Why The Browns Should Draft Carson Wentz #2 Overall

It is often said that quarterback is the most important position in football, and possibly all of team sports. If that is the case, then there should be a correlation between good quarterback play and winning, and bad quarterback play and losing. In the table below I show each NFL team's passing stats since the Cleveland Browns re-entered the league in 1999:

NFL Team	Complete	Attempts	Comp Pct	Yards Passing	---TDs---	---INTs--	Passing Eff	W/L Record	-Win Pct-
New England Patriots	6,047	9,643	.627	67,147	495	205	91.61	181 - 91 - 0	.665
Indianapolis Colts	6,255	9,873	.634	70,295	509	253	91.05	181 - 91 - 0	.665
Green Bay Packers	6,040	9,624	.628	67,681	515	253	90.57	169 - 102 - 1	.623
Pittsburgh Steelers	5,324	8,635	.617	60,436	394	255	89.87	168 - 103 - 1	.619
New Orleans Saints	6,431	10,163	.633	71,531	502	287	88.84	142 - 130 - 0	.522
San Diego Chargers	5,680	9,121	.623	62,867	426	267	86.07	139 - 133 - 0	.511
Denver Broncos	5,696	9,285	.613	64,183	438	262	85.97	161 - 111 - 0	.592
Dallas Cowboys	5,467	8,893	.615	60,583	415	295	83.43	136 - 136 - 0	.500
Seattle Seahawks	5,212	8,614	.605	56,777	386	246	83.01	151 - 121 - 0	.555
Philadelphia Eagles	5,650	9,535	.593	62,647	418	254	82.35	157 - 114 - 1	.579
Minnesota Vikings	5,388	8,712	.618	58,079	380	285	82.31	136 - 135 - 1	.502
Houston Texans	4,511	7,296	.618	48,291	280	212	81.87	97 - 127 - 0	.433
Kansas City Chiefs	5,277	8,745	.603	57,642	349	238	81.80	129 - 143 - 0	.474
NFL Average minus Browns	5,465	9,058	.603	59,098	380	269	81.17	N/A	N/A
Atlanta Falcons	5,379	8,966	.600	58,117	366	261	80.56	134 - 137 - 1	.494
Saint Louis Rams	5,838	9,501	.614	62,498	377	309	80.37	120 - 151 - 1	.443
New York Giants	5,593	9,461	.591	62,429	397	288	80.14	142 - 130 - 0	.522
Washington Redskins	5,393	9,000	.599	58,065	349	254	80.07	117 - 155 - 0	.430
San Francisco 49ers	5,048	8,492	.594	53,249	342	232	79.79	127 - 144 - 1	.469
Tennessee Titans	5,195	8,724	.595	56,808	344	257	79.71	137 - 135 - 0	.504
Cincinnati Bengals	5,507	9,137	.603	57,505	379	288	79.22	128 - 142 - 2	.474
Jacksonville Jaguars	5,225	8,842	.591	54,820	330	238	78.39	117 - 155 - 0	.430
Tampa Bay Buccaneers	5,359	8,969	.598	55,708	343	267	78.10	123 - 149 - 0	.452
Carolina Panthers	4,995	8,564	.583	55,069	355	276	77.87	136 - 135 - 1	.502
Buffalo Bills	5,144	8,620	.597	53,429	329	273	77.17	116 - 156 - 0	.426
Oakland Raiders	5,293	9,098	.582	56,985	341	272	76.70	104 - 168 - 0	.382
Baltimore Ravens	5,289	8,996	.588	54,529	331	266	76.28	157 - 115 - 0	.577
New York Jets	5,052	8,535	.592	53,097	325	292	75.77	135 - 137 - 0	.496
Miami Dolphins	5,320	9,002	.591	55,283	319	284	75.59	130 - 142 - 0	.478
Detroit Lions	5,868	10,046	.584	61,740	371	326	75.16	95 - 177 - 0	.349
Arizona Cardinals	5,672	9,705	.584	60,856	345	335	74.38	120 - 152 - 0	.411
Chicago Bears	5,259	9,010	.584	53,690	345	308	74.07	135 - 137 - 0	.496
Cleveland Browns	5,075	8,832	.575	51,863	299	309	71.14	87 - 185 - 0	.320

Clearly, there is a strong correlation between teams with excellent quarterback play and teams with winning records. Teams that had a passer efficiency of greater than 80.00 had an overall record of 2460-2110-6 (.538 winning percentage; 8.6 wins per season); while teams that had a passer efficiency of less than 80.00 had an overall record of 1845-2231-4 (.453 winning percentage; 7.25 wins per season).

