While addressing the media today, Cleveland Browns general manager Tom Heckert confirmed reports that the team has contacted the Rams about moving up to the first pick in the draft to select QB Sam Bradford. Team president Mike Holmgren emphasized the risk in making such a deal, hence why the team will inevitably probably stay away from the first pick:
"You'd have to mortgage the ranch. In the real world, we're probably going to go in a different direction."
Heckert also confirmed that the Browns have discussed trade options with all of the teams ahead of them and a few of the teams behind them.
The most interesting quote I heard was relayed by the OBR, where Heckert stated that they expected the player they choose at No. 7 to start.
"We hope so,"he said. "That’s why we would be taking him."
Which drafted position would warrant a starting role? I'd say that the leading candidates would be safety, defensive line, and wide receiver, in that order.
Rumors have heated up that the Browns will consider drafting QB Jimmy Clausen. Holmgren talked a little about his differing opinions over the past few weeks regarding Clausen:
The first question was about quarterback Jimmy Claussen and Holmgren said he now likes Claussen after meeting him. "He’s a fine young guy and I wouldn’t read too much into my earlier comments," he said. "I like him. He was playing hurt for a lot of the year. I always like to meet any of the players because it helps me to evaluate him. He is what he is." Holmgren was quoted prior to the Browns meeting with Claussen that he didn’t particularly like him. "Don’t yell at me, and I’m not going to say why I said what I did," he said. "I had my reasons and I’ll leave it at that."
If there are any more quotes that the media shares later on from Heckert and Holmgren, I'll update this post accordingly.
0 recs | 159 comments
i’ve thought all along that holmgren might try this to get bradford. i think the price is too high, but i wouldn’t be devastated if he did it.
Dawg Nuts - April 15, 2010
Holmgren might be willing, but both Heckert and Mangini seem like guys who really, really value draft picks, and I don’t think either of them would be for giving up the value it would take (minimum would be this year’s 1st & two of our 3rd’s and next year’s 2nd — and that’s minimum by far). Obviously, Holmgren has final say, but I don’t see him going for it if both Heckert and Mangini are not enthusiastic.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 15, 2010
Does Mangini have a say?
Western Reserve - April 15, 2010
i’m sure he has a say. while holmgren has the final word, he’d be foolish to completely ignore the desires of his head coach. he seems more wise than that.
Dawg Nuts - April 15, 2010
Exactly. Kind of a dumb question. In any event, Holmgren has strongly implied that Mangini is the reason he got rid of Quinn.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 15, 2010
Whoa there, guy, I think the question is fair, even if it doesn’t jibe with one of your preconceived notions.
I think it’s possible Mangini gets to talk, but doesn’t necessarily get a say.
Western Reserve - April 15, 2010
The Browns organization is very democratically run—or at least that’s what they are telling everyone—and Mangini will have a say. Holmgren always has the final say.
rufio - April 16, 2010
Interesting theory of democracy: Everyone gets a vote, but then one man has unrestrained decision making and veto power.
But I catch your drift: Mangini can offer input, at the very least. I thought it possible Holmgrem and his hand-picked man Heckert sort of boxed Mangini out.
Western Reserve - April 16, 2010
By democratic, I meant related to democratic principles, not that it was actually a democracy.
rufio - April 16, 2010
Ah, so it’s a very fast and loose definition then. Nah, I was just being lighthearted there; I see your point.
Western Reserve - April 16, 2010
Sorry, but asking whether the head coach of an NFL team “has a say” in who gets drafted in the first round does not strike me as a very good question.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 16, 2010
I’d rather not debate the merits of the question with you.
As I explained:
The theory being that Holmgrem and his own guy probably feel that they know best, at Mangini’s expense, and that if Mangini was actually any good at it, they wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.
Western Reserve - April 16, 2010
I don’t assume to know the hierarchy of the FO, but I would think they would argue each others point on who they think is best, then collectively agree on the rankings. Atleast that’s the way they should be doing it.
