Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 52 of 52
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    15,964
    @NBCdianna: Sources in Cleveland, Browns NOT interested in trading for Kirk Cousins. They believe QB Brian Hoyer is a better option.

    From the local channel 4 reporter. She actually does a pretty good job. I can't say I blame Cleveland since Hoyer looked pretty good last year before his injury.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    808 state
    Posts
    42,256
    Keim's blog had these blurbs to mention:

    Kirk Cousins

    The skinny: Cousins has told the Redskins he would welcome a trade and it’s hard to blame him considering Griffin remains the future. I’m sure the Redskins will listen to offers, but will any team make a deal worthwhile? In three starts, Cousins showed some good and bad. He was more decisive with his reads and getting rid of the ball than Griffin. But inaccuracy, and the occasional forced pass, led to interceptions. He showed poise in the pocket and a willingness to make tough throws, which can lead to big plays or mistakes. But he struggled in his final start and still has a lot to prove. How much would he improve given more playing time? That’s a question any team checking him out must answer. One executive (whose team is not looking for a quarterback) said Cousins could start for some teams right now and, he said, the Redskins might be able to get a “second or third for him.” Cousins’ ceiling is not as high as Griffin’s, but he has shown he can help.
    Another thing to think about when it comes to Cousins and the Browns. If Cleveland falls in love with a quarterback and has to move up, it’ll take a couple draft picks. It doesn’t make sense for them to turn around and trade another pick to land Cousins. If they don’t love any of the quarterbacks in this draft enough to surrender picks? Then perhaps Cousins is an option. But if I’m Cleveland, there’s no chance I’d give up a high second-round pick for him.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mount Airy, MD
    Posts
    31,030
    Oh if Cleveland has success moving up in the draft they will forget about Cousins. I also have heard that they liked Hoyer too and it does make sense. But IMO they won't win with either one of these players, you don't contended year after year with "guys".

    Cleveland is my #2 team so in a way I'd like to see them trade up, they have the Colts pick too, and get one of the rookies in this class. But if they are going to drop a 2 on Cousins we'll take it. I just don't see that happening.
    6 Footers For Bogey Really Suck

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    36,989
    I figure you would do well to get a 3rd and a conditional 5th or higher for him. Given the Raiders propensity for picking stiffs they should be considering him. Given Romo's back they should be considering him.
    Gang Way!

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    808 state
    Posts
    42,256
    I'd take that deal right now

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
    Posts
    15,059
    Me too. Where can I sign off on this deal?
    I bleed Burgundy, I piss gold, and crap on Blue Stars!

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Mskins View Post
    Would be surprising to see a team offering a 2nd rounder, even more a first. But it wouldn't be the first time we see crazy moves in the NFL right ?
    If i'm not mistake Cleveland has (2) 3rd round picks. Id like to see a trade for a 3rd rounder with a conditional 3rd rounder based on starts and making playoffs (they have a pretty good defense so playoffs are actually possible).
    "Albatross!! my favorite word for any conversation"
    --Q

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.