009, 03:18 PM
It will hurt the Giants more to not get BE than to keep Kiwi IMO. Unless they get Boldin

I disagree with this. With kiwi our D should be dominant. Adjusting our passing game to the guys we have we should do enough to keep team's honest against our run and then just ride the running game and D to another superbowl. That's said I would prefer it if we had a true number receiver, but with a summer to adjust I think our passing game would be a lot better than that one which ended the season.

Honestly I hope cleveland keeps demanding a first and kiwi so reese makes a move on boldin who's the better receiver, leader and fit for our team.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
04-22-2009, 03:28 PM
I disagree with this. With kiwi our D should be dominant. Adjusting our passing game to the guys we have we should do enough to keep team's honest against our run and then just ride the running game and D to another superbowl. That's said I would prefer it if we had a true number receiver, but with a summer to adjust I think our passing game would be a lot better than that one which ended the season.

Honestly I hope cleveland keeps demanding a first and kiwi so reese makes a move on boldin who's the better receiver, leader and fit for our team.

I do not see you guys making the superbowl without a number 1 receiver

Mr. Hero
04-22-2009, 03:42 PM
it's because a lot of people are underestimating how much better our D will be with a healthy osi, better depth inside, a playmaking LB like Boley and more experience for our young secondary. i'm expect this year's giants' D to be the best it's been all decade.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
04-22-2009, 04:14 PM
it's because a lot of people are underestimating how much better our D will be with a healthy osi, better depth inside, a playmaking LB like Boley and more experience for our young secondary. i'm expect this year's giants' D to be the best it's been all decade.

I understand you have a really good defense believe me I know what it is like to want to ride off of defense and a run game. What happens when you play a very good run stopping defense and you have to pass it. What if you are down 3 and it is 3rd and long?? You are going to need someone to be a distraction to get other guys open or to get open to make that catch.

CC.SD
04-22-2009, 04:56 PM
Maybe the Browns should just keep Edwards and Quinn and build the offense around them and Joe Thomas. Or am I just talking crazy?

That's just INSANE why would you want to build your team around blue chip building blocks?

Geo
04-22-2009, 04:59 PM
Edwards is going to bolt out of Cleveland the first chance he gets, hence why ManKok is looking to trade him.

But exactly why I wouldn't budge an inch if I'm Reese. Hell no a 1st or Kiwi is involved.

vikes_28
04-22-2009, 05:03 PM
Edwards isn't that good. I would say a 2nd and a 4th for sure. Just like D-Unit said. I don't think he is worth Kiwi AND a 1st. That is just crazy.

Mr. Hero
04-22-2009, 05:06 PM
I understand you have a really good defense believe me I know what it is like to want to ride off of defense and a run game. What happens when you play a very good run stopping defense and you have to pass it. What if you are down 3 and it is 3rd and long?? You are going to need someone to be a distraction to get other guys open or to get open to make that catch.

Steve Smith and the Boss are enough for converting third downs. Our receiving core isn't bad, it just doesn't have anyone who demands regular double teams. A team can be successful passing the ball with a good QB and that type of receiving core if the plan for it, our passing game last year was built from plax down, when he was out it just sort of imploded, now hoever we have a full offseason to adjust things.

killxswitch
04-22-2009, 05:20 PM
Well, Edwards wouldn't resign with Cleveland in the first place, IMO, and Mangini wants some compensation for him because he figures he'll be gone either way. Plus, I don't think Mangini is all that big of an Edwards fan as well.

As for Quinn, I don't think Mangini likes him as the QB to build his team around. After spending a year with Favre, I assume he wants more of a strong armed QB who he feels can take the bull by the horns and lead the team. Apparently he loves Sanchez, so why not make the change if you like one, but not the other?

You just described why Mangini is going to fail.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 05:25 PM
Good I am glad! I couldn't be happier!

Kiwanuka and a first? Are they insane?
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/giants/2009/04/kiwanuka-and-a-first-are-they.html

News & Notes Update - Newsday - No Deal for Edwards Imminent
http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=333774&show_all=1

keylime_5
04-22-2009, 05:28 PM
I agree that a 1st and Kiwanuka is too much. 2nd and a mid round pick is too low though. Even a 1st by itself is too low. It's basically trading Edwards for a rookie WR who's future prospects are as a #2 (Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt), or something of similar value if it's not a WR picked at 29. It's a first rounder, yeah, but by only 3 slots. 1st and 3rd or something of that value or that range is what Edwards should go for. 1st/5th/Hixon or Manningham would make sense too.

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 05:31 PM
I'm actually pretty happy. I'd give our 1 or a 2nd, low pick and Hixon.

Smith and Kiwi should not go anywhere, especially not with a pick involved with it. the browns are crazy. use the picks to trade for Q, a better WR. or draft Britt/Nicks, sign a vet FA and see what happens.

Britt and Nicks will be better than Braylon in a couple years anyway

j05son
04-22-2009, 05:31 PM
Edwards is going to bolt out of Cleveland the first chance he gets, hence why ManKok is looking to trade him.

But exactly why I wouldn't budge an inch if I'm Reese. Hell no a 1st or Kiwi is involved.

You know we can tag him right? Also, for every report out there saying Edwards wants out of Cleveland is a report talking about how he wants to stay here.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 05:33 PM
a first and Steve Smith or a first plus a 5th and Hixon would make sense to me. If the Browns want Kiwanuka they would probably have to settle for a 2nd and maybe a later round pick in addition. Browns have more bargaining power right now, they don't have to move Edwards but the Giants will be wanting a #1 WR badly, and Edwards won't be any harder to get than Boldin. If the Browns don't get a first round pick for him then Kiwanuka better be involved.

You guys have don't have more bargaining power...

We are the ONLY team in the bidding.. Who else is there?
Also, reports were that BE doesn't want to stay a brown? He has been working out with the team at all? One would assume with a new HC and GM, you want to be a team leader and impress them by working out with your team mates? Is he doing that? From what I know I would say, so correct me if I am wrong by all means.

We can wait this out, and or just use our 10 picks:

1
2 2s
3 3s
4
2 5s
6
7


and build our team that way. Remember we aren't the 4-12 team here. We can simply just use our picks and build via the draft. You guys have to deal with a player who doesn't want to be there accordingly to reports. Let's put it this way, if you want him so bad, then extend him. Why is he on sale? And why isn't he accepting your contact?

We can wait this out, or say screw it and build from our draft. It's not a big deal. Seems like our fan base and media are having knee jerk reactions to losing Burress, while the franchise is staying level headed.

Mr. Stiller
04-22-2009, 05:42 PM
Why is edwards such a "Threat" Dude only catches 1 out of every 3 passes thrown to him?

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 05:48 PM
Why is edwards such a "Threat" Dude only catches 1 out of every 3 passes thrown to him?

He has sick potential, but a team shouldn't have to trade alot of compensation based on potential. I want to see production as well. So 1 1000 plus season in his career and pro bowl, and 1 lead the league in drops doesn't warrant a big time price to trade for him..

Let's not forget we gotta pay the guy too. What kind of contract does he want? If we have to break the bank for him, then hell no. He can stay in Cleveland and let them break the bank for him.

keylime_5
04-22-2009, 05:57 PM
You guys have don't have more bargaining power...