Kimble_79 - April 16, 2010
This is the impression that I get, but I think any disagreements—which do happen—are then settled once and for all by Holmgen.
rufio - April 17, 2010
Wrong.
golanbatrac - April 16, 2010
I know you are a big time Mangini apologist, but it certainly seems they wanted to segregate the roles and actually bring in someone serious to handle personnel to boot.
Western Reserve - April 17, 2010
I’m a Mangini aficionado. Being an ‘apologist’ presupposes that there is something to apologize for, which is clearly not the case.
Of course they did There have been very few GM/Coach hybrids in the league (our current Grand Poobah being one of the few — and he was stripped of his GM duties). Mangini was not hired to be both GM and Coach. He fell into the role after Kokinis flaked. The way to think of Mangini in 2009 is as an interim GM. That he would be replaced in that role was a certainty.
And while I agree that Heckert is a ‘serious’ GM, I don’t agree with the idea that Mangini, in his role as interim GM, was anything less than serious. I think he took the added responsibilities seriously and did a fine job setting the table for the new front office.
golanbatrac - April 17, 2010
Apologist doesn’t actually have anything to do with apologizing, although aficionado is probably a better term.
Matt Y. - April 17, 2010
I should have used the word ‘implies’ rather than ‘presupposes’. Good catch Matt.
golanbatrac - April 17, 2010
Probably why he kept his job.
Roger Dorn - April 17, 2010
I agree, I love what Mangini did. I don’t think too many people would have wanted to go in there and do the dirty work of cutting out the cancerous guys in the locker room and endure such a difficult season.
Mangini is terrible on camera, I think he tries too hard to maintain that “Belicheck” demenor. Belicheck plans everything he is going to say to the press ahead of time and is careful to maintain a complete lack of personality, so the media knows that he is purposefully stonewalling and absolutely will not say anything controversial, no matter what they ask. Mangini just never looks comfortable when doing this.
The week 17 press conference last year was really kind of interesting. Mangini seemed like he was on the verge of tears the whole time. I’m sure this was partly because he was so proud of the team and what they’d accomplished but I’d guess it was also partly because he thought he was going to get fired again and he wanted to continue to be a part of this team going forward.
jaws. - April 17, 2010
Haha. Okay, fair enough.
Western Reserve - April 18, 2010
I think he implied that mangini definitely had a say. He said the chemistry was important. However, I believe that if holmgren thought BQ was “The Guy” that he would have kept him on the roster in some fashion (whether starter or backup).
bross09 - April 15, 2010
Yes.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 15, 2010
He’s busy getting coffee….
johnnyphoenix - April 15, 2010
I think its a little premature to pick up Bradford in the first round. I like the idea of picking up Berry or Haden in the first round because they will make a difference at the start. The Browns should pick up McCoy in the second round and give him time to develop with Delhome as a third string
brownsboy14 - April 15, 2010
I agree. Colt McCoy would be nice. Take a quarterback that can sit for a year or two. No more Quinn or Couch-like experiments, please. Let’s get Berry or Haden and turn our Secondary into a strength instead of a liability.
BenRapelisberger - April 15, 2010
Not sure how McCoy wouldn’t be an experiment.
Western Reserve - April 15, 2010
I’m just saying let’s stop taking high profile prospects and throwing them to the wolves and ruining them.
BenRapelisberger - April 15, 2010
We have one of the best offensive lines in the league now though, I don’t see the issue with getting a franchise QB at this point.
Roger Dorn - April 15, 2010
I wouldn’t say we have one of the best lines at all.
Mack and Thomas are solid, but Steinbach was one of the worst guards in the league after having to conform to Mangini’s crappy style of how Guards should play. Hadnot is gone, while Womack, St Claire and Pashos aren’t anything special. We could greatly benefit from a guard in the second or third
The Licensed Pessimist - April 15, 2010
We were dominating the LOS at the end of the year.
danvail - April 15, 2010
against teams that are in the bottom 10 of the league in run defense.
The Licensed Pessimist - April 15, 2010
it surprises me that you’re taking a position of negativity.
