NFL Draft Rumors: Browns Unwilling to Trade No. 22 Pick To St. Louis

Certainly the biggest story of next month’s NFL draft is where Baylor quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III will land. Almost everyone is saying the speedy dual-threat QB is a lock to go second overall after Andrew Luck, but the St. Louis Rams, currently slotted with second pick, are all set wit quarterback Sam Bradford. So that’s fueled rampant trade rumors and speculation coming out of the combine, particularly centered on the Washington Redskins and your Cleveland Browns.

Mary Kay Cabot added a little to the story on Sunday morning, relaying a report from St. Louis that the Browns are not willing to throw in their No. 22 pick in the first round to move up and acquire the Rams pick.

This could take the Browns out of the running for RGIII – at the moment. The St. Louis report still rates the Redskins as the frontrunners to land the pick. There’s still plenty of time for things to change and develop, as it’s the silly season, and every negotiation starts with a hardline.

The Post-Dispatch details exactly what’s on the table from all of the other Rams potential trade partners as well:

• Washington (No. 6): The Redskins appear willing to trade their first-round pick next year, as well as their No. 6 overall pick this year. But they aren’t willing to include their second-rounder this year, which isn’t acceptable to the Rams.

• Miami (No. 8): This one appears to be dead in the water, somewhere off Florida’s Gold Coast. After losing the tug-of-war for coach Jeff Fisher, the Dolphins aren’t eager to do business with the Rams — or do the Rams any favors.

• Seattle (No. 12): No chance. The last thing the Rams want to do is send RG3 to a division rival and face him twice a year. The same applies for Arizona, which picks 13th.

[Related: NFL Draft: The Browns can’t win a bidding war]


  • Steve

     Yes, decisions that everyone immediately recognizes as dumb and inexplicable happen on draft day. I happen to follow the Browns, so I’ve seen that firsthand. But that doesn’t mean they are the norm or reasonable.

  • Steve

    I’m just showing that in your example you’ve devalued the future pick so much that is has, at best, a 0% ROI. That’s just not reasonable.

  • Tim K.

    I’m sorry the example I came up with on-the-fly doesn’t meet your strict standards. Doesn’t change the point I’m trying to make, but I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.  

  • Exactly. This is posturing, plain and simple. This year’s late 1st rounder is far less valuable than next years pick. Trade both of this year’s picks.

  • BenRM

    I think it’s funny how something “isn’t acceptable to the Rams.” Okay, then, Rams. I guess you’re stuck at number 2 and replacing Bradford w/ Griffin or drafting someone who isn’t the BPA. 

  • BenRM

    Took the words right out of my mouth. 

  • BenRM

    In a strange way, the team the Browns should be negotiating with is Washington, not St. Louis. 

  • ClevelandPhil

    Redskins don’t want to send their 2nd rounder which is unacceptable to Rams.  Browns don’t want to send #22 which is unacceptable to Rams.

    Does anyone else think we should just call the Rams bluff and sit at #4?  The only reason the Rams have the power is because they don’t need a QB.  But couldn’t that put us in a position of power because we KNOW they don’t need a QB?  I say have fun with that pick St. Louis, we’re going to bank on RGIII being there at #4.  What about trading with Minnesota (at a much reduced price) if we get scared the Redskins are going to leapfrog us there?