The correlation becomes even stronger when we increase the cut-off point slightly. Teams that had a passer efficiency of greater than 82.00 had an overall record of 1721-1267-4 (.576 winning percentage; 9.2 wins per season); while teams that had a passer efficiency of less than 82.00 had an overall record of 2584-3074-6 (.457 winning percentage; 7.3 wins per season).

Conversely, teams with an overall record of .500 or greater had an average passer efficiency rating of 84.48 (going up to 85.94 for teams averaging 9+ wins a season), while sub-.500 teams had an average passer efficiency rating of 77.58.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the Cleveland Browns, with by far the lowest passer efficiency rating (71.14), also had by far the worst overall record (85-187-0; .320 winning percentage; 5.1 wins per season).

There are some anomalies in the above table, most notably the Baltimore Ravens, who posted the NFL's 7th-best record (157-115-0; .577 winning percentage; 9.2 wins per season) and 7th-worst passer efficiency rating (76.28). Of course, the Ravens were able to win a large number of games (and a Super Bowl in 2000) with an historically strong defense, but even they eventually secured their own franchise quarterback (Joe Flacco; 75-47 record; 84.7 passer efficiency rating) who led them to an equally large number of wins and a second Super Bowl victory in 2012.

Some other anomalies occur at the other end of the spectrum, where the Oakland Raiders and the Saint Louis (now Los Angeles) Rams seem to have better passer efficiency ratings than their overall records would suggest. So let's take a closer look at both teams:

Oakland Raiders QBs	Complete	Attempts	Comp Pct	Yards Passing	---TDs---	---INTs--	Passing Eff	W/L Record	-Win Pct-
1999 - 2002 (Gannon)	1,372	2,167	.633	15,097	105	44	91.56	41 - 23 - 0	.641
2003 - 2015	3,921	6,931	.566	41,888	236	228	72.05	63 - 145 - 0	.303

When Rich Gannon was playing at a Hall of Fame level (1999 to 2002), the Raiders were one of the best teams in the NFL. Gannon suffered serious injuries in 2003 and 2004, the second of which forced his retirement from football. From 2003 to 2013, the Raiders' revolving door at quarterback was almost as bad as the Browns', with no less than seventeen quarterbacks getting at least one start, and no single quarterback earning more than 28 starts. The Raiders' quarterback situation was not finally stabilized until 2014, when rookie Derek Carr locked down the job - he appears to be the franchise quarterback that the Raiders spent a decade searching for.

Saint Louis Rams QBs	Complete	Attempts	Comp Pct	Yards Passing	---TDs---	---INTs--	Passing Eff	W/L Record	-Win Pct-
1999 - 2003 (Warner)	1,887	2,903	.650	22,363	163	110	91.28	56 - 24 - 0	.700
2004 - 2015	3,951	6,598	.599	40,135	214	199	75.57	64 - 127 - 1	.336

The Rams had one of the great offensive juggernauts of all time with running back Marshall Faulk, wide receivers Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt, and quarterback Kurt Warner leading the way. While the Greatest Show on Turf lasted, the Rams were a perennial favorite to win the Super Bowl (and they did so following the 1999 season), but when their quarterback play deteriorated the wins dried up. The Rams have had sixteen starting quarterbacks since 2004 and they are still searching for the face of their franchise.

Continued below in Comments section....

 

Now let's get back to your Cleveland Browns. The Browns' quarterbacks have a passer efficiency rating a full ten points below the NFL average (71.14 to 81.17). This is obviously a great disparity, but what exactly does it mean on the football field? Let's assume that the Browns and their "average" opponent each throw 40 passes in a game, and that each QB completes passes at his normal rate (.575 for Browns' QB, .603 for average QB). Here's what the box score would look like:

I'm trying to find a passer efficiency stat by player, so in the meantime I'll use the admittedly controversial QBR:

1. Wilson - 3rd (75)
2. Dalton - 2nd (35)
3. Palmer - 1st (1)
4. Brady - 6th (199)
5. Cousins - 4th (102)
6. Brees - 2nd (3rd)
7. Taylor - 6th (180)
8. Newton - 1st (1)
9. Stafford - 1st (1)
10. Smith - 1st (1)
11. Roethlisberger - 1st (14)
12. Rivers - 1st (4)
13. E.Manning - 1st (1)
14. McCown - 3rd (81)
15. Rodgers - 1st (24)


What this says to me is that consensus #1 picks are pretty good but there are a surprising amount of sleeper draft prospects. Brock Osweiler (2nd 57) is thought to be next, though we'll find out whether or not that was woefully premature.