Dawg Nuts - April 15, 2010
facts surprise you?
The Licensed Pessimist - April 15, 2010
Sarcasm surprises you?
woodsmeister - April 15, 2010
thanks for the assist.
Dawg Nuts - April 15, 2010
Roc….It would seem to me, that you feel threatened by the Eric Ghiaciuc acquisition.
johnnyphoenix - April 15, 2010
Calling Stienbach one of the worst guards in the NFL is a stretch.
He had his issues, but he was still in the upper half.
Bernie19Kosar - April 15, 2010
Easily.
rufio - April 16, 2010
especially in pass protection.
jaws. - April 16, 2010
He was in the bottom 5 in the entire league in allowing QB pressures. NFP ranked him the second worst guard last year. He was in no way in the top half, you must have confused him with hadnot
The Licensed Pessimist - April 16, 2010
because “pressures allowed” is not a terribly subjective stat that doesn’t assume to know the teams blocking scheme, and the NFP ranking should be taken as fact. never mind what every other media outlet and coach has said.
notthatnoise - April 16, 2010
Pressures allowed is a very good stat to look at when you’re talking about pass blocking actually, especially for an interior lineman.
You show me what “every other media outlet and coach as said” about steinbach this past year. He was terrible this past year. By not fault of his own, and I expect him to bounce back; but still terrible
The Licensed Pessimist - April 16, 2010
you completely missed my point. my point is the stat isn’t reliable. its like keeping track of “hits” in hockey.
notthatnoise - April 16, 2010
I don’t even know where to begin with this.
johnnyphoenix - April 15, 2010
This makes no sense. We have an infinitely better OL than Couch had, and Quinn just failed in his opportunities.
danvail - April 15, 2010
thanks for agreeing Ben. by the way, I like the name
brownsboy14 - April 15, 2010
Thanks. The NFL wouldn’t let me put the name on a custom jersey, I don’t think they liked it.
BenRapelisberger - April 15, 2010
i can’t wait to see how many jerseys get taped over for this.
notthatnoise - April 15, 2010
I had been calling him Rapistberger, but Rapelisberger works just as well.
Roger Dorn - April 15, 2010
thats because they love Big Ben like Ben likes teenage girls.
bross09 - April 15, 2010
Um PLEASE NO Mike……
johnnyphoenix - April 15, 2010
jaws. - April 15, 2010
Don’t kill me, don’t kill me, don’t kill me, I’d rather put a second round pick on McCoy than a first round pick on Bradford.
macdowellm03 - April 15, 2010
I don’t really want Claussen either. Remember what happened last time we traded to get a QB from Notre Dame? Yeah, it didn’t work out so much.
macdowellm03 - April 15, 2010
No, what happened?
Western Reserve - April 15, 2010
We received a transient fan from Notre Dame who is now a Broncos fan, yet he hangs around here like a dog looking for scraps.
gahnki - April 15, 2010
slim shady?
johnnyphoenix - April 15, 2010
No, BradyQuinnGotTradedForAFullback.
Brownie's Year - April 15, 2010
even though i don’t want claussen either, what happened with quinn has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should draft him. that he went to the same school means nothing.
Dawg Nuts - April 15, 2010
I guess someone had to say it.
Western Reserve - April 16, 2010
I actually think it means a little. If Quinn appeared better on the surface because of Weis’s ability to coach a QB to have an inflated appearance prior to being drafted, there could be some merit to the same sort of inflated value happening for Clausen. It’s not the sort of thing that is discernable to myself.
Roger Dorn - April 16, 2010
then let me clarify; the fact that they went to the same school should mean nothing to a guy like holmgren, who is by all accounts, an outstanding evaluator of QB talent. the fact that quinn went to ND and failed for us has nothing to do with his evaluation of claussen and whether he feels he can be our QB of the future. it shouldn’t.
Dawg Nuts - April 16, 2010
Like I said, I still think there is a small correlation but it has more to do with the coach at ND than anything.
