Point/Counterpoint: Cleveland Browns Using 1st and 4th Picks on Quarterbacks, Great Idea or Really Dumb?

The draft discussion for weeks has been whether the Cleveland Browns will take a QB with the first pick or the fourth pick; what about both?

This idea was first brought up by Clay Travis, going on to say they should take a third QB with the 33rd pick.

Then yesterday, the most trusted voice in the NFL, Adam Schefter, insisted on discussing the idea. When on the topic of the Browns taking a QB with the first and fourth pick, Schefter said it was one of the smartest things he has ever heard, and that it is “not out of the question” to occur:

So we have a difference of opinion. Bobby Burack takes the side that it would make sense, while Jason Lisk got angry online about the mere thought of this move. Let’s debate!

BOBBY BURACK – IT’S A GREAT IDEA

Most would say this idea is berserk, but it actually makes a ton of sense. The Browns need a franchise QB, they cannot move forward unless they find their guy. There is no question that if they were to take two QBs, one and four, it increases their chances of finding that guy immensely.

Unless they are completely sold on one of these QBs – Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Baker Mayfield, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson – why not consider it? And by all counts, they have not seemed all in on any of them like past teams with the first pick.

Whether one of these QBs actually fits with the Browns’ roster or not, will not even be close to being confirmed until training camp. There is no way of being sure on any of these five come draft night.

By doing so, they would be passing up on likely Saquon Barkley, that is fine. If the team’s chances of finding their franchise QBs increases significantly enough by taking two, that is more valuable than what Barkley could bring if they botch the QB pick this year (like they have before). What if one these QBs isn’t accepting of the losing culture? They now have options.

Another primary reason the Browns should consider this is a result of so many young QBs getting hurt recently. In recent years, many of the young QBs that have made an impact instantly have already experienced serious injuries: Carson Wentz, Andrew Luck, Deshaun Watson, Derek Carr, Robert Griffin III (he was phenomenal his rookie season).

Diving in on those injuries, which teams were able to recover from losing their QB? The Redskins and Eagles (the others, not so much). Why? Because they had an admirable backup plan in place. Unless the Browns think that can be Tyrod Taylor for the next few years, this is yet another reason the idea should be fathomed.

Would drafting a QB with the first and fourth pick be advised and be the most efficient way to build this team? Of course not. Is it the safest way to becoming respectable again? Yes.

continue to the next page for the counterpoint–

JASON LISK – IT’S A DUMB IDEA

I’m all for teams that don’t have quarterbacks making it a big priority and trying different things until they hit. For example, the Seattle Seahawks didn’t settle for signing a free agent in Matt Flynn, and found their future starting quarterback star in Russell Wilson in the same offseason.

I also think that teams make a lot of “sunken cost” errors where they stick with a highly drafted quarterback too long. Rookie years can be notoriously difficult to judge (compare Jared Goff in year 1 versus year 2) but you can generally tell where a guy falls after a couple of years as a starter. Teams have stuck with guys like Joey Harrington and Ryan Tannehill too long, maybe foregoing other opportunities.

But here, we are talking about a unique and very favorable situation for a team to turn things around–having two picks in the top 4, being able to address QB AND add a top talent and difference maker elsewhere. And I think those that say this is a good idea are not viewing things through the reality of teams having the chance to only start one QB at a time, being able to correctly identify THE ONE (history is littered with these errors), and/or getting great value for the other.

What are the scenarios where this actually works as a strategy? Well, not if the first QB picked is a success and far better than the 4th pick. It works as an insurance “let’s make sure we get the right guy” only when the 1st pick fails, and the 4th pick is great. It could also work if both are great, but (a) you still might pick the wrong one going forward, and (b) you might not be able to showcase the other, and (c) in order to get value for the pick in this scenario, you have to get way more than the 4th overall pick in a future draft (and the cheapness and surplus value of the pick is gone if the trade comes near free agency).

I went back and found all situations in the last 40 years where one QB went in the top 3, and another QB went between picks 4 & 10 (as this might simulate when this strategy could be realistic). Because, remember, you aren’t successfully implementing the strategy in a Goff/Wentz year where QB goes 1 & 2. That second QB has to be there at 4. I also list non-QBs taken at 4&5 in that draft.

How many years would this have been a good strategy in a hypothetical? 2004, I think for sure, because you nailed both. Maybe 2017 if Mahomes is a star, and Trubisky is not. 1995, maybe, but I think you are dealing with making a decision that could have proven to be the wrong one (remember, McNair wasn’t a full-time starter for several years, while Collins went to a NFC title game in his 2nd year). 1979? Sure, Simms is there, but I’ll note that Simms did not have success early in his career and missed most of his 4th and 5th seasons with injury. Oh, and Dan Hampton is a Hall of Famer. That’s out of 13 times.

So, yeah, maybe it sounds interesting in a vacuum. I think it’s a poor use of resources. We all might envision this as a guy is either JaMarcus Russell or Cam Newton and the choice would be apparent a few months in. But that’s not typical. You might be looking at guys closer to Jay Cutler or Ryan Tannehill. And I think that if the strategy is “we should take the 4th pick on the QB because maybe we are wrong on 1st” then you need someone else picking. The Browns haven’t had a QB. They also haven’t used a top 20 pick on a QB since they were an expansion team and took Tim Couch.

I don’t think doubling down on QB this early is the safest or the most upside. No one can get in front of you. You take your QB. Then you get a shot at another all-pro type talent at another position. That’s the best, and safest way, to become the force that they can become if they hit this right.