We are the ONLY team in the bidding.. Who else is there?
Also, reports were that BE doesn't want to stay a brown? He has been working out with the team at all? One would assume with a new HC and GM, you want to be a team leader and impress them by working out with your team mates? Is he doing that? From what I know I would say, so correct me if I am wrong by all means.

We can wait this out, and or just use our 10 picks:

1
2 2s
3 3s
4
2 5s
6
7


and build our team that way. Remember we aren't the 4-12 team here. We can simply just use our picks and build via the draft. You guys have to deal with a player who doesn't want to be there accordingly to reports. Let's put it this way, if you want him so bad, then extend him. Why is he on sale? And why isn't he accepting your contact?

We can wait this out, or say screw it and build from our draft. It's not a big deal. Seems like our fan base and media are having knee jerk reactions to losing Burress, while the franchise is staying level headed.

We do have more power because we don't have to move him this year. We can resign or tag him after the season and/or trade him next year or the year after that. Giants are gonna be pressured to add a #1 this year, they know that it's something their offense needs to be great. Remember, the Browns have absolutly nothing at WR after Edwards and it doesn't look like either way that they're gonna pick Crabtree at 5. We have Syndric Steptoe and Joshua Cribbs or David Patten starting with Edwards out of the picture.

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 06:02 PM
see, the Giants DON'T have to make this move, because we've got 10 draft picks and only one major need. We can move around and play with them. Neither team "has to" make this move

3pac
04-22-2009, 06:08 PM
Maybe the Browns should just keep Edwards and Quinn and build the offense around them and Joe Thomas. Or am I just talking crazy?

Now there's an idea. Too bad the Browns FO is too busying eating bananas and throwing their own feces to bother making good decisions.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 06:11 PM
We do have more power because we don't have to move him this year. We can resign or tag him after the season and/or trade him next year or the year after that. Giants are gonna be pressured to add a #1 this year, they know that it's something their offense needs to be great. Remember, the Browns have absolutly nothing at WR after Edwards and it doesn't look like either way that they're gonna pick Crabtree at 5. We have Syndric Steptoe and Joshua Cribbs or David Patten starting with Edwards out of the picture.

So how does that give you more power? You have to pay him still, deal with a player who doesn't want to be there. Is he working with the team now? How do you know he doesn't mail it in because he knows he isn't going to sign long term contract with you guys. These are all important factors.

Our offense doesn't have to be great. Our defense does! That's what wins championships! And we addressed that during FA. We got Boley, Canty, Benard, and couple other depth guys. We don't need to be the Cards passing game or even the Pats. That's where people are messing up in their line of thinking. We are not running the spread here or trying to break records.

Burress shot himself mid season, so we didn't have time to adjust to that while the season is going on. So now a veteran, ex WR coach, in Coughlin, and Gilbride can re work the playbook with Burress gone. Now we don't have to shift our plays to make "X" a valid threat everytime.

Coughlin stresses "balance" in his offense, and he and Gilbride can bring that by changing the playbook, and tweaking reads and ELi's progressions now. Let's put it this way.... When SHockey got hurt, Boss struggled run blocking under the existing running concepts ( power) . That off season we adjusted, and tweaked our running game and implemented Power G. Look what we did last season.

Now Burress is gone, and the coaching staff has time to adjust stuff. It's no where near as bad as the media and knee jerk reaction base base is making it out to me.

And our game is running the ball, and playing great defense. We don't need to be the Cards passing game or Saints passing game here. Smash mouth football and kill other Qbs is our style.

mattjwUC
04-22-2009, 06:14 PM
1,300 yards and 16td's is why Braylon Edwards is the Giants best option and why the Browns (should) have the bargaining power. Britt IMO would be an excellent replacement for Burress, but being a rookie WR chances are the numbers aren't going to matchup to other number 1's around league at the end of this next season and nowhere near the production Edwards could provide. I think the ultimate factor if this trade happens is whether the Giants are trying to win now or down the road(something a Giants fan can answer for me possibly?) Teams in today's league without a true number one have a very slim chance at winning the super-bowl, an even one that had one(Arizona def. did) came up short. I don't see the Giants having many holes, and Edwards has a huge reward potential for the 29th pick and some change(Def not Kiwi also thats too much), so why not make the trade if your team has so many other picks?

fear the elf
04-22-2009, 06:18 PM
Britt and Nicks will be better than Braylon in a couple years anyway

silly rutgers fans, the chances of this are slim

We are the ONLY team in the bidding.. Who else is there?

iggles?

We can wait this out, and or just use our 10 picks:

1
2 2s
3 3s
4
2 5s
6
7


and build our team that way. Remember we aren't the 4-12 team here.

ok, wait it out, and when everyone stacks the box and jacobs goes down with an injury like he always does, we will see how well your offense produces.

Let's put it this way, if you want him so bad, then extend him. Why is he on sale? And why isn't he accepting your contact?

i don't know the details of the negotiations, but he is still a brown for this year and there is always the franchise tag. he's on sale because he is worth a lot and maybe a team will be willing to part with a 1st rd pick and a good de/olb for him. which is good for us...

He has sick potential, but a team shouldn't have to trade alot of compensation based on potential.

teams trade a lot based on potential all the time... they are called draft picks.

some things to think about. just playing devils advocate to some stuff that's been said, not necessarily arguing one way or the other.

Smokey Joe
04-22-2009, 06:21 PM
You just described why Mangini is going to fail.
Or Succeed. As mentioned, Edwards is almost a lock to leave as soon as he hits free agency. And for all we know, Mangini is 100% correct on Quinn and Sanchez would be a better fit for them.

I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing wrong with trying to get the guys that fit your system on your team.

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 06:24 PM
silly rutgers fans, the chances of this are slim





really? last I checked neither Nicks or Britt dropped every other pass thrown to them this year...hmmm.

fear the elf
04-22-2009, 06:30 PM
i've heard they both drop more passes then they should, britt especially. in fact if you want i have a link to our very own scott wright's player rankings http://www.draftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/wr/Kenny-Britt.php

note: "unreliable hands"

Brothgar
04-22-2009, 06:32 PM
I LOL @ the Browns offer it sounds like BT is the Browns GM in real life. Anything more than a 1st round strait up is not even close to worth it.

Boldin > Roy Williams Jr. > Edwards

Zona is looking for a 1st and a 3rd for Boldin and aren't getting any calls. Roy went for a 1st and a 3rd as well and everyone thinks that Dallas got raped in the trade. So to think that Edwards is going for anything higher than a 1st round pick is laughable.

PoopSandwich
04-22-2009, 06:35 PM
I can honestly see the Giants using their 1st round pick and pressuring Cleveland to take a deal with a 2nd round or walk...... J-Reese isnt one to get pushed around in a deal, as Sal Pal reported on ESPN 'Kiwi is a deal breaker' plain and simple as that

And Braylon Edwards is a pro-bowl receiver that doesn't need to be moved.

"Plain and simple as that"

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 06:37 PM
i've heard they both drop more passes then they should, britt especially. in fact if you want i have a link to our very own scott wright's player rankings http://www.draftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/wr/Kenny-Britt.php

note: "unreliable hands"

you've clearly never watched more than one Rutgers game.

but I'm not gonna hijack this thread.

either way, the Browns are asking for way too much, and when Braylon freaks during another sub-.500 season, they'll regret not taking an offer now

E-Man
04-22-2009, 06:37 PM
I hope this deal falls through. Braylon has alot of talent, and I don't want the Giants to get him. He had a bad year with a ton of drops, but he still got 16 touchdowns a year before. In MY he might be able to put it together again.

