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....

 

So, I'll ask again, staying at #2, who do you take instead, and for [Mark May]s and giggles, assume the Rams traded up to get Bosa.

Aww man....my answer was gonna be Bosa.

 

Right so, SLOWLY do that over a couple years, then get a QB that will take a couple more years to develop, so, these guys you take now will be off their rookie deals by the time you get [Mark May] at QB. And why would they want to stay? What happens when its time to draft some WR's?

Those are good questions. One would have to hope that if the team is assmbled successfully over a few years, that wins would start to come and they would see some promise in what is developing.

The argument goes both ways. Draft a QB, and then by the time he is off of his rookie deal, he is tired of the losing and getting pummeled and wants to bolt. There is no obvious answer to the Browns problems. We just find ourselves on different sides.

 

I don't get people saying QB is the biggest need so get one.

What could possibly be a bigger need for the Browns than a quarterback? Seriously.

Whether Wentz or Goff is worth the #2 pick is debatable.

Whether Cardale Jones or Connor Cook might be the answer in the 2nd or 3rd round is debatable.

Whether you build a team first and then get the QB, or get the QB first and then build the team is debatable.

But the Browns' biggest need? How could it possibly be anything other than quarterback?

 

What could possibly be a bigger need for the Browns than a quarterback? Seriously.

Recievers especially with the Gordon troubles. O line. D line. Linebacker. defensive back. Quarterback is also a big need. But I'm just saying they need a whole team and I think 6 top 40 picks over the next 2 years is better than goff being one of 4 top 40 picks.

 

What could possibly be a bigger need for the Browns than a quarterback? Seriously.

Whether Wentz or Goff is worth the #2 pick is debatable.

Whether Cardale Jones or Connor Cook might be the answer in the 2nd or 3rd round is debatable.

Whether you build a team first and then get the QB, or get the QB first and then build the team is debatable.

But the Browns' biggest need? How could it possibly be anything other than quarterback?

I have to say that I agree with you 100% there. That includes what the Browns BIGGEST need is. That is most certainly a QB. The million dollar question is whether that need is addressed first or not. Now you've done some extensive research and formed your opinion. I don't side with your opinion but I appreciate the amount of time and effort you've put in to formulating your opinion.

 

Those are good questions. One would have to hope that if the team is assmbled successfully over a few years, that wins would start to come and they would see some promise in what is developing.

The argument goes both ways. Draft a QB, and then by the time he is off of his rookie deal, he is tired of the losing and getting pummeled and wants to bolt. There is no obvious answer to the Browns problems. We just find ourselves on different sides.

You're arguing for the status quo then. Keep in mind weeden and manziel were both acquired "extra" picks and they have been drafting pieces for years.

 

You're arguing for the status quo then. Keep in mind weeden and manziel were both acquired "extra" picks and they have been drafting pieces for years.

Oh, of course. They aren't spending first round picks on QB each year. They've actually drafted just a few. Couch, Quinn, Weeden, Manziel might be the only ones (I could be wrong but that is off the top of my head.) They've tried to draft plenty pieces and failed. They've tried to draft QBs and failed. They need to get better at simply not swinging and missing on picks. But until that happens, what chance does a QB have? Each approach has failed but do you draft a QB and then hope that they actually hit on other picks? Or do you try to get the terrible drafting fixed first and then go after QB, when you feel you're better at hitting on your choices and there are actual NFL caliber players on the roster for that QB to join?

 

Yea. I say trade down and hope to hell you can snag lynch at 32. or trade down more than once and see if you can get Paxton in to 20s and get 7-8 first/second round picks in 2 years. Can just about build a team with that. I think Paxton could easily be as successful or more so than goff or Wentz.

 

Ok. Given that we've run this argument in to the ground...

Question for @LordJeffBuck and @AKAK...

Assuming the Browns draft Wentz (not likely now) or Goff at #2...where do you want to see the team go from there? BPA at #32? Or biggest need? If it is biggest need...what do you guys see as the most glaring need outside of QB? Actually, I'm curious as to what you guys consider the biggest need even if you want to see them go BPA.

 

I'd love Michael Thomas at #32 , and that's not just the Buckeye homer in me speaking. Get the franchise QB at #2, a starting WR at #32, and build from there. But I couldn't really complain if they went BPA at #32, because there are needs all over the place.

After the first two picks, just keep getting talented players regardless of position.

 

The Rams may have done the Browns a favor because 10-12 years from now when Wentz or Goff is a bust - history suggests there's a decent chance one will be - Cleveland won't be the team who could've had either and chose the wrong one. They'll take the one who is left and no one can legitimately criticize them for it. As for the reported disagreement between Cleveland scouts and coaches over which QB to take, that argument is over as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Los Angeles Rams go for the California kid and the Browns end up with Wentz, anyway. If it was me, I'd take Wentz over Goff. Time will tell.

 

I'd love Michael Thomas at #32 , and that's not just the Buckeye homer in me speaking. Get the franchise QB at #2, a starting WR at #32, and build from there. But I couldn't really complain if they went BPA at #32, because there are needs all over the place.

After the first two picks, just keep getting talented players regardless of position.

To me, if you've taken a QB at 2, then its "Guy you like best" at OL or WR. At any rate, unless someone falls that they had no idea would fall there on D (and thus is an exceptional value in your eyes, Noah Spence still on the board?) I think it needs to be an offensive player. (I don't think there will be a RB or TE worth taking there... ) Some people have Taylor Decker still on the board, I don't know if I buy it, but, pretty nice pick in that spot if he is. And that's just Buckeye and former Buckeyes. Looks like a pretty good number of DT/3-4DE type guys too, so wouldnt surprise me if one's on the board they really like there too...

 

To me, if you've taken a QB at 2, then its "Guy you like best" at OL or WR. At any rate, unless someone falls that they had no idea would fall there on D (and thus is an exceptional value in your eyes, Noah Spence still on the board?) I think it needs to be an offensive player. (I don't think there will be a RB or TE worth taking there... ) Some people have Taylor Decker still on the board, I don't know if I buy it, but, pretty nice pick in that spot if he is. And that's just Buckeye and former Buckeyes. Looks like a pretty good number of DT/3-4DE type guys too, so wouldnt surprise me if one's on the board they really like there too...

To me the only way you don't take best OL or Wr available at 32 is if zeke is still out there or only one TE went in the first round. They need offensive players if they want a qb this year or next to give the kid a chance in this division.

 

To me the only way you don't take best OL or Wr available at 32 is if zeke is still out there or only one TE went in the first round. They need offensive players if they want a qb this year or next to give the kid a chance in this division.

I agree, I'm just saying someone they might have at 15 on their board could drop... (Say there's a run on another position) and you'd have to consider it.

 

Oh, of course. They aren't spending first round picks on QB each year. They've actually drafted just a few. Couch, Quinn, Weeden, Manziel might be the only ones (I could be wrong but that is off the top of mh head.) They've tried to draft plenty pieces and failed. They've tried to draft QBs and failed. They need to get better at simply not swinging and missing on picks. But until that happens, what chance does a QB have? Each approach has failed but do you draft a QB and then hope that they actually hit on other picks? Or do you try to get the terrible drafting fixed first and then go after QB, when you feel you're better at hitting on your choices and there are actual NFL caliber players on the roster for that QB to join?

That's a lot of 1st round QBs in 17 years. Especially over the last nine drafts when they've taken three.

Arguably a reason why they shouldn't spend a first rounder on a QB this year, but to say they've only taken "a few" when they're taking a first round QB every 3 to 4 years is misguided.