• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

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 TeamCompleteAttemptsComp PctYards Passing---TDs------INTs--Passing EffW/L Record-Win Pct-
New England Patriots6,0479,643.62767,14749520591.61181 - 91 - 0.665
Indianapolis Colts6,2559,873.63470,29550925391.05181 - 91 - 0.665
Green Bay Packers6,0409,624.62867,68151525390.57169 - 102 - 1.623
Pittsburgh Steelers5,3248,635.61760,43639425589.87168 - 103 - 1.619
New Orleans Saints6,43110,163.63371,53150228788.84142 - 130 - 0.522
San Diego Chargers5,6809,121.62362,86742626786.07139 - 133 - 0.511
Denver Broncos5,6969,285.61364,18343826285.97161 - 111 - 0.592
Dallas Cowboys5,4678,893.61560,58341529583.43136 - 136 - 0.500
Seattle Seahawks5,2128,614.60556,77738624683.01151 - 121 - 0.555
Philadelphia Eagles5,6509,535.59362,64741825482.35157 - 114 - 1.579
Minnesota Vikings5,3888,712.61858,07938028582.31136 - 135 - 1.502
Houston Texans4,5117,296.61848,29128021281.8797 - 127 - 0.433
Kansas City Chiefs5,2778,745.60357,64234923881.80129 - 143 - 0.474
NFL Average minus Browns5,4659,058.60359,09838026981.17N/AN/A
Atlanta Falcons5,3798,966.60058,11736626180.56134 - 137 - 1.494
Saint Louis Rams5,8389,501.61462,49837730980.37120 - 151 - 1.443
New York Giants5,5939,461.59162,42939728880.14142 - 130 - 0.522
Washington Redskins5,3939,000.59958,06534925480.07117 - 155 - 0.430
San Francisco 49ers5,0488,492.59453,24934223279.79127 - 144 - 1.469
Tennessee Titans5,1958,724.59556,80834425779.71137 - 135 - 0.504
Cincinnati Bengals5,5079,137.60357,50537928879.22128 - 142 - 2.474
Jacksonville Jaguars5,2258,842.59154,82033023878.39117 - 155 - 0.430
Tampa Bay Buccaneers5,3598,969.59855,70834326778.10123 - 149 - 0.452
Carolina Panthers4,9958,564.58355,06935527677.87136 - 135 - 1.502
Buffalo Bills5,1448,620.59753,42932927377.17116 - 156 - 0.426
Oakland Raiders5,2939,098.58256,98534127276.70104 - 168 - 0.382
Baltimore Ravens5,2898,996.58854,52933126676.28157 - 115 - 0.577
New York Jets5,0528,535.59253,09732529275.77135 - 137 - 0.496
Miami Dolphins5,3209,002.59155,28331928475.59130 - 142 - 0.478
Detroit Lions5,86810,046.58461,74037132675.1695 - 177 - 0.349
Arizona Cardinals5,6729,705.58460,85634533574.38120 - 152 - 0.411
Chicago Bears5,2599,010.58453,69034530874.07135 - 137 - 0.496
Cleveland Browns5,0758,832.57551,86329930971.1487 - 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 QBsCompleteAttemptsComp PctYards Passing---TDs------INTs--Passing EffW/L Record-Win Pct-
1999 - 2002 (Gannon)1,3722,167.63315,0971054491.5641 - 23 - 0.641
2003 - 20153,9216,931.56641,88823622872.0563 - 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 QBsCompleteAttemptsComp PctYards Passing---TDs------INTs--Passing EffW/L Record-Win Pct-
1999 - 2003 (Warner)1,8872,903.65022,36316311091.2856 - 24 - 0.700
2004 - 20153,9516,598.59940,13521419975.5764 - 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....
 
Last edited:
So, who do you take instead that's gonna solve all those problems? It's only one pick. And it's rookie capped.

No one player is going to solve all of these problems, QB included. Thinking otherwise is insane and surely, that is not what I am claiming. It just has to be taken one player at a time. It will be a long process but taking QB first in the process while the rest of the team is sooooo bad, almost assures that he won't even survive by the time the process is done.
 
Upvote 0
No one player is going to solve all of these problems, QB included. It just has to be taken one player at a time. It will be a ling process but taking QB first in the process while the rest of the team is sooooo bad, almost assures that he won't even survive by the time the process is done.

So, the most important single piece should be addressed, so you can address a less important piece. That doesn't make any sense. Now, if you feel like you could turn this one pick into 4 or 5 pieces, you might have an argument. But, you really honestly don't.