B-Dawk
04-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Braylon would be a perfect fit as a receiver who can go up and go get balls. If he does have to wind up with the giants i really hope it involves Kiwi going out the door, maybe something along the lines of kiwi and 3rd or 4th would probably be a good deal for both sides

fear the elf
04-22-2009, 06:47 PM
you've clearly never watched more than one Rutgers game.

but I'm not gonna hijack this thread.

either way, the Browns are asking for way too much, and when Braylon freaks during another sub-.500 season, they'll regret not taking an offer now

true, i don't watch rutgers games. i don't disagree that we are asking for too much, but i think braylon is more valuable to us than what you are offering and the only way i would want him to be traded is for a proven player like kiwi and a decent pick. that's the last bit i'll say in the thread.

keylime_5
04-22-2009, 06:59 PM
Yeah, though I doubt it will happen I hope we keep Edwards for another year at least so we can either sign him longterm or get more value for him...because I don't think we'll have jack **** at WR this year if we trade him. I don't think we'll draft Crabtree at 5, and that would mean our starting WRs would consist of Patten and/or Cribbs/Steptoe/a rookie/the current #3, 4, or 5 WR on the NYG.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 07:04 PM
silly rutgers fans, the chances of this are slim



iggles?



ok, wait it out, and when everyone stacks the box and jacobs goes down with an injury like he always does, we will see how well your offense produces.



i don't know the details of the negotiations, but he is still a brown for this year and there is always the franchise tag. he's on sale because he is worth a lot and maybe a team will be willing to part with a 1st rd pick and a good de/olb for him. which is good for us...



teams trade a lot based on potential all the time... they are called draft picks.

some things to think about. just playing devils advocate to some stuff that's been said, not necessarily arguing one way or the other.



No, Eagles said they wanted Boldin and now reports said they are in the lead for Gonzo. So who knows there Not sure if that's smoke but there are no more reports on BE. Unless they come out of now where which I think is not likely, but possible as an option.

Yeah but not on existing players! We are not going to trade picks and a player for a guy who has a high ceiling and 1 1,1000 yard pro bowl season only and led the league in drops, which raised questions from our scouting department on his focus. We want production to go with that too, especially if we have to pay a team compensation AND the guy a huge contract.

Don't forget we have to pay ELi too, we can't break the bank for BE and then get raped on compensation on top.

Honestly I hope this trade doesn't go down.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 07:07 PM
Braylon would be a perfect fit as a receiver who can go up and go get balls. If he does have to wind up with the giants i really hope it involves Kiwi going out the door, maybe something along the lines of kiwi and 3rd or 4th would probably be a good deal for both sides

Reese laughed at the Kiwi speculation because he said we didn't just spend all that money on the DL to secure depth only to trade it away now, lol. Unless it's smoke which can be true, I don't see us trading away DL depth especially since our DEs had none towards the end of last season. Plus the versatility factor..

On the 3rd down..

Kiwi, Tuck, Canty, and Osi.. We trade Kiwi it hurts that rotation. Plus now we are keeping him at DE, so he can gain the muscle mass and weight accordingly and not worry about another position move.

keylime_5
04-22-2009, 07:11 PM
A little OT, but Kiwanuka-Tuck-Canty-Umenyiora is gonna be scary as hell if a team is facing the Giants in a passing situation. It was already scary as hell when they have Robbins/Cofield in there.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 07:16 PM
A little OT, but Kiwanuka-Tuck-Canty-Umenyiora is gonna be scary as hell if a team is facing the Giants in a passing situation. It was already scary as hell when they have Robbins/Cofield in there.

That's the hope on 3rd down.. Trading Kiwi screws it up.. We should have 4 DEs, 2 of them, Tuck and Canty with the versatility to play inside. Hence trading Kiwi is assinine. If you guys want Kiwi, you GIVE us picks, because now your shopping in the premium section, which is what our team is build on.. Two trenches, OL and DL, if you want to take our DL talent, and take away depth, then forget just BE, you give us some of your picks. Now your shopping in a section that makes us tick. We need DL depth, and OL depth. Our team is built in the trenches and we just added to our DL. So if you want Kiwi, then you give us BE plus picks. Not the other way around. Price goes up because you want to take away from our core focus.

That's why Reese said hell no. Why would we sign depth and make our DL sick, only to trade the depth away? lol. Makes zero sense in my opinion. If ManKo asked for Kiwi, and I were Reese, I'd have the same reaction too.

CC.SD
04-22-2009, 07:21 PM
All this Rutgers talk reminds me of just how amazing and awesome it was when they were highly ranked, a few seasons ago, powered by the Leonard Leap and the Baltimore Raven Offense.

hugegmenfan
04-22-2009, 07:26 PM
The Browns asking price for Edwards, i agree, is quite laughable. Kiwi is a stud and is getting better every year, unlike Edwards who just had a big regression- i would not even do the trade straight up and they want us to put in a 1st as well....hah ya ok

Menardo75
04-22-2009, 07:45 PM
After the yaer he had last year I would be happy with getting offered a 2nd and a 5th.

BrownsTown
04-22-2009, 08:02 PM
The Browns asking price for Edwards, i agree, is quite laughable. Kiwi is a stud and is getting better every year, unlike Edwards who just had a big regression- i would not even do the trade straight up and they want us to put in a 1st as well....hah ya ok

You act like offering a 2nd and 5th for him isn't just as ridiculous.

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 08:09 PM
You act like offering a 2nd and 5th for him isn't just as ridiculous.

i'd give 29, Hixon and a 5th.

BrownsTown
04-22-2009, 08:10 PM
i'd give 29, Hixon and a 5th.

29, 2nd round pick, and Mario Manningham.

Flippityskip91
04-22-2009, 08:14 PM
Cleveland could always keep one of their best players...maybe? He won't have the option to just leave next year anyways, franchise tag.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 08:16 PM
29, 2nd round pick, and Mario Manningham.

1st, 2nd AND WR..LOL. And then break the bank and pay the guy as well!

Is your front office planning on taking our front office for dinner date or perhaps a movie? Or are they going to go straight to the screwing?

BrownsTown
04-22-2009, 08:18 PM
1st, 2nd AND WR..LOL. And then break the bank and pay the guy as well!

Is your front office planning on taking our front office for dinner date or perhaps a movie? Or are they going to go straight to the screwing?

Ahem...scotty, you can take this one.

cunit2k9
04-22-2009, 08:22 PM
1st, 2nd AND WR..LOL. And then break the bank and pay the guy as well!

Is your front office planning on taking our front office for dinner date or perhaps a movie? Or are they going to go straight to the screwing?

It's not that bad when the Brown's have all the power in the deal. The Giants, with a first receiver, which Braylon would be, are a super bowl contender. No one expects the Browns to be good, so it would be smart for the Browns to ask for a lot knowing that Braylon could be the player that gets the Giants back to the super bowl. I just feel that the caliber of team the Giants are in this trade situation hurts them, because if they are really concerned with getting back to the championship they need a #1 receiver and Braylon is one of maybe a couple options. Now if the Browns are using my thought process, then they should demand a lot.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 08:24 PM
Ahem...scotty, you can take this one.