But again, those are just overall trends. It doesn't matter what those great QBs did in the past, especially since colleges used to prepare QBs for the NFL. These days there are very few of those period, let alone great ones. So it comes back to whether you think Carson is worth it.


I think he has great upside with some serious risks. I think Goff is inflated substantially by the system and opposing defenses. Not a bad prospect but a much harder one to justify this early in the draft. I could understand the Wentz pick much easier even if I disagree.

 

Browns should trade down for more picks. Draft Eze, Braxton Miller, then Kennan Reynolds at QB in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

I hear you. Every top draft pick is "scary" (to use your term) - Joey Bosa might be the next Courtney Brown, Laremy Tunsil might be the next Tony Mandarich, Myles Jack might be the next Brian Bosworth, etc. Quarterbacks are particularly scary not only because the importance of the position, but also because they do seem to bust out at a higher rate than other positions. For every tremendous success like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb and Andrew Luck, there is an equally spectacular bust like Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith and JaMarcus Russell, and a whole bunch of journeymen like Mark Sanchez and Sam Bradford and Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder and Jake Locker and Robert Griffin III and so on and so forth.

Carson Wentz isn't a sure thing like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck, but most franchise quarterbacks were not sure things when they were drafted. And the Browns don't need the next Manning or Luck - they would be fine with the next Ben Roethlisberger or Joe Flacco, two quarterbacks to whom Wentz has been favorably compared.

Carson Wentz might be a franchise quarterback, he might be a journeyman, or he might even be an outright bust. If the Browns draft Jalen Ramsey or Myles Jack or Joey Bosa, then they will definitely not get the franchise quarterback that they have been searching for over the past seventeen years. But with Carson Wentz (or Jared Goff) they might. That might be a scary risk, but it's a risk worth taking.

I'm with you on the risk worth taking part. As long as it's not Jamarcus-Russell-obvious that a bust is coming, a QB is a definite need in the NFL......and you're the Browns. What's the downside? A losing season?

 

Reaching in the draft because your team stinks and the other qbs are worse than normal is the kind of logic that keeps a franchise in the basement.

I don't think there's anything about either qb that resembles a top 3 pick but desperation is distorting that.

Problem is... #2 is the pick they have. Needs rarely intersect with value. You don't get to say, you know what? I need a qb and this goff kid really looks like the 10th best player.. But I've got the 2, so.. Im gonna stick here, boy sure do wish I had the #10.

 

Looks like someone thinks that one of these guys is a franchise quarterback....

 

Looks like someone thinks that one of these guys is a franchise quarterback....

that looks pretty lucrative for Tennessee. I think they cleaned up:

1,2,2,3 + next year's 1 (probably early).

So assuming Wentz is off the table, do you love Goff at 2?

 

So assuming Wentz is off the table, do you love Goff at 2?

No, I don't love Goff at #2, but I'd still take him because he's a consensus top-10 overall prospect and the Browns have such a pressing need at QB.

A trade down would be nice in theory, but your likely trading partners (San Fran and Philly) would probably be drafting Goff.

So that leaves staying at #2 and taking Goff; trading down to mid-first round (if possible) and taking a flyer on Paxton Lynch (a real developmental guy); or simply going best player available and hoping/praying that RG3 has a miraculous career turn around. Or wait until next year, again....

Goff at #2 seems like the best of the options.

 

If you take Goff, are you much more tempted / obligated to take a project like cardale a few rounds later?

 

I don't like Goff for the Browns in the AFC north, slight build and decent arm strength. Over under 2nd set of Divisional games before he gets injured

 

If you take Goff, are you much more tempted / obligated to take a project like cardale a few rounds later?

Stick with Goff and RG3, give Goff 3-4 years, if he doesn't develop into the franchise QB, try again in 2019 draft.

 

Not just because I'm a homer.. but

taking Cardale somewhere along the line could be very interesting
body is built for punishment.. and in the AFC North, there will be punishment
Browns want their QB to stay in the pocket.. and only run as last resort
the cannon will come in very handy in that horrible weather and wind

 

QB's value (to me, at least) consistent accuracy and anticipation for their throws. I like Goff more than Wentz because I find him to have greater command in both of those things.

Not that I wouldn't be on board with a Wentz pick. He has great physical potential, charismatic and is a quick study. However, Goff has shown traits that we would be asking Wentz to develop over time.
Goff might not be as gifted in stature, but he makes up for it in other regards.

 

In 2016, the Cleveland Browns have two picks at the top of the NFL draft (#2 and #32). Isn't it about time that the Browns finally figure this thing out and draft their franchise quarterback? Isn't seventeen years of putrid quarterback play enough already?

