The Browns have actually considered taking two quarterbacks

Getty Images

It has been suggested, mostly as a joke, that the Browns could ensure that they’ll get a great quarterback by using both the No. 1 and No. 4 overall pick on that position. Apparently, it’s not as big of a joke as many had believed.

Kevin Clark of TheRinger.com reports that the Browns have “thought about it, discussed it, and investigated it.” The work progressed to the point where one unnamed source with whom Clark spoke was able to “rattle off every previous instance of teams drafting two passers high because he’d done the prep work on the idea.”

The thought process doesn’t only mean that that Browns could take a quarterback at No. 1 and No. 4. They could trade down from No. 4 and take a quarterback later in round one. They also could take a second quarterback with one of the other picks they hold in the first 64 selections (five in all) and in the first 123 picks (eight in all).

The most notorious example of a pair of first-round quarterbacks came in 1989, when the Cowboys took Troy Aikman and then invested a first-round pick in the supplemental draft on Steve Walsh. (A year later, the Cowboys traded Walsh to the Saints for a first-round pick and a third-round pick in 1991, and a second round pick in 1992, which perhaps prompted the Vikings to say, “Man, the Cowboys screwed them.”)

Six years ago, Washington traded up from No. 6 to No. 2 to draft Robert Griffin III, and then picked Kirk Cousins in round four. Cousins, by 2015, supplanted Griffin as the starter.

As Clark notes, the problem with drafting a pair of quarterbacks comes from the lack of practice reps necessary to develop both of them, especially with Tyrod Taylor under contract for 2018. The fact that the Browns are even considering it underscores the team’s recent trend of failing to pick apparent franchise quarterbacks (Carson Wentz, Deshaun Watson), along with the uncertainty as to which quarterback will emerge as the best quarterback from the 2018 class.

Recent history suggests that, whoever he is, he probably won’t end up being a Brown.

101 responses to “The Browns have actually considered taking two quarterbacks

  1. The browns should not take a QB in the first round. They should trafe out of #1 to somd desperate team like the bills. Draft Saquon at #4 Chubb or minkah if eithers there at #12, then if they get the bills other first round pick, take a CB. Then in the 2nd round you get a mike white or lauletta. Have them sit unless they blow everyonecaway like Russ did. Then you have a great WR core, ok o line, two reallt good RBs. Very good pass rush and solid secondary.

  2. Unless the Brownies go top tier defense with #4, that pick would extremely valuable to one of the sap suckers picking behind them.

  3. i would love to see a scenario like this…

    Browns draft 2 QBs at 1 & 4, then go ahead and trade one for a 1st, 2nd, and a current player. I bet there are teams that would do it.

    Don’t think it will happen, but it would make watching the draft a lot more interesting.

  4. Leave it to the Browns. If anyone can walk away from the draft holding No.1 and No.4 and screw it up, it’s Cleveland.

  5. First and foremost, I think that the Browns need Haslam to be replaced by a decent owner (similar to the ownership situation with my Raiders).

  6. Dorsey doesn’t need to swings to land his QB of the future. Posturing trying to squeeze another team into desperation-trading a kings-ransom for #4. Smart move, they’ll probably get it.

  7. The article should have noted that supplemental draft draft (on Steve Walsh) actually cost the Cowboys the #1 overall pick, as they went 1-15 that year and you loss the following years draft choice. One of Jimmy Johnson’s few mistakes.

  8. I would. Trade the other after you decide which one is the franchise QB. I’ve said this for years.

    It’s a QB league and you best have one.

    Duh.

    The NY Jetsies still don’t get this.

  9. I don’t know that the Browns are considering it. It is a rumor, not a story. Could also be disinformation. They already have a QB on the roster.

  10. My HS coach used to put a glass of water on a three foot stand at 10-30 yards. The qb’s had to practice knocking the glass off for 1/2 hour twice a week at practice. He also place hula hoops at 30-40 yards horizontally three feet off the ground and the punter practiced placing the ball in the hoop. I would like to see the “prospects” do that in workouts.

  11. I think they should. The Browns have had talent on their team in a lot of areas. At WR, defense, Offensive Line, Cornerbacks, but not QB. They have swung and miss so many times. That and Running Back. I would take two QB’s with this opportunity.

  12. The most Browns thing of all-time would be if they draft two of the top four QBs and the two they didn’t draft turn out to be the studs of the class.

  13. No sane team would draft 2 QBs with picks 1 & 4. There can only be one QB at a time, the loser would be either backup who dosen’t play very often or traded. I guarantee they wouldn’t get a top 4 draft pick in a trade for the QB that lost the starter battle.

  14. Considering the Browns have whiffed on so many rookie QB’s with like a 3-5 year gap between them all, I don’t think its a silly idea at all to increase their odds. Look at 2014 when they took Manziel. Derek Carr and Teddy Bridgewater were the 2 guys taken after that. Had they taken 2 out of those 3, they would have their franchise QB.

  15. I mean it couldn’t hurt, they missed so many times that they increase their chances of hitting if they take multiple prospects at the same position. Best case scenario you get a starting QB and a trade bait/backup QB, worst case you learn never to do it again.

  16. “Ensured”? No, not even close.
    If the Jets had taken 4 QBs in 2000 with their 4 1st rd picks (they did take 1 QB, Chad Pennington) they STILL might not have found a franchise QB b/c the QBs in the 2000 draft class were absolutely terrible except for one, Tom Brady.

    So just because you spend more picks on a single position does not mean that those players will succeed.

  17. Or maybe they will take NO top tier quarterbacks and get Barkely and Chubb, the two best players in the entire draft….nah, take Darnold and either Barkely/Chubb at four….