I don't understand why Scotty would throw in a WR. Reese wants to use picks not players.

Scotty, have you go to BBI and read what Matt said? He is a proven insider and has been giving us the 411 as this drama has been unfolding.

BrownsTown
04-22-2009, 08:25 PM
I don't understand why Scotty would throw in a WR. Reese wants to use picks not players.

Scotty, have you go to BBI and read what Matt said? He is a proven insider and has been giving us the 411 as this drama has been unfolding.

Just....let scotty tell you what that means.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 08:32 PM
It's not that bad when the Brown's have all the power in the deal. The Giants, with a first receiver, which Braylon would be, are a super bowl contender. No one expects the Browns to be good, so it would be smart for the Browns to ask for a lot knowing that Braylon could be the player that gets the Giants back to the super bowl. I just feel that the caliber of team the Giants are in this trade situation hurts them, because if they are really concerned with getting back to the championship they need a #1 receiver and Braylon is one of maybe a couple options. Now if the Browns are using my thought process, then they should demand a lot.

Browns don't have all the power on this. If they had 2-4 other teams all wanting his services ok, then I can see that. It's a bidding war then. But it's us and them! lol. And they are a 4-12 team having a clearance sale. Everything must go, except for their franchise LT. Their new regime wants to stockpile picks so that their HC can put his stamp on the franchise. I get that, but they don't have all the leverage.

To say that is laughable, especially since their guy doesn't want to be in Cleveland in the first place. Now I undertand why they want alot, but as far, as leverage is concerned they don't have alot of it We can just walk away from the table and be fine with our 10 picks. Like I mentioned above, we are a running team, and we use our defense to get us where we want to go. Our defensive line now is stacked via free agency and osi comes back healthy. Plus our coaching staff has the whole offseason to adjust everything in terms of passing concepts now that Plax is gone.

We can just walk away and they are stuck with a guy who doesn't want to be there. Let them franchise him, and make him even more mad.

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 08:33 PM
I don't understand why Scotty would throw in a WR. Reese wants to use picks not players.

Scotty, have you go to BBI and read what Matt said? He is a proven insider and has been giving us the 411 as this drama has been unfolding.

I have not, I'll head over there now.

and BT is referring to a trade that he raped me in, in the forum mock. a forum mock that I was hardly active in, and I admitted I got destroyed in the deal. I had my reasons, it was a forum mock, for fun blah blah blah. I'd NEVER make that deal in real life of course.

Brown Leader
04-22-2009, 08:33 PM
Thanks for the memories but I got no problem trading BE. He's got a serious head-eye-hands issue and doubtful he wants to resign next year. I get the sense the new regime holds him accountable for the Browns terrible offense last year more than DA.

Of the NYG WR's I'd actually prefer Santana's brother. Throw in #29 and a third for measure. In truth I'm betting the Browns are more eager to get compensation for BE than the Giants are needing a Plax replacement-no matter how hard they drive a bargain.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 08:38 PM
I have not, I'll head over there now.

and BT is referring to a trade that he raped me in, in the forum mock. a forum mock that I was hardly active in, and I admitted I got destroyed in the deal. I had my reasons, it was a forum mock, for fun blah blah blah. I'd NEVER make that deal in real life of course.

Ahh i see... Makes sense now.. I only responded to him, because I been on the Browns forum, and some of their fans actually do want compensation like that.

BrownsTown
04-22-2009, 08:39 PM
Browns don't have all the power on this. If they had 2-4 other teams all wanting his services ok, then I can see that. It's a bidding war then. But it's us and them! lol. And they are a 4-12 team having a clearance sale. Everything must go, except for their franchise LT. Their new regime wants to stockpile picks so that their HC can put his stamp on the franchise. I get that, but they don't have all the leverage.

To say that is laughable, especially since their guy doesn't want to be in Cleveland in the first place. Now I undertand why they want alot, but as far, as leverage is concerned they don't have alot of it We can just walk away from the table and be fine with our 10 picks. Like I mentioned above, we are a running team, and we use our defense to get us where we want to go. Our defensive line now is stacked via free agency and osi comes back healthy. Plus our coaching staff has the whole offseason to adjust everything in terms of passing concepts now that Plax is gone.

We can just walk away and they are stuck with a guy who doesn't want to be there. Let them franchise him, and make him even more mad.

That's why Shaun Rogers is gone. They're not looking to go all out rebuilding, they still have almost the same team from a 10-6 year two years ago.

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 08:41 PM
Ahh i see... Makes sense now.. I only responded to him, because I been on the Browns forum, and some of their fans actually do want compensation like that.

I know, they're stubborn and pretty damn dilusional on this deal. BT is one stubborn SOB and man is he persistant at 1030 at night hahaha

I would never, ever give that much up for Braylon. not at all

NY+Giants=NYG
04-22-2009, 08:42 PM
That's why Shaun Rogers is gone. They're not looking to go all out rebuilding, they still have almost the same team from a 10-6 year two years ago.

Yeah but everyone is on sale.. if it's the same team keep your players, and picks, and use free agency and good draft to get even better. Trying to trade Quinn and trading K2, and now wanting to trade BE makes zero sense.

And on top of that you have a new HC and GM. So to me it looks like re building and trying to stock pile picks, to put the HC and GM stamp on the team via drafting "their" players. Even people on the Browns board I post in, were like wondering why the total rebuild mode.

BrownsTown
04-22-2009, 08:43 PM
I know, they're stubborn and pretty damn dilusional on this deal. BT is one stubborn SOB and man is he persistant at 1030 at night hahaha

I would never, ever give that much up for Braylon. not at all

But you did....

scottyboy
04-22-2009, 08:45 PM
But you did....

scotty=tired
BT=annoying and stubborn
Britt=gone

maybe I just did it because I'm an awesome person, knew I had a busy week, and didn't wanna hold up the draft!

BaLLiN
04-22-2009, 09:09 PM
im still sticking by my 1st round, 4th round, maybe comp 4-5 in 2010

Toneloc498
04-22-2009, 09:40 PM
There is NO way the Giants are trading Kiwi. Remember they had a dominant line with THREE, yes THREE not two beastly DE's rotating in. Kiwi at this point in his career has more Sacks then Strahan did and Tuck did. He played last year after practicing all offseason for OLB and had a week to adjust back to DE, played at 250 instead of his DE weight of 265-270 and played with a high Ankle sprain after Chris Samuels cheap shotted him in the last play of the first game. Kiwi is going to be a top 15 defensive end in a few years, and we all know how much more valuable a top 15 defensive end is to a team then a top 15 WR. On top of that they want a first, get the F out of here.

ironman4579
04-22-2009, 10:05 PM
I LOL @ the Browns offer it sounds like BT is the Browns GM in real life. Anything more than a 1st round strait up is not even close to worth it.

Boldin > Roy Williams Jr. > Edwards

Zona is looking for a 1st and a 3rd for Boldin and aren't getting any calls. Roy went for a 1st and a 3rd as well and everyone thinks that Dallas got raped in the trade. So to think that Edwards is going for anything higher than a 1st round pick is laughable.