Roger Dorn - April 16, 2010
Scorned Cleveland fan much?
rufio - April 16, 2010
Just saw the tag – We’re 99% Sure SBN Is Awesome.
Way to have a go at SpecialBrownie everytime he logs in.
skipkirk - April 15, 2010
Wondered if anyone had noticed it.
Chris Pokorny - April 15, 2010
Touche.
BUT I WASN’T THROWING YOU UNDER THE BUS!
SBN is awesome.
SpecialBrownie - April 15, 2010
I think the Browns will go for
Clausen
or trade a 2nd rounder for Big Ben
WarWolf - April 15, 2010
Right.
Grockcubs - April 15, 2010
Flag.
Bernie19Kosar - April 15, 2010
Flag
jaws. - April 15, 2010
Flag.
SpecialBrownie - April 15, 2010
Brownie's Year - April 15, 2010
IT IS NOT TRUE
bross09 - April 15, 2010
http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2010/4/14/1420675/brandon-marshall-traded-to-miami#34759243
there is the link
bross09 - April 15, 2010
Where do you think the quote I used came from, bross?
Brownie's Year - April 16, 2010
lol…you were being sarcastic then?
bross09 - April 16, 2010
Flag.
danvail - April 15, 2010
Flag.
Dawg Nuts - April 15, 2010
Ben holds the ball too long for Holmgrem to like him.
OSUMoneyball - April 16, 2010
We need a QB but, if we need a rapist, we could trade a 2nd rounder for him.
macdowellm03 - April 16, 2010
He does seem to be leading the league in this category, which might demand a first.
Mangini does value versatility, though, so being able to serve a dual role could make it worthwhile.
danvail - April 16, 2010
did you just say ben roethlisberger leads the league in rape??? Classic.
bross09 - April 16, 2010
Bradford looks like a thinner, younger version of the guy who threw Clooney out of the Woolworth’s in O’ Brother Where Art Thou.
golanbatrac - April 15, 2010
Ok, enlighten me cuz I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. What is the purpose of saying that they contacted the Rams about Bradford? It seems almost political, like assuring constituents of a desire to do something that can’t be done in order to appease people. Or is it a smokescreen to obscure whatever intentions others have been perceiving? Or is it a little of both?
dawgtribe - April 16, 2010
Well someone asked Holmgren and co and they might as well have said ‘yes’. If they said ‘no’ then it could still be interpreted as a smokescreen.
skipkirk - April 16, 2010
Yeah, this was one of those questions which really only has one answer. If Holmgren says “Yes”, then it probably means yes. If he says “no”, it’s quite possibly a smokescreen, so it is likely to mean yes also. If he says “hell no, what kind of idiots do you think we are?”, then it definitely means yes. Even if the real answer was no, almost anything he said would be construed as yes. (“Your mouth is saying no, no, but your eyes are saying yes, yes”).
drjeo - April 16, 2010
easy there ben
notthatnoise - April 16, 2010
This can’t get recced enough.
Buckeye Brad - April 16, 2010
purpose might be to help the rams leverage contract talks with bradford by looking like they had other options… The browns benefit from helping the rams by deflecting attention from whatever other quarterback they are looking at. So someone won’t leapfrog their second round pick for Tebow or something like that.
jaws. - April 16, 2010
ESPN needed something new to talk about 24/7 since Brett has been pretty quiet.
Villeslgr - April 16, 2010
it means pretty much nothing. they said they were interested in bradford but wouldn’t sell the farm for him.
bross09 - April 16, 2010
Yeah, it’s gotta be Berry or trade DOWN to get Earl Thomas. Do not trade up for Bradford or draft Clausen. No.
At that point, you have to make sure that after the 3rd round is over you have either McCoy or Tebow. Pick McCoy in R2 if you don’t think either will be available in R3. If Tebow will still be available in R3, I’d look at a CB like McCourty or a LB like Brandon Spikes.
King Tony - April 16, 2010
Wow, that´s news. So Prez Holmgren has had a change of heart if not mind about Jimmy Clausen. The Browns have contacted the Rams about the possibility of trading up to slot number one, albeit supposedly regarding Sam Bradford at that slot.