The problem is with the "rest of the team is soooooo bad" argument is, the QB is so integral, you can't even tell how bad the rest of them are - Defense included - if you don't have decent QB play.

If the argument here was to take one just to take one, fine, but, the feeling is that Wentz and Goff are very good prospects, the problem is YOUR argument is to treat them like commodities and take one later, which is terminally stupid.
 
Upvote 0
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 most valuable 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 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.



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.



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.
This is exactly the response that I expected from you. Bravo!
 
Upvote 0
Outsider perspective aka not a brown's fan.
I dont think they should take a QB either.
A) I dont think Wentz or Goff will be great. (I also dont think mariotta or crab thief will be great but maybe the titans can make mariotta look good since they just loaded up on picks for a supporting cast)
B) Tim Couch. I think he could have been a GREAT QB.. but the browns drafted him and watched him get crushed. Hackenburg could have been Great. but their coaches got him killed and now he has regressed. Any rookie you throw out there behind that line will not succeed. You dont have to have a great line but they have to keep your QB alive or they cannot grow.

I think this year the browns needs to pick up some strong pieces, trade down if possible. you have a LOT of holes. dont expect any of those pieces to fix anything so your team is going to suck this year.. I dont think there is anyway around that... but thats a good thing.. grab some good rookies that you can build around.. as many as possible (hope your new coach is good at evaluating talent) and next year you will have yet another top pick because you will still suck this year... but maybe next year Watson or someone else can be a true franchise pick and when you take him he will have a few decent pieces he can work with and THEN you can start to climb out of the cellar. Or maybe if you take a developmental QB in a later round this year and let him sit if you are happy with his progress after a year you can get even more pieces and plug him in year 2 and have him even more help?
 
Upvote 0
So, the most important single piece should be addressed, so you can address a less important piece. That doesn't make any sense. Now, if you feel like you could turn this one pick into 4 or 5 pieces, you might have an argument. But, you really honestly don't.

The problem is with the "rest of the team is soooooo bad" argument is, the QB is so integral, you can't even tell how bad the rest of them are - Defense included - if you don't have decent QB play.

If the argument here was to take one just to take one, fine, but, the feeling is that Wentz and Goff are very good prospects, the problem is YOUR argument is to treat them like commodities and take one later, which is terminally stupid.

I would be absolutely fine with trading the #2 for more picks. Wentz and Goff are just the flavors of the draft. Next year, Wentz and Goff won't be in the draft and there will be different flavors. These two aren't even as highly thought of as the Luck and RGIII duo and how have those guys turned out? Luck is a good QB on a bad team and he sure didn't carry them to greatness. RGIII isn't even on the team that drafted him. They didn't even want to keep him. I've seen really good teams win it all with decent QB play but I don't see great QBs carry shit teams to a trophy very often. I'm guessing that QBs will enter the draft next year, some will be good, and a few will be the best of the bunch. It's pretty much a given.

Yes, this team is "sooooo bad" and you can't tell how good they are without decent QB play. You can't find decent QB play either when the rest of the team is soooo bad. I don't see any vultures out there circling around to take our stud WR and RB and LB and S and, hell, basically any other of our guys via trade, because they are just truly good players but we don't see it due to our QB situation. Now, any player here can leave and probably do better because this is a clown show, but let's not pretend we are sitting on a roster of diamonds just hiding away until we draft our QB savior.

So yes, I basically want to wait until later (another draft) to find a QB. It's safe to assume that even if there isn't a QB next year, there will be one the year after. Wentz and Goff aren't the end of the line of great QBs. They aren't even the end of the line of QBs who nobody knows if they'll end up good or bad. And that is what they are...QBs that could either be good or bad. They certainly aren't guarantees.

Why have the Browns even drafted any QBs since 1999 if the obvious and only answer was to wait until 2016 and take either Wentz or Goff?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I would be absolutely fine with trading the #2 for more picks. Wentz and Goff are just the flavors of the draft. Next year, Wentz and Goff won't be in the draft and there will be different flavors. These two aren't even as highly thought of as the Luck and RGIII duo and how have those guys turned out? Luck is a good QB on a bad team and he sure didn't carry them to greatness. RGIII isn't even on the team that drafted him. They didn't even want to keep him. I've seen really good teams win it all with decent QB play but I don't see great QBs carry [Mark May] teams to a trophy very often. I'm guessing that QBs will enter the draft next year, some will be good, and a few will be the best of the bunch. It's pretty much a given.