Roy Williams has not been better than Braylon Edwards.

cunit2k9
04-22-2009, 10:17 PM
Browns don't have all the power on this. If they had 2-4 other teams all wanting his services ok, then I can see that. It's a bidding war then. But it's us and them! lol. And they are a 4-12 team having a clearance sale. Everything must go, except for their franchise LT. Their new regime wants to stockpile picks so that their HC can put his stamp on the franchise. I get that, but they don't have all the leverage.

To say that is laughable, especially since their guy doesn't want to be in Cleveland in the first place. Now I undertand why they want alot, but as far, as leverage is concerned they don't have alot of it We can just walk away from the table and be fine with our 10 picks. Like I mentioned above, we are a running team, and we use our defense to get us where we want to go. Our defensive line now is stacked via free agency and osi comes back healthy. Plus our coaching staff has the whole offseason to adjust everything in terms of passing concepts now that Plax is gone.

We can just walk away and they are stuck with a guy who doesn't want to be there. Let them franchise him, and make him even more mad.

Do you think you can get back to the super bowl with the current receivers you have? If the answer is no, do you think you can get to the super bowl with an upgraded receiving core? If that answer is yes, what are the options other than Braylon Edwards? Thats how i look at it, if the Giants are comfortable with being nothing more than just a playoff team then they dont have to make the trade, but I do think they need him or someone of equivalent talent to get back to the super bowl. Browns have more leverage than the Giants because he will most likely be gone anyways.

Mr. Hero
04-22-2009, 10:40 PM
Do you think you can get back to the super bowl with the current receivers you have? If the answer is no, do you think you can get to the super bowl with an upgraded receiving core? If that answer is yes, what are the options other than Braylon Edwards? Thats how i look at it, if the Giants are comfortable with being nothing more than just a playoff team then they dont have to make the trade, but I do think they need him or someone of equivalent talent to get back to the super bowl. Browns have more leverage than the Giants because he will most likely be gone anyways.

A) Yes we're a superbowl caliber team starting Steve Smith, Hakeem Nicks/Kenny Britt and Domenik Hixon/Mario Manningham.

B) Alternatives are Anquan Boldin, my personal favorite, or Ocho Cinco who older and still crazy or not is a franchise receiver who shifts coverages.

So I don't see why people think we're so desperate for Braylon, not only is how crucial a stud receiver is to our team debateable but Braylon isn't even the only legit vet number one we could trade for. Honestly if Braylon doesn't cost less than Anquan, then trading for Braylon is jsut stupid. Maybe I'm just dulled to this conversation because every year we lose someone irreplaceable and then we replace them, be it tiki, shockey, strahan or now plax, it seems like every year there's a lot of talk about how we've suffered a massive loss, but then we just keep on truckin because we're strong at our foundations and that's the DL, OL, Eli and the secondary.

cunit2k9
04-22-2009, 11:01 PM
A) Yes we're a superbowl caliber team starting Steve Smith, Hakeem Nicks/Kenny Britt and Domenik Hixon/Mario Manningham.

B) Alternatives are Anquan Boldin, my personal favorite, or Ocho Cinco who older and still crazy or not is a franchise receiver who shifts coverages.

So I don't see why people think we're so desperate for Braylon, not only is how crucial a stud receiver is to our team debateable but Braylon isn't even the only legit vet number one we could trade for. Honestly if Braylon doesn't cost less than Anquan, then trading for Braylon is jsut stupid. Maybe I'm just dulled to this conversation because every year we lose someone irreplaceable and then we replace them, be it tiki, shockey, strahan or now plax, it seems like every year there's a lot of talk about how we've suffered a massive loss, but then we just keep on truckin because we're strong at our foundations and that's the DL, OL, Eli and the secondary.

He should cost less than Anquan for sure. Nicks would be a good pickup, I think he will be a good player. You did lose a playmaker though in Ward. I just dont see the Giants getting back to the superbowl if they dont upgrade the receiving core. It could happen though.

gpngc
04-22-2009, 11:01 PM
As someone who watched the Giants every week I didn't think they were doing anything big last season regardless of whether or not they had Plax. It's just the nature of the league. The media just used the Plax excuse because it made sense (when in reality nothing that happens in the NFL actually makes logical sense in terms of teams on paper). I believe they would've fell short in the playoffs even if they had him honestly.

So yea, I definitely think they can compete without Burress.

Toneloc498
04-23-2009, 12:16 AM
We can compete in the NFC without a number 1 WR like Plax or Edwards. People forget that Hixon was tossed into the mix from being a number 4 right into being a number 1 and we did not adjust the playbook for plays that would work with Hixon as the number 1. We kept running plays that Plax would run through Hixon which is just retarted (way to go Gilbride). Last year was Hixon's first true year playing WR, half his college career he played Safety and finally got some playing time at WR last year and showed to be pretty decent. I think even if we dont trade for Edwards we can still do pretty good with an upgraded defense and the WR core of Hixon, Smith, Manningham, Moss, Tyree, Rookie WR. Like Jerry Reese said, we are not desperate, there are MANY ways to win a championship in this league. The Giants never had a true number 1 in their other Superbowl years so it is not a necessity.

Our defense is gunna be so much better it's not even funny. We finally have a LB (Boley) who can play all three downs and not get smoked by smaller RBs like Westy. We have probably the best and deepest Dline in football with the signings of Canty/Bernard, getting Osi back and Robbins/Kiwi/Tuck finally being more healthy. With the emergence of Corey Webster last year as a top 10 corner our secondary should be pretty decent with the pressure our front four can provide. Hopefully Kenny Phillips takes that next step and shows us some big things, one thing we know is that he's probably the best open field tackler on our team.

j05son
04-23-2009, 12:52 AM
What a joke this thread is. All I seem to be reading is ludicrous ideas and Giants fans calling Reese a "baller." First off, what the Browns are asking for is high and what the Giants are offering is low. Both are to blame. This isn't "baller" of any of the gm's as it does nothing to improve your club. If anything, it's helping Cleveland have a legitimate WR next year.

Please explain how the Giants hold all the cards? I find it hilarious to keep reading this. Is it because there is no other reported suitor? You're all forgetting one other team that could get Braylon Edwards;

the Cleveland Browns!


That's right, he doesn't have to be traded at all. This isn't Denver and Cutler where a trade has to happen. We can easily keep him, there's numerous reports that state Edwards never asked to be traded, wants to remain in Cleveland; hell, I'll quote them for you so you don't seem stupid [looking at your shocking] when you start talking about how he hates it here.

BEREA: Browns wide receiver Braylon Edwards insisted that he was not trying to orchestrate a trade when he said after a loss Monday to the Philadelphia Eagles that he felt ''unappreciated'' and that he's a ''marked man'' because he played at Michigan.
"I don't want to be traded," Edwards said Thursday. "I want to be here in Cleveland. I want to make plays. I want to have fun and I just want to enjoy it."
Monday he [Edwards] said that he wants to stay in Cleveland and help turn the Browns around.

The fact comes down to the Giants need Edwards more than Cleveland does. True we are the 4-12 team, but without a legitimate WR, what is New York? Not a Super Bowl contender [as evident last season]. Is a guy like Harvin, Hicks, Britt seriously going to take on the huge void left by Burress [keep saying it's not that big, your offense didn't even hiccup in his absence]? You didn't go from Super Contender to Super Pretender in one bullet to the leg.[/sarcasm]

What other wide receiver is available that you are able to acquire for this magical 2nd and 5th? You're crying after what the Browns asked for, wait till you call Arizona. Plus, all reports are saying that Ocho Cinco isn't available with his value so low. There's no way Cincy can get 2 firsts for him which is what they passed on, and are looking to keep him still.