This from NFL.com: “…Holmgren has shown a propensity for drafting quarterbacks. In the 17 drafts he was involved with as a coach in Green Bay and Seattle, he has selected a quarterback 11 times, but none of them before the third round…”
So looking at quarterbacks in round one is already an instance of an old dog working at new tricks, for Prez Holmgren.
We also have the trinity of coach Mike Mangini, GM Tom Heckert and Prez Mike Holmgren, representing somewhat of unknown quantities within the Browns fold, haven´t heard from Big O Randy Lerner in a while either.
If teams use their own evaluations rather than what´s proferred by the sports writer, Sam Bradford may drop beyond the top 10, depending on teams´ quarterback preferences.
Sam Bradford, Jimmy Clausen, Tim Tebow and Colt McCoy count as the top quarterbacks. People are finicky about their quarterbacks as they should be, who´s to say they won´t slight Sam Bradford and his constituents in favor of the guy they want? Similar to the Brady Quinn fiasco, Sam Bradford could be the embarrassed guy on day 1, slipping down the board. No?
mooncamping - April 16, 2010
Bradford won’t slip past 1
Grockcubs - April 16, 2010
If he doesn´t slip past 1, someone is taking the hit. This positioning is not based on evaluation. You´re buying the Heisman.
mooncamping - April 17, 2010
Once again, how often do the Cleveland Browns have pick #7, along with the wishing well associated with being rewarded for being a losing team?
We trade up to slot #1 and take Jimmy Clausen over Sam Bradford.
mooncamping - April 16, 2010
really? Who do you think would take Clausen over us?
Kimble_79 - April 16, 2010
So in Jimmy Clausen we trust…….
Brownsfan4ever - April 16, 2010
Holmgren is loving every minute of this new job. Whenever he speaks or attends an NFL function he gets national headlines. It’s like he owns this league. And I sense that he has a strong inkling about what will go down at the draft.
I imagine he is going to feel a little like Louis Winthorpe when the draft starts (while Heckert is Billy Ray Valentine and Mangini is Coleman). Can’t wait for Thursday.
Spidey - April 16, 2010 via mobile
rec for “trading places” reference.
jaws. - April 16, 2010
I still don’t see what’s bad about addressing the safety and a corner in the first 2 rounds and take Lefevour in the 3rd
navycavsfan - April 16, 2010
it would be a waste of a third round pick.
notthatnoise - April 16, 2010
The later we take a QB the better.
golanbatrac - April 16, 2010
That way Jake Delhomme can remain unchallenged for the keys to our team. I completely agree.
danvail - April 16, 2010
Fuck Delhomme. I just don’t want us reaching for a QB.
golanbatrac - April 16, 2010
He’s our starting QB for 2 years. Get used to it my friend.
Brownie's Year - April 17, 2010
Not necessarily.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
A lot of you guys hate Jake D. I just have a felling that he’ll be our best QB since Kosar.
I’m backin’ Jake.
Brownie's Year - April 17, 2010
I don’t hate Delhomme at all. I just don’t think he’s necessarily going to be our starter for the next two years. If we pick a QB this year — either trade up for Bradford or McCoy in the second — then he should be the starting QB by at least the middle of next season (2011) if things go well.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
If Jake does good this year, he’ll start next year,
Brownie's Year - April 17, 2010
Not if we have a QB of the future in the wings. And not if Delhomme is mediocre-to-decent next year for the first few games.
Being our best QB since Kosar isn’t exactly being a world-beater.
rufio - April 17, 2010
Not necessarily. And even if he does start at the beginning of the year that doesn’t mean he’ll be the starter at the end of the season.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
You’re in denial.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
This from the guy who believes Jake Delhomme will be the best QB we have had since Kosar.
Do you realize that Jake Delhomme’s best season (’05) is damn near the same season Derek Anderson had in ’07?