Have the Browns not been trying to do that all along? How has that been turning out? Pretty badly because they make bad picks and the team has no depth unless you're looking for shitty players, in which they have the most depth in the NFL. The Browns haven't necessarily tried drafting a QB as high as #2 but they've drafted some first rounders and some other guys who along with those first rounders, never stood a chance.

The Browns will continue to struggle until they find their franchise quarterback

They will. They'll also never find or even know they had a franchise QB as long as they throw him in there with nothing but CFL players surrounding him. He'll die first.

A rookie quarterback will fail without talent around him.

Absolutely, he will. That's the situation we have.

However, getting a franchise quarterback is not always a quick fix, it is often just the start of the process.

Do you think with as bad a team as the Browns are and will continue to be in the near future (you've admitted they'll be bad in 2016,) that the QB taken at #2 will even survive the process. I have my doubts, so why do it? They'll just have to find another by the time they climb out of the hole they are in. They could at least use the #2 to help get out of that hole before drafting a guy to get murdered with their most valuable pick.

With some savvy talent evaluation, the Steelers were able to fill in the holes around Bradshaw

Saavy talent evaluation is not the Browns' forte. I wouldn't hold my breath for that sceanrio to unfold in Cleveland. The Browns suck at evaluating all talent but until they show they can get that part right, their selection at QB will be moot. Again, if that's the case, they are taking their most valuable pick and throwing it away, even on a truly good QB, when they can't get any other part of it right. They should try that part first.

The Cleveland Browns have a record of 47-97 (.326 winning percentage) during Joe Thomas's tenure. Some impact.

It isn't Joe Thomas' fault that the Browns can't make more good picks like the Thomas pick was. It won't be the QB taken at #2's fault that he gets destroyed. They've taken many QBs and all of them share that same record of futility. Same logic applies. No impact made by a QB so I guess they shouldn't do that again either. Difference is, Thomas has always been solid and reliable and a piece in place in case the Browns had ever gotten their heads out of their asses and made other smart picks. The QBs taken have not been neither solid, nor reliable. Thomas was a good pick and any "rational" person should make that pick over and over again given the chance. They just shouldn't fuck up every other pick they make after that point.

But what about a quarterback having to sit for a year or two? Isn't that guy by definition not a franchise quarterback?

Speaking of Aaron Rodgers, he wasn't taken at #2. No, he was taken by a team that wasn't littered with holes. He was taken by a team in the lower first round. Why can't the Browns fill holes and do the same? They can become a decent team and still find a QB. A team does not have to reach rock bottom to find their guy. Most good teams don't.

The Browns are going to be a bad team in 2016, maybe the worst team in the NFL. Do the Browns really need an immediate impact safety or linebacker?

If the Browns are going to be bad in 2016...and they will be when you take a 3-13 team and lose four of your better players from that team...what impact will a QB taken at #2 make? He HAS to play when taken at #2. He will get killed. The only impact made will be the QB hitting the ground. If he isn't going to turn this team around, and you already assume that the team is going to be bad (even after drafting QB at #2,) then why put a QB through that when the Browns will be right up there next year and they can always get a QB then, only not have him endure the confidence-shattering shit show that is about to commence for the 2016 season?

The Browns drafted Tim Couch #1 overall in the 1999 draft, and they've been waiting until next year ever since.

And they will continue to wait because the entire roster has been dog shit and they've blown their top picks most years (not all on QBs.)

And the Browns don't need the next Manning or Luck - they would be fine with the next Ben Roethlisberger or Joe Flacco, two quarterbacks to whom Wentz has been favorably compared.

No way. Add Joe Flacco to this team and what do you get? The Browns. The same shitty Browns. Joe Flacco sure as hell is not going to save this team. Anyway, if the Browns just need a Flacco or a Roethlisberger, those guys weren't found as high as #2. It would seem that with that mindset, you wouldn't be all in on the "have to take a QB at #2 or continue to suck forever" train.

If the Browns draft Jalen Ramsey or Myles Jack or Joey Bosa, then they will definitely not get the franchise quarterback that they have been searching for over the past seventeen years.

No. Because those guys aren't QBs. But it isn't as if the Browns haven't been trying to find a QB. They just suck at it. Part of why they suck at it is because they're trying to add a sprinkle of sugar to a shit sandwich and hoping a food critic will call it devine. All of the players you just mentioned could have a chance to be impact guys and if the wins don't come, then the Browns can get their QB with their inevitable top 2 pick next year. And if those guys DO make enough impact to change the losing culture and bring wins, then the Browns can go and get their Joe Flacco or Ben Roethlisberger next year with their somewhat lower pick since that is all they really need.