We can just walk away and they are stuck with a guy who doesn't want to be there. Let them franchise him, and make him even more mad.

All Edwards has said, all of Edward's family has stated, is they want to remain in Cleveland! The only person who's said otherwise is Kellen Winslow. Seriously stop talking out of your ass on a subject you obviously know nothing about.

It's easy, you can walk away from trade talks, keep your DE depth, have this magical 3rd down pass rush, but still have a dismal offense, losing 2 play makers in Burress [whom there is no replacement] and Ward, try to develop a WR who may be a bust for all you know in Nicks, Harvin, Robiskie, Britt, etc, and try to compete in arguably the best division in football or you can get a young, pro-bowl caliber player that can easily be better then Burress and won't shoot himself in the leg either.

TL;RD summary: Giants + Edwards = contender. Giants + Nicks/Britt/Robiskie/Harvin = pretender.

Solomon
04-23-2009, 12:54 AM
I agree that a 1st and Kiwanuka is too much. 2nd and a mid round pick is too low though. Even a 1st by itself is too low. It's basically trading Edwards for a rookie WR who's future prospects are as a #2 (Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt), or something of similar value if it's not a WR picked at 29. It's a first rounder, yeah, but by only 3 slots. 1st and 3rd or something of that value or that range is what Edwards should go for. 1st/5th/Hixon or Manningham would make sense too.

I'm going to throw my two cents in here. Saying that the WRs probably available at #29 (Britt and Nicks) are not capable of being number one receivers at the next level is a little short sighted. They were both number one receivers in college despite having mediocre quarterback play and good receivers across from them to compete against. They both improved in every year at school. They're both juniors so they are young and have high ceilings.

Moreover between 2001 and 2007 (since it's way too early to fairly judge last years crop of rookies) #1 receivers in the league like Roddy White, Chad Johnson, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin (who was the Cards #1 for years before Fitzgerald's emergence), Reggie Wayne, and Dwayne Bowe have been taken in the late first round or second round. So it's certainly not far fetched for a WR with a round 1-2 projection to become a #1 target in the NFL.

If Cleveland aquires the Giants 1st rounder and chooses well they could within three years have a player as productive (or more) as Edwards at a bargain price and in the meanwhile the money they would have spent to locking Edwards up long term can go towards resigning other guys or dipping into the free agency well.

After dangling Edwards as trade bait for so long the Browns will have to put up with a malcontent WR for a while if a trade doesn't get done. Yes I know Edwards has said all the right things in recent months but if the new management is so willing to trade him now I'm skeptical he fits into their long term plans in Cleveland. In recent history such situations have never worked out for the teams in question if they didn't pull the trigger on a decent option when they had one on the table.

I think the Browns should trade Edwards while they can. Obviously see how far the Giants are willing to budge. A 1st and a 3rd does seem reasonable or a 1st and a vet like Hixon but demanding too much could bite them in the end.

j05son
04-23-2009, 12:59 AM
I'm going to throw my two cents in here. Saying that the WRs probably available at #29 (Britt and Nicks) are not capable of being number one receivers at the next level is a little short sighted. They were both number one receivers in college despite having mediocre quarterback play and good receivers across from them to compete against. They both improved in every year at school. They're both juniors so they are young and have high ceilings.

Moreover between 2001 and 2007 (since it's way too early to fairly judge last years crop of rookies) #1 receivers in the league like Roddy White, Chad Johnson, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin (who was the Cards #1 for years before Fitzgerald's emergence), Reggie Wayne, and Dwayne Bowe have been taken in the late first round or second round prospects. So it's certainly not far fetched for a WR with a round 1-2 projection to become a #1 target in the NFL.

True, but it doesn't negate he fact that they are PROJECTS. They aren't going to play on a level of Calvin Johnson, Anquan Bolden, Braylon Edwards or even Steve Smith. They aren't going to be an immediate impact in their first season. They are going to take years to develop to eventually match their ceiling and become a number 1 and for a team that can already win now, with a void at WR, why put a project there when you can put a proven veteran there now? Why not use that "project" pick on some more DL depth and have them learn with some of the best? It's not like this class is deep at DE or anything. >_>

Mr. Hero
04-23-2009, 01:19 AM
When did Ward become a playmaker? If anything giving his carries to Bradshaw would give our offense more playmaking. As for our end of the season offense it's true we faultered but that's because we asked Hixon to step in and do what Plax used to. Adjusting our passing game to the talent we do have would make our offense much more efficient and with an improved defense, oline and more explosive running game we're definitely superbowl contenders.

Solomon
04-23-2009, 01:20 AM
True, but it doesn't negate he fact that they are PROJECTS. They aren't going to play on a level of Calvin Johnson, Anquan Bolden, Braylon Edwards or even Steve Smith. They aren't going to be an immediate impact in their first season. They are going to take years to develop to eventually match their ceiling and become a number 1 and for a team that can already win now, with a void at WR, why put a project there when you can put a proven veteran there now? Why not use that "project" pick on some more DL depth and have them learn with some of the best? It's not like this class is deep at DE or anything. >_>

We really have no idea what they are capable of in their first years. Last year both Desean Jackson and Eddie Royal played at a high level as rookies. I would not be surprised if both Nicks and Britt imediately play at or above the level of "Steve Smith".

Secondly The Browns don't even have to spend the Giants compensation on a WR to replace Edwards. If they want they might be able to grab Crabtree who many people (on this board and NFL people who have spoken about him) seem convinced is not a project pick at all and then spend that late first rounder on a pass rushing OLB, DE or safety.

j05son
04-23-2009, 01:26 AM
We really have no idea what they are capable of in their first years. Last year both Desean Jackson and Eddie Royal played at a high level as rookies. I would not be surprised if both Nicks and Britt imediately play at or above the level of "Steve Smith".

Secondly The Browns don't even have to spend the Giants compensation on a WR to replace Edwards. If they want they might be able to grab Crabtree who many people (on this board and NFL people who have spoken about him) seem convinced is not a project pick at all and then spend that late first rounder on a pass rushing OLB, DE or safety.

First part, I would say that's the exception to the rule. Second part, I have no clue what your talking about and why you even brought it up.

CC.SD
04-23-2009, 01:42 AM
Giants should nut up and get Boldin. This is too much fuss for Braylon officially.

gpngc
04-23-2009, 02:03 AM
I'm not even a Giants fan but I'm going to respond to some of this before someone loses their cool because some of it is terrible.

We can easily keep him, there's numerous reports that state Edwards never asked to be traded, wants to remain in Cleveland; hell, I'll quote them for you so you don't seem stupid [looking at your shocking] when you start talking about how he hates it here.