The amount of people that over value Delhomme here is staggering. If we draft a QB in the first two rounds, I fully expect him to be starting by the end of this season.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
This. While I am not as down on Delhomme as you are, I fully agree. if we take a QB early, he will start by the end of the season. Delhomme is a nice player but he isn’t that great.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Fair enough.
I’m just trying to have faith in our QB.
Are you saying that DA was our best QB since Kosar? That’s some scarey stuff.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
Couldn’t disagree more. Holmgren knows that it is much better to have your rookie quarterback ride the bench for at least one full season. I suspect the reason why we Brought in Delhomme and Wallace is because between the two of them they will keep the rookie quarterback on the bench at all costs at least until 2011. Possibly 2012
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Show me where Holmgren has said anything like this. I am sure Holmgren will play a rookie when he is ready no matter if it is after week one or year one. I have never seen anything attributed to him where he has said that a rookie QB will never see the field in his rookie season.
Don’t cite Holmgrens past either. He has never drafted a QB as high as we all think he will Thursday. The previous QB’s Holmgren has drafted were complete projects.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
not to mention, eric mangini is our coach, not mike holmgren. holmgren’s job is to assemble the team, mangini’s job is to coach it once its assembled. if holmgren wants to decide when players will enter the starting lineup, he should just fire mangini and coach himself; and if he tries to make these decisions from the front office, the organization will be in a shambles.
Dawg Nuts - April 18, 2010
If we draft a QB in the first two rounds there is NO WAY we are keeping him on the bench until 2012. None at all. That makes absolutely no sense.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Made sense for aaron rogers.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Do we have a Hall of Fame QB for this rookie to play behind?
Can we find a more obscure correlation?
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
Troy Smith!
Oh wait…
Matt Y. - April 19, 2010
Wow. Really?
Aaron Rodgers was sitting behind Brett Favre. Our rookie QB would be sitting behind Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. Please explain to me how those two situations are in any way similar.
Again, it would make no sense for the CLEVELAND BROWNS to let a rookie QB sit on the bench for two years. Not some other team in some other situation — this team, right now.
Buckeye Brad - April 19, 2010
I mostly agree with this. If we draft a QB high he’ll probably be starting by the end of the year. that said, I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised to see Delhomme play well enough to keep his job. I don’t think its likely, but he’s got a realistic shot.
There’s no way he’s the starter for more than a few games next season.
notthatnoise - April 19, 2010
I have a gut feeling about him being better, but that is a major stretch.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
And McCoy, Lefevour or Pike wouldn’t challenge him? I’m not expecting a rookie to start, just sit behind Jake and learn for 2 seasons, or learn what not to do as the case may be…
navycavsfan - April 16, 2010
McCoy might, but not right away. You have to realize though, that QBs that slip past the first (and maybe early second) round do so for a reason and have an extremely low chance of ever being a quality starter.
danvail - April 17, 2010
I guess I don’t see this as news. If Heckert and Holmgren had not contacted all the teams above them to find out the price of moving up and all the teams around them about moving down, then, frankly, they’re not doing their job.
Nothing to see here. Please move along.
woodsmeister - April 16, 2010
this…I was thinking the same thing when I first read about this
Kimble_79 - April 16, 2010
It’s news because it’s news.
Actually, I prefer to think of him as a magician. You know what he is doing is just trying to trick and fool you but you can’t resist watching him.
Spidey - April 16, 2010 via mobile
not sure where else to put this but the spam/virus ridden fanpost is up again.
notthatnoise - April 16, 2010
Is it still causing a virus? It’s not spam — the guy emailed me to ask why it was deleted and I told him that people reported it was causing a virus, but if he wanted to try posting it again maybe it won’t happen this time. So let me know if it’s still causing problems.
Buckeye Brad - April 16, 2010
It’s good for me.
gahnki - April 16, 2010
oh i don’t really know, i was just assuming it was since a couple people had issues with it before.
notthatnoise - April 16, 2010
upon trying to visit the fanpost google chrome blocked it and gave me this message:
it gave me the option to continue anyway, but i’d rather not take my chances.
notthatnoise - April 16, 2010
That is what I get also running Google Chrome.