Yes, this team is "sooooo bad" and you can't tell how good they are without decent QB play. You can't find decent QB play either when the rest of the team is soooo bad. I don't see any vultures out there circling around to take our stud WR and RB and LB and S and, hell, basically any other of our guys via trade, because they are just truly good players but we don't see it due to our QB situation. Now, any player here can leave and probably do better because this is a clown show, but let's not pretend we are sitting on a roster of diamonds just hiding away until we draft our QB savior.

So yes, I basically want to wait until later (another draft) to find a QB. It's safe to assume that even if there isn't a QB next year, there will be one the year after. Wentz and Goff aren't the end of the line of great QBs. They aren't even the end of the line of QBs who nobody knows if they'll end up good or bad. And that is what they are...QBs that could either be good or bad. They certainly aren't guarantees.

Why have the Browns even drafted any QBs since 1999 if the obvious and only answer was to wait until 2016 and take either Wentz or Goff?


So, I'll ask again, staying at #2, who do you take instead, and for shits and giggles, assume the Rams traded up to get Bosa.
 
Upvote 0
This is exactly the response that I expected from you. Bravo!

I'm happy to help!...and somewhat flattered that you thought of me. :rofl: The debate is as fun as it is depressing. I think we all figure that we have the answers to a problem that hasn't been solved since 1999. What sucks is that only one of us can possibly see our scenario play out, and it can be either right or wrong, but it will never mean any of the other solutions are any better or worse and then we are still left with just guessing. They could go BPA and fail, and it wouldn't mean that drafting Wentz would have been better. BPA could work out but it wouldn't mean that they couldn't have finally found success with Wentz either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I don't get people saying QB is the biggest need so get one. Especially goff who is a 10-15 round guy. Wentz is at least built for cleveland.
Cool thing is I think the no 2 pick will be more valuable considering the 1 is sold for Wentz and there are only 2 good qbs in the draft and a lot of teams that need them. Trade down and pick up a 2nd rounder and get 3 top 50 picks. Get a few linemen to block and someone to throw to. Then next year with the two first round picks and a 2nd round pick go get a franchise qb with their no 1 overall that I expect and get another linemen and recievers. Or if lynch is available I. The teens take him. Some might even consider lynch better for cleveland. To me trading down is a win win.
 
Upvote 0
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.

I think I answered that but the answer I have for you is Tunsil/Ramsey/Bosa but in your scenario, Bosa is gone. But you take one of those guys and start slowly acquiring talent to drag this team out of the hole they are in. It will take more than just hitting on that pick though, and that is where this team has gotten in trouble too many times. They just don't make enough picks that work to get anywhere even with a QB. I just think they need to actually get that part right instead of writing endless QB obituaries and adding more names to that damn jersey in the window.
 
Upvote 0
I'm happy to help! The debate is as fun as it is depressing. I think we all figure that we have the answers to a problem that hasn't been solved since 1999. What sucks is that only one of us can possibly see our scenario play out, and it can be either right or wrong, but it will never mean any of the other solutions are any better or worse and then we are still left with just guessing.

Note that the Franchise that's the poster child of sucessfull QB's off the scrap heap just traded a king's ransom to go get a QB.
 
Upvote 0
I think I answered that but the answer I have for you is Tunsil/Ramsey/Bosa but in your scenario, Bosa is gone. But you take one of those guys and start slowly acquiring talent to drag this team out of the hole they are in. It will take more than just hitting on that pick though, and that is where this team has gotten in trouble too many times. They just don't make enough picks that work to get anywhere even with a QB. I just think they need to actually get that part right instead of writing endless QB obituaries and adding more names to that damn jersey in the window.

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 shit at QB. And why would they want to stay? What happens when its time to draft some WR's?
 
Upvote 0
Note that the Franchise that's the poster child of sucessfull QB's off the scrap heap just traded a king's ransom to go get a QB.

I saw that. They were the same ones that received a king's ransom in lieu of drafting RGIII. Have they changed their minds? Or are they just trying a different approach in conjunction with their move to LA to make a splash? Are they going to strike gold with a QB selection? They could but it isn't a guarantee and the Rams surely don't know or they wouldn't be in the position they are in of trading a whole draft almost to get a QB. If the Rams knew a QB guarantee, we wouldn't have seen all the failed attempts that they've already made at getting a QB. In a way, we should all be wary of Wentz because if the Rams, who are definitely not the example of a franchise identifying a promising QB, are going after Wentz, then he must not be the solution to any teams problems. It can be looked at in a multitude of ways.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top