I mean I'll agree to disagree with you on where Braylon wants to be. I believe it's not difficult to uncover the truth that he's a guy who would love to play in the spotlight of NY and is definitely ready to move on from Cleveland. He's "Hollywood". You say K2 is the only person who brought up him wanting to leave- why do you think that is? The quotes (dates?) are fine, but just because he has half of a brain and realizes that publicly posturing for a trade isn't the way to get one done doesn't mean he wouldn't welcome a move to NY. The rumors have to start somewhere. Why is Edwards the only big WR being talked about? Where there's smoke there's sometimes fire. The bottom line is none of us know for sure but all indications point to him wanting out of Cleveland, and I think any objective fan would recognize that.

You're thinking about "easily" keeping him is short-sighted.

Yes the Browns can easily keep him for this season. Then he is an UFA. Theoretically, they can "easily" keep him for 2010 also because of the franchise tag. Realistically, tagging a WR on a one-year franchise deal is not a smart option, especially when the guy is looking to leave.

All Edwards has said, all of Edward's family has stated, is they want to remain in Cleveland! The only person who's said otherwise is Kellen Winslow. Seriously stop talking out of your ass on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
He's talking out of his ass but you're using a family's statements to determine whether or not a pro athlete will be traded.

It's easy, you can walk away from trade talks, keep your DE depth, have this magical 3rd down pass rush, but still have a dismal offense, losing 2 play makers in Burress [whom there is no replacement] and Ward, try to develop a WR who may be a bust for all you know in Nicks, Harvin, Robiskie, Britt, etc, and try to compete in arguably the best division in football or you can get a young, pro-bowl caliber player that can easily be better then Burress and won't shoot himself in the leg either.

The Giants NEVER had a dismal offense. That is horribly wrong. I see you love the paper game so I'll play it (even though execution, momentum, confidence, and luck are gigantic mitigating factors). They have arguably the best OL in football and a devastating ground attack. A SB-winning QB (no Eli debate please- he's at least "good"- never missed the playoffs), and decent receivers. Even if you want to say the receiving corps is awful, the running game (on paper- yay) makes the offense better than dismal. Just doing it before a real Giant fan gets angry.

The loss of Burress hurt but it's not like the team can't win without him. They won in Pittsburgh when he went for 15 yards, in Philly when he went for 17 yards, and went 4-2 without him. They started losing down the stretch because they were being outplayed, not because of Plaxico Burress. The reality was Burress wasn't even much a factor at all after Week 2. The media just loves to try to make some paper-rationalization out of the NFL when sometimes teams just lose because they are outplayed or get unlucky.

TL;RD summary: Giants + Edwards = contender. Giants + Nicks/Britt/Robiskie/Harvin = pretender.

1) There is no formula. Dolphins + Chad Pennington = 1-15 to playoffs.

2) So much love for paper champions. Edwards is better than a rookie so they automatically win x amount more games. Not if he plays like he did last year...

3) "For all we know, the rookies could bust." Exactly. And conversely, they could be BETTER than Edwards. We just don't know.

gpngc
04-23-2009, 02:08 AM
When did Ward become a playmaker? If anything giving his carries to Bradshaw would give our offense more playmaking. As for our end of the season offense it's true we faultered but that's because we asked Hixon to step in and do what Plax used to. Adjusting our passing game to the talent we do have would make our offense much more efficient and with an improved defense, oline and more explosive running game we're definitely superbowl contenders.

I forgot to mention about Ward.

Newsflash: Losing Derrick Ward will do NOTHING to the Giants great running game. Derrick Ward played well last season no doubt, but he's nothing more than a serviceable pro back who was fortunate enough to be in the BEST situation possible. Jacobs wore down defenses and he had the best blocking unit in the league paving the way for him.

He's a nice player, but backs like him are a dime-a-dozen.

After Tiki retired, I said the Giants wouldn't miss a beat in the running game and got blasted for it.

The funniest thing about losing Ward is that they actually have an upgrade for him on their roster already in Bradshaw. The questions are:

A) do they value him too much as a ST guy and just find any back to plug in that RB 1B spot?

B) do they trust his ball security to give him 10-15 touches a game consistently.

I don't know, but it was painfully obvious that he's a better player than Ward.

Mr. Hero
04-23-2009, 02:32 AM
i don't think Ahmad being a capable returner will limit how much they give him the ball now that ward's out of the picture. My best guess is that we'll draft a late round corner to polish as Dockery's replacement as the slot/quick receiver corner and that guy will battle with the loser of the Hixon/Mario/Moss battle for a starting spot for the return spots.

D-Rod
04-23-2009, 08:41 AM
I think the Giants could trade Kiwi and it wouldn't effect them too much, as long as they stay healthy and find someone who can have a similar impact, though losing him would be tough.

I think that the Colts could trade Manning and it wouldn't effect them too much, as long as they [...] find someone who can have a similar impact.

That's a pretty basic statement.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-23-2009, 08:47 AM
What a joke this thread is. All I seem to be reading is ludicrous ideas and Giants fans calling Reese a "baller." First off, what the Browns are asking for is high and what the Giants are offering is low. Both are to blame. This isn't "baller" of any of the gm's as it does nothing to improve your club. If anything, it's helping Cleveland have a legitimate WR next year.

Please explain how the Giants hold all the cards? I find it hilarious to keep reading this. Is it because there is no other reported suitor? You're all forgetting one other team that could get Braylon Edwards;

the Cleveland Browns!


That's right, he doesn't have to be traded at all. This isn't Denver and Cutler where a trade has to happen. We can easily keep him, there's numerous reports that state Edwards never asked to be traded, wants to remain in Cleveland; hell, I'll quote them for you so you don't seem stupid [looking at your shocking] when you start talking about how he hates it here.





The fact comes down to the Giants need Edwards more than Cleveland does. True we are the 4-12 team, but without a legitimate WR, what is New York? Not a Super Bowl contender [as evident last season]. Is a guy like Harvin, Hicks, Britt seriously going to take on the huge void left by Burress [keep saying it's not that big, your offense didn't even hiccup in his absence]? You didn't go from Super Contender to Super Pretender in one bullet to the leg.[/sarcasm]

What other wide receiver is available that you are able to acquire for this magical 2nd and 5th? You're crying after what the Browns asked for, wait till you call Arizona. Plus, all reports are saying that Ocho Cinco isn't available with his value so low. There's no way Cincy can get 2 firsts for him which is what they passed on, and are looking to keep him still.



All Edwards has said, all of Edward's family has stated, is they want to remain in Cleveland! The only person who's said otherwise is Kellen Winslow. Seriously stop talking out of your ass on a subject you obviously know nothing about.

It's easy, you can walk away from trade talks, keep your DE depth, have this magical 3rd down pass rush, but still have a dismal offense, losing 2 play makers in Burress [whom there is no replacement] and Ward, try to develop a WR who may be a bust for all you know in Nicks, Harvin, Robiskie, Britt, etc, and try to compete in arguably the best division in football or you can get a young, pro-bowl caliber player that can easily be better then Burress and won't shoot himself in the leg either.

TL;RD summary: Giants + Edwards = contender. Giants + Nicks/Britt/Robiskie/Harvin = pretender.

I am going by reports that have been available. If he wants to stay in Cleveland why hasn't he accepted a extension? Is he working out with the team and trying to make a good impression for the new regime there?