Bernie19Kosar - April 16, 2010
also, this guy hasn’t posted a single comment or fanshot, and has only been a member for about two weeks. isn’t it bad practice for him to be posting a fanpost anyway?
notthatnoise - April 17, 2010
I still don’t know what you guys are talking about. I’ve never had a problem with this site.
Brownie's Year - April 17, 2010
He’s posted FanPosts and comments on many other sites. He’s not really a Browns fan, just a fan of football and he wanted to educate us about a former Browns great. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
I’m pretty sure that’s the picture he used. It seems to be hosted on that site.
gahnki - April 17, 2010
What happens if the Rams try and get Jerkyberger?
Do they draft Suh or Okung at #1, or drop back?
I would love to see him in a Rams’ uniform. He would get his ass kicked and then eventually fad away.
Brownie's Year - April 16, 2010
Do you really think the Steelers would trade Ben?
emily522 - April 16, 2010
In a heartbeat if they can get something in return-and not a 5th rounder, like for Holmes. But they know no teams would give anything meaningful in return.
Ben is living on borrowed time and the Steelers know he just a ball and chain to them.
Spidey - April 16, 2010 via mobile
You have to look at the Steeler FO and the image they want to portray.
I don’t think anyone is buying a BB jersey any time soon. Plus he has lost the respect of his teammates in the last couple seasons. Lamar Woodley was on the radio the other day and was asked if BB lost control of the locker room. He didn’t say "no". He said "I’m not speaking for the other guys". Which means people are talking.
I’ve been hearing talks about St. Louis giving up a 2nd for him. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens. If it doesn’t happen before the draft it probably won’t happen.
Brownie's Year - April 16, 2010
Theres no way any front office trades for him. Not only is he facing a suspension, but acquiring him would bring a massive PR hit on your organization. The steelers made an example of Santonio because I suppose they think they can replace him pretty easily. Franchise QBs are a little harder to come by. I really doubt a trade gets done.
jaws. - April 17, 2010
I can think of 10 teams that need him. I see a deal happening soon.
Stop double talking.
Brownie's Year - April 17, 2010
Mike Vick was a PR hit too.
Didn’t stop the Eagles. If the Steelers want to trade BB there will be teams who will offer for him.
Bernie19Kosar - April 17, 2010
Of course. It might be a big PR hit at first but once he starts playing well and the team is winning the fans will be behind him. That’s how it always goes.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
They’ve said they’re willing to listen to offers. I’ve also heard that they’re also high on Dixon. Theoretically they could trade #7 and not even have to take a QB. If they traded him to the Rams for the #1 pick then it would be safe to say that they’ll take Bradford. Seriously doubt that would ever happen, though.
dawgtribe - April 17, 2010
We signed Jake and Seneca to fill for a year. We aren’t taking a QB this year until at least the 3rd round. Wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t even take a QB in this draft. We might be looking at 2011 as a strike/labor strifre year.
gentryholdem - April 17, 2010
Who cares? If the right guy is there, take him.
rufio - April 17, 2010
Absolutely. I would contend that the exact reason that we got rid of Brady and Derek and replaced them with Seneca (career backup w/ wildcat possibilities) and Delhomme (short term fix) is because Holmgren plans to draft his QB of the future this year. And I’d be willing to wager that he has had his eye on a specific guy since before he took the job.
jaws. - April 17, 2010
Yeah it be nice to have that flashy NFL starting QB but I dont see Pasho as a long term deal at RT. Thats not the only hole we have. We Should take the best guy for the money at seven and look for talent that can be trained up in later rounds. As for BB I think the Redskins are trying to get rid of Campbell and Hanyneswortless maybe they can work a deal. BB can back up till DM goes down for his season ending injury.
Suppa Bob - April 17, 2010
By the way, how do you pronounce Pashos? As Pah-shos or Pay-shos?
BuenosAires_Dawg - April 19, 2010
Pah – shos
SpecialBrownie - April 19, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.