Chiefs Browns looking to trade Alex Mack and Joe Thomas - Page 5

beach tribe · 11-01-2015, 02:28 PM

Browns looking to trade Alex Mack and Joe Thomas

The news is rather surprising given that Thomas is under contract through 2018 -- he has no guaranteed money for 2016 -- and Mack, who was almost lost in free agency to the Jacksonville Jaguars a season ago, has a no-trade clause. Mack -- who was listed by our Marc Sessler as a prime trade candidate earlier this week -- can opt out of his long-term deal after this season, though, which could be a motivating factor.

Still, this is an interesting and rather unorthodox approach to the trade deadline. The team likely feels they can replace Mack with 2015 first-round pick Cam Erving and slot one of their other highly-regarded offensive linemen in for Thomas.

Rapoport added that the team is also open to dealing former high-priced free agent acquisition Paul Kruger and Barkevious Mingo, the No. 6 overall pick from the 2013 draft. This, after already dealing Trent Richardson, their No. 3 overall pick from the 2012 draft. If you're just now sensing a pattern here, catch up. This is Browns football.

This would be the ultimate white flag raised on the 2015 season considering the Browns were going to hang their hat on the run game. Thomas has been one of the franchise's greatest players and, in a way, a trade to a contending opponent would be bittersweet. On one hand, he could finally put his skills to better use, but on the other, he would be departing a team that hinged on his professionalism for years.

Many of these talks often break down but scars from certain names leaking remain. So if general manager Ray Farmer is interested in getting it done, the clock is ticking. Nov. 3, 4 p.m. ET is coming quite soon.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...and-joe-thomas

chiefzilla1501 · 11-01-2015, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

The offensive line has given up 30+ sacks in 8 games. THAT. IS. A. PROBLEM.

Why are people trying to act like the offensive line is good or even average and that it's just Alex bringing them down? This is just idiotic.

The poor OL performance is a function of both poor OL play and a QB who doesn't make his OL better. If you give Alex 2-3 more seconds to throw, do you think that's going to get him out of the habit of throwing to his checkdowns? He'll be the same damn QB but he'll take less sacks.

-King- · 11-01-2015, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

zilla is 100% correct, but now anything outside of homerism is banned.

Homerism for a 3-5 team? Wut?

If we can improve a very important position on our team for the next 4-5 years, I'm all for it. Being against it is stupid.

Discuss Thrower · 11-01-2015, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The problem with Alex Smith is he's dependent on a running game that will help him control clock, a defense that can close games for him, and now he's also dependent on WRs and OL as well? How many elite players do you have to put around him before you realize he's part of the problem? How do we possibly come up with the payroll to put 21 pro bowlers around him?

Exactly this. Can't say this any better.

-King- · 11-01-2015, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The poor OL performance is a function of both poor OL play and a QB who doesn't make his OL better. If you give Alex 2-3 more seconds to throw, do you think that's going to get him out of the habit of throwing to his checkdowns? He'll be the same damn QB but he'll take less sacks.

I'd love an offense that took less stats. Taking less stats is EXTREMELY beneficial for having good drives you know.

-King- · 11-01-2015, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The problem with Alex Smith is he's dependent on a running game that will help him control clock, a defense that can close games for him, and now he's also dependent on WRs and OL as well? How many elite players do you have to put around him before you realize he's part of the problem? How do we possibly come up with the payroll to put 21 pro bowlers around him?

Has anybody said Alex Smith isn't part of the problem? Quote please?

And no one has said that every player has to be a probowler. But improving one of the worst units in professional football is a smart thing to do.

chiefzilla1501 · 11-01-2015, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

I'd love an offense that took less stats. Taking less stats is EXTREMELY beneficial for having good drives you know.

I've made it pretty damn simple. I have two demands for Alex Smith, but now I'll add a third.

Convert third downs
Close games
And now my third... throw into the ****ing end zone

If you take less sacks but can't do any of those things, what ****ing good does it do? When Smith has all the time in the world, he still throws 2 yards on 3rd and 8. Alex Smith has had impressive comebacks where he plays aggressive, then becomes a different QB on the last drive and turtles up. Alex Smith has been decently impressive this year between the 20's then won't throw a single pass into the end zone.

So no, taking away a few sacks when the above is the big part of the problem, puts lipstick on the pig.

**SAUTO** · 11-01-2015, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Did someone really just suggest that the Bears would give up Alshon Jeffrey for a sixth round pick?

Is there a jenkum leak in your house?

I could have sworn I've seen at least one article posted here that thought that was feasible.

**BigMeatballDave** · 11-01-2015, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

zilla is 100% correct, but now anything outside of homerism is banned.

Completely untrue.

**SAUTO** · 11-01-2015, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Homerism for a 3-5 team? Wut?

If we can improve a very important position on our team for the next 4-5 years, I'm all for it. Being against it is stupid.

This

jonzie04 · 11-01-2015, 05:08 PM

I'd at least pick up the phone about Thomas. I mean he is a Hall of Fame LT who can likely give us 3-4 years. I wouldn't go trading away an early pick for him, but if the Browns want to let him go for a mid round pick I'd strongly consider it

-King- · 11-01-2015, 05:12 PM

Taking less sacks leads to easier 3rd downs which leads to a higher 3rd down percentage. Converting on more 3rd down leads to longer drives. Longer drives lead to more touchdowns. More touchdowns lead to more wins.