Magical 3rd down pass rush? Yeah I would rather keep our DL depth then trade him for what? 1 WR who had 1 pro bowl 1,000 plus yard season. And on top of that we have to break the bank to pay him. Screw that! You guys can keep him, and actually build a team so you don't suck even more next season.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-23-2009, 08:52 AM
Do you think you can get back to the super bowl with the current receivers you have? If the answer is no, do you think you can get to the super bowl with an upgraded receiving core? If that answer is yes, what are the options other than Braylon Edwards? Thats how i look at it, if the Giants are comfortable with being nothing more than just a playoff team then they dont have to make the trade, but I do think they need him or someone of equivalent talent to get back to the super bowl. Browns have more leverage than the Giants because he will most likely be gone anyways.

Why not? Defense wins championships not OFFENSE!! We made the changes we needed to for our DL, to provide depth so that our guys won't get tired.

We have other options other than BE:

1. Get BE

2. Get Boldin

3. Use our 10 pick and upgrade our total team

4. Coughlin, a former wr coach, and Gilbride, will tweak the playbook to now balance out the passing concepts. So instead of relying on X in progressions for each play, now you can balance it to fit the existing talent, which is something that we couldn't do mid season when Burress pulled a Chedda bob.

Just because the media and fan base has a knee jerk reaction to this doesn't mean our organization has to. If they were like the fans and media this deal probably would have been done ages ago.

Halsey
04-23-2009, 09:19 AM
The Browns shouldn't give into anything less than what they feel Edwards is really worth. Edwards is due for a new contract in the next year or two, right? What's he gonna do, not perform when he knows he's playing for a new contract? Riiight. Maybe the Browns won't keep him long term, but they should still get high level effort from him until he leaves. If he's not happy while staying in Cleveland, making #3 overall pick money, too bad.

LizardState
04-23-2009, 09:50 AM
FWIW all the mocks are assuming this trade is happening, they (including the God Almighty We're ESPN & Our Word Is Law! Mock) have the Browns taking Crabtree at #5 now to replace Edwards........

Well whoop-tee-freakin'-doo, what about all the other needs Cleveland (A) has now after trading away KW3, & (B) will have by draft day when Mangini continues his batshit evisceration of the entire talent core? I guess they're going to be forced to draft about 10-11 players with a QB to make up the shortfall if Quinn goes away. Mangini has this cockamamie pipe dream of stockpiling that many picks & too many offensive holes will kill him anyway his 1st yr, why do I get the feeling he's basking in the warmth of all this frictive heat he's created? Sometimes 1st yr HCs in a new town trade just for the gleeful joy of trading or they like seeing their names in the sports section with an exclamation point after it.

cunit2k9
04-23-2009, 11:48 AM
Why not? Defense wins championships not OFFENSE!! We made the changes we needed to for our DL, to provide depth so that our guys won't get tired.

We have other options other than BE:

1. Get BE

2. Get Boldin

3. Use our 10 pick and upgrade our total team

4. Coughlin, a former wr coach, and Gilbride, will tweak the playbook to now balance out the passing concepts. So instead of relying on X in progressions for each play, now you can balance it to fit the existing talent, which is something that we couldn't do mid season when Burress pulled a Chedda bob.

Just because the media and fan base has a knee jerk reaction to this doesn't mean our organization has to. If they were like the fans and media this deal probably would have been done ages ago.

Everyone knows defense wins championships but still look at recent history.. most of the super bowl teams had great defenses and great offenses. The only exceptions i believe would be the Bucs and Ravens, and those two defenses were probably 2 of the best 5 or 10 ever. The Giants should have a great defense, but not on that level. Thats why i think they need one more weapon. Agree?

cunit2k9
04-23-2009, 11:52 AM
When did Ward become a playmaker? If anything giving his carries to Bradshaw would give our offense more playmaking. As for our end of the season offense it's true we faultered but that's because we asked Hixon to step in and do what Plax used to. Adjusting our passing game to the talent we do have would make our offense much more efficient and with an improved defense, oline and more explosive running game we're definitely superbowl contenders.

5.6 YPC is very high, meaning he gets a lot of yards when he touches the ball. Am I wrong? How is your running game more explosive too when you lose a 1000 yard rusher?

NY+Giants=NYG
04-23-2009, 11:54 AM
Everyone knows defense wins championships but still look at recent history.. most of the super bowl teams had great defenses and great offenses. The only exceptions i believe would be the Bucs and Ravens, and those two defenses were probably 2 of the best 5 or 10 ever. The Giants should have a great defense, but not on that level. Thats why i think they need one more weapon. Agree?

To certain extent, hence using the 10 picks to take care of that. We can use those picks for OL, WR, RB, or any offensive position other than QB obviously. NO our defense isn't at that level, but then again you don't need to be. Just be able to sack the QB and pressure him, and then let it play out. That's all I ask, limit the time a QB has to make plays, even sack him, and if he can make them good bless that team, if not, then see the superbowl with Tom Brady. Then let us control the clock with our running game, and take that route.

Plus the one thing people don't realize is that our coaching staff will adjust to the players we have now that they have time. Look at how they adjusted when Shockey got traded? Did anyone see our running game last year? That was an adjustment due to shockey being traded based on seeing Boss get owned running power concept without Shockey. It was a mess watching Boss run block in the playoffs during our superbowl run.

Like I said there are many ways to skin a cat, having a knee jerk reaction to losing a number 1 WR isn't productive. Coughlin preaches balance in his offense, so I wouldn't be suprised to see him and Gilbride re do some of the passing concepts and making it more balanced to fit our offense, and not so heavy for the the X spot, fitting Burress's skill set.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-23-2009, 11:56 AM
5.6 YPC is very high, meaning he gets a lot of yards when he touches the ball. Am I wrong? How is your running game more explosive too when you lose a 1000 yard rusher?

Our running system is basically plug and play. We lost Tiki, and we plugged Jacobs. Ward was basically an outcast by the Jets, and signed him. Same with Ware. Hixon from the Broncos, and thanks to the Rams for cutting Madison Hedgecock. Our offense got it's parts from other teams who were very nice to let these guys go.

So we developed Ware, and we have 10 picks to draft an RB if need be. Plus Bradshaw's skill set is alot better than Wards's skill set. As long as our OL is healthy, we will be fine. Everyone is signed and locked up long term and they aren't going anymore. Our system basically now is a plug and play system.

If you are free we can sign you and you may do well behind our line. : )

cunit2k9
04-23-2009, 01:25 PM
To certain extent, hence using the 10 picks to take care of that. We can use those picks for OL, WR, RB, or any offensive position other than QB obviously. NO our defense isn't at that level, but then again you don't need to be. Just be able to sack the QB and pressure him, and then let it play out. That's all I ask, limit the time a QB has to make plays, even sack him, and if he can make them good bless that team, if not, then see the superbowl with Tom Brady. Then let us control the clock with our running game, and take that route.

Plus the one thing people don't realize is that our coaching staff will adjust to the players we have now that they have time. Look at how they adjusted when Shockey got traded? Did anyone see our running game last year? That was an adjustment due to shockey being traded based on seeing Boss get owned running power concept without Shockey. It was a mess watching Boss run block in the playoffs during our superbowl run.

Like I said there are many ways to skin a cat, having a knee jerk reaction to losing a number 1 WR isn't productive. Coughlin preaches balance in his offense, so I wouldn't be suprised to see him and Gilbride re do some of the passing concepts and making it more balanced to fit our offense, and not so heavy for the the X spot, fitting Burress's skill set.

Fair enough.