 

No, I don't love Goff at #2, but I'd still take him because he's a consensus top-10 overall prospect and the Browns have such a pressing need at QB.

A trade down would be nice in theory, but your likely trading partners (San Fran and Philly) would probably be drafting Goff.

So that leaves staying at #2 and taking Goff; trading down to mid-first round (if possible) and taking a flyer on Paxton Lynch (a real developmental guy); or simply going best player available and hoping/praying that RG3 has a miraculous career turn around. Or wait until next year, again....

Goff at #2 seems like the best of the options.

Well, to be fair. If the options are stay at 2 and pick someone then goff ID the guy. However... The rams just unloaded a shit ton of assets on the Titans, so, if for some reason Philly and/or SF want to do the same, you have to consider that. What about SF's 1 this year, next year, a second and Kaepernick? Keeping in mind that you're cornering Denvers veteran qb market. (I'm not sure I'd do it, I'm just saying if wentz was the only guy you wanted...)

 

Have the Browns not been trying to do that all along? How has that been turning out? Pretty badly because they make bad picks and the team has no depth unless you're looking for [Mark May]ty players, in which they have the most depth in the NFL. The Browns haven't necessarily tried drafting a QB as high as #2 but they've drafted some first rounders and some other guys who along with those first rounders, never stood a chance.



They will. They'll also never find or even know they had a franchise QB as long as they throw him in there with nothing but CFL players surrounding him. He'll die first.



Absolutely, he will. That's the situation we have.



Do you think with as bad a team as the Browns are and will continue to be in the near future (you've admitted they'll be bad in 2016,) that the QB taken at #2 will even survive the process. I have my doubts, so why do it? They'll just have to find another by the time they climb out of the hole they are in. They could at least use the #2 to help get out of that hole before drafting a guy to get murdered with their minsaluable pick.



Saavy talent evaluation is not the Browns forte. I wouldn't hold my breath for that sceanrio to unfold in Cleveland. The Browns suck at evaluating all talent but until they show they can get that oart right, their selection at QB will be moot. Again, if that's the case, they are taking their most valuable pick and throwing it away, even on a truly good QB, when they can't get any other part of it right. They should try that part first.



It isn't Joe Thomas' fault that the Browns can't make more good picks like the Thomas pick was. It won't be the QB taken at #2's fault that he gets destroyed. They've taken many QBs and all of them share that same record of futility. Same logic applies. No impact made by a QB so I guess they shouldn't do that again either. Difference is, Thomas has always been solid and reliable and in place had the Browns ever gotten their heads out of their asses and made other smart picks. The QBs taken have not been neither solid, nor reliable. Thonas was a good pick and any "rational" person should make that pick over and over again given the chance. They just shouldn't fuck up every other pick they make after that point.



Speaking of Aaron Rodgers, he wasn't taken at #2. No, he was taken by a team that wasn't littered with holes. He was taken by a team in the lower first round. Why can't the Browns fill holes and do the same? They can become a decent team and still find a QB. A team does not have to reach rock bottom to find their guy. Most good teams don't.



If the Browns are going to be bad in 2016...and they will be when you take a 3-13 team and lose four of your better players from that team...what impact will a QB taken at #2 make? He HAS to play when taken at #2. He will get killed. The only impact made will be the QB hitting the ground. If he isn't going to turn this team around, and you already assume that the team is going to be bad (even after drafting QB at #2,) then why put a QB through that when the Browns will be right up there next year and they can always get a QB then, only not have him endure the confidence-shattering [Mark May] show that is about to commence for the 2016 season?



And they will continue to wait because the entire roster has been dog [Mark May] and they've blown their top picks most years (not all on QBs.)



No way. Add Joe Flacco to this team and what do you get? The Browns. The same [Mark May]ty Browns. Joe Flacco sure as hell is not going to save this team. Anyway, if the Browns just need a Flacco or a Roethlisberger, those guys weren't found as high as #2. It would seem that with that mindset, you wouldn't be all in on the "have to take a QB at #2 or continue to suck forever" train.



No. Because those guys aren't QBs. But it isn't as if the Browns haven't been trying to find a QB. They just suck at it. Part of why they suck at it is because they're trying to add a sprinkle of sugar to a [Mark May] sandwich and hoping a food critic will call it devine. All of the players you just mentioned could have a chance to be impact guys and if the wins don't come, then the Browns can get their QB with their inevitable top 2 pick next year. And if those guys DO make enough impact to change the losing culture and bring wins, then the Browns can go and get their Joe Flacco or Ben Roethlisberger next year with their somewhat lower pick since that is all they really need.

So, who do you take instead that's gonna solve all those problems? It's only one pick. And it's rookie capped.