It's absolutely silly to say that taking less sacks wouldn't help this offense or any offense for that matter. When sacks knock you from 2nd and 6 to 3rd and 14, yes... drives will stall and the offense will suck. This isn't rocket surgery.

Discuss Thrower · 11-01-2015, 05:13 PM

The team can't afford to trade picks for old veterans. Too many depth issues on defense.

**SAUTO** · 11-01-2015, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Taking less sacks leads to easier 3rd downs which leads to a higher 3rd down percentage. Converting on more 3rd down leads to longer drives. Longer drives lead to more touchdowns. More touchdowns lead to more wins.

It's absolutely silly to say that taking less sacks wouldn't help this offense or any offense for that matter.

Longer drives also helps keep the defense off the field. Taking less sacks helps the defense also.

**Baby Lee** · 11-01-2015, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I've made it pretty damn simple. I have two demands for Alex Smith, but now I'll add a third.

Convert third downs
Close games
And now my third... throw into the ****ing end zone

If you take less sacks but can't do any of those things, what ****ing good does it do? When Smith has all the time in the world, he still throws 2 yards on 3rd and 8. Alex Smith has had impressive comebacks where he plays aggressive, then becomes a different QB on the last drive and turtles up. Alex Smith has been decently impressive this year between the 20's then won't throw a single pass into the end zone.

So no, taking away a few sacks when the above is the big part of the problem, puts lipstick on the pig.

**** you and your demands

If you're convinced he'll never be better, not matter how good the rest of the team is, AND you're convinced that the team sucks in other phases and areas simply because he's holding them back, AND you're convinced he'll never be better so there's not use in improving the team to see, **** your demands. You get to watch, the end.

**BigMeatballDave** · 11-01-2015, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Homerism for a 3-5 team? Wut?

If we can improve a very important position on our team for the next 4-5 years, I'm all for it. Being against it is stupid.

She wants the team to implode so Clark will blow it up. Of course we know for certain now that this isn't happening anytime soon.

11-01-2015, 02:28 PM
beach tribe Keep doubting J MFing Houston Join Date: May 2007 Location: ft.lauderdale Casino cash: $4778036	Browns looking to trade Alex Mack and Joe Thomas Browns looking to trade Alex Mack and Joe Thomas The news is rather surprising given that Thomas is under contract through 2018 -- he has no guaranteed money for 2016 -- and Mack, who was almost lost in free agency to the Jacksonville Jaguars a season ago, has a no-trade clause. Mack -- who was listed by our Marc Sessler as a prime trade candidate earlier this week -- can opt out of his long-term deal after this season, though, which could be a motivating factor. Still, this is an interesting and rather unorthodox approach to the trade deadline. The team likely feels they can replace Mack with 2015 first-round pick Cam Erving and slot one of their other highly-regarded offensive linemen in for Thomas. Rapoport added that the team is also open to dealing former high-priced free agent acquisition Paul Kruger and Barkevious Mingo, the No. 6 overall pick from the 2013 draft. This, after already dealing Trent Richardson, their No. 3 overall pick from the 2012 draft. If you're just now sensing a pattern here, catch up. This is Browns football. This would be the ultimate white flag raised on the 2015 season considering the Browns were going to hang their hat on the run game. Thomas has been one of the franchise's greatest players and, in a way, a trade to a contending opponent would be bittersweet. On one hand, he could finally put his skills to better use, but on the other, he would be departing a team that hinged on his professionalism for years. Many of these talks often break down but scars from certain names leaking remain. So if general manager Ray Farmer is interested in getting it done, the clock is ticking. Nov. 3, 4 p.m. ET is coming quite soon. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...and-joe-thomas
Posts: 21,429

11-01-2015, 05:08 PM	#70
jonzie04 MVP Join Date: Feb 2014 Casino cash: $5766817	I'd at least pick up the phone about Thomas. I mean he is a Hall of Fame LT who can likely give us 3-4 years. I wouldn't go trading away an early pick for him, but if the Browns want to let him go for a mid round pick I'd strongly consider it __________________ 2015 Adopt A chief : Marcus Peters
Posts: 6,779

11-01-2015, 05:12 PM	#71
-King- ▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓ Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $2255743	Taking less sacks leads to easier 3rd downs which leads to a higher 3rd down percentage. Converting on more 3rd down leads to longer drives. Longer drives lead to more touchdowns. More touchdowns lead to more wins. It's absolutely silly to say that taking less sacks wouldn't help this offense or any offense for that matter. When sacks knock you from 2nd and 6 to 3rd and 14, yes... drives will stall and the offense will suck. This isn't rocket surgery. __________________ 🏁
Posts: 63,907

11-01-2015, 05:13 PM	#72
Discuss Thrower "You like to drink?" Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: "I like to drink." Casino cash: $3026869	The team can't afford to trade picks for old veterans. Too many depth issues on defense. __________________ Chiefs 2016 Opponents: Home: JAX, TEN, NO, TB, NYJ. Away: HOU, IND, ATL, CAR, PIT Chiefs 2017 Opponents: Home: BUF, MIA, PHI, WSH, AFC North. Away: NE, NYJ, NYG, DAL, AFC South
Posts: 42,870