  18. The Browns should use every single draft pick they have on a QB until they finally land one who can play.

  19. rkt4mayor says:
    April 19, 2018 at 11:51 am
    Only the Browns! You have to laugh!

    Not true! This worked for the Redskins. RG3 and Cousins in the same draft.

  20. Doing that would only guarantee that one of them might be a bust. Only one QB would get enough 1st team reps, and you would end up with one 1st round QB on he bench. I suppose at that point you could trade him, but that opens up the possibility that the return wouldn’t be equal, or he could go somewhere else and be more successful than the guy you kept.

  21. yankeemofo says:
    April 19, 2018 at 11:34 am
    I mean, really…what could it possibly hurt?

    ——————-

    I completely agree. These idiotic paradigms that exist in the NFL that prevent teams from truly improving at times are beyond reason.

  22. Because having them destroy one top 5 QB every year isn’t harmful enough to the league. And people wonder why there are only like 6 top tier QBs anymore.

  23. The Browns have all the incentive in the world to consider this, or at least make teams worry that they might.

    It would be awesome to see a QB-needy team give the NY Giants an offer they can’t refuse. This would leave the best non-QB prospect for the Browns at #4. I believe that player to be Chubb, but I think the Giants may take him unless they trade out of that spot.

  24. Any organization who takes a QB in the first round, and pick another QB with another of their FEW draft picks, are proving they don’t KNOW what they are doing and in fact are being double minded which will only come back to haunt them. The goal is to win now, so pick the players that can HELP YOU win now the most. If you move up and spend capital to draft “your guy”, then for heavens sake use the remaining capital to get a starter than can help you win now. Or else you will find yourself on the way out the door and someone else picking up where you left off. I mean can’t a team use a JuJu Smith Shuster, or other such player to help them win now? There is always the next year to get a QB if you need one. The biggest factor anyway seems do the teams even know what to do with the guy they got!!!!

  25. brewster1 says:
    April 19, 2018 at 12:14 pm
    rkt4mayor says:
    April 19, 2018 at 11:51 am
    Only the Browns! You have to laugh!

    Not true! This worked for the Redskins. RG3 and Cousins in the same draft.

    ——————————————-

    Since when is drafting a bust at #2 considered working?

  26. Speculation to enhance offers for their draft pick (4) by those teams needing a QB. Not only are those teams now afraid others might trade up for a QB, but even the Browns might pull trigger themselves. The pick just got more expensive.

  27. Why not? Are the browns a playoff team this year? No. Do they seem to be headed in the right direction under Dorsey? Yes. Do you need a franchise qb to compete for a chance to go to the super bowl? Yes. Not the best scenario for the young qb, but you would have BOTH of them for less money than at least 75% of the league is paying for their starting qb, and they would be under contract for at least four years. Actually might make sense.

  28. mumfio says:

    April 19, 2018 at 12:01 pm

    No sane team would draft 2 QBs with picks 1 & 4. There can only be one QB at a time, the loser would be either backup who dosen’t play very often or traded. I guarantee they wouldn’t get a top 4 draft pick in a trade for the QB that lost the starter battle.

    ————

    Or they draft two who are good and comparable. They play each one in a few games, and than stick with one the remainder of the year. Than Trade one to a desperate team.

  29. I mean it couldn’t hurt, they missed so many times that they increase their chances of hitting if they take multiple prospects at the same position. Best case scenario you get a starting QB and a trade bait/backup QB, worst case you learn never to do it again.
    =====================================================================================
    Actually, your scenario guarantees that the team wastes a top 4 pick, no matter what.
    There is no way the losing QB would get them another top 4 draft pick in a trade. Not saying the pick won’t ends up being a bust anyway, but to draft 2 QBs that high guarantees it.

  30. Look, we have 5 picks in the first two rounds, why not do it? Hedge your bets, there is a high failure rate in the draft and you probably won’t have 5 picks this high again (let’s hope not). Draft a QB #1, then draft Rudolph or White or Jackson later in the first round (by trading up) or with one of your second round picks.

  31. Smart move….you are nothing until you have THE most elite D or a great QB. Pats have proven this to be true…their D is middling at best and with no elite QB, they fail despite the constant, proven cheating by the organization.

  32. Or they draft two who are good and comparable. They play each one in a few games, and than stick with one the remainder of the year. Than Trade one to a desperate team.
    ======================================================================
    So a team in the top four drafting next year is going to trade for the loser of last season’s quarterback battle in Cleveland? No team would be that desperate, they would just draft a QB with their pick. There is no way the Browns would get top 4 draft pick value back in a trade.

  33. Six years ago, Washington traded up from No. 6 to No. 2 to draft Robert Griffin III, and then picked Kirk Cousins in round four.
    =========================================

    The name of the team is the Redskins. Like the Red Mesa High Redskins, located on a Navajo reservation.

  34. araidersfan says:
    April 19, 2018 at 11:36 am
    First and foremost, I think that the Browns need Haslam to be replaced by a decent owner (similar to the ownership situation with my Raiders).
    —————————————
    They are already a sub-500 team, why would they want to stay there?

  35. Browns are crazy. Just take Barkley and whatever QB you like most at – not that hard. As a Ravens fan its nice to know Browns are always building towards a non existent future

  36. Slow Joe (Bucs fan) says:
    April 19, 2018 at 11:32 am
    With the luck the Browns have, they could use EVERY pick on a QB and still not find a good one.
    ====================
    That is not luck. It’s called ineptitude.

  37. .
    or maybe they will trade both first round pics for…
    TOM BRADY and GRONK!

    cuz according to Florio the Pats are going to pick a QB and with this trade they would be able to pick 3 QB’s first round! so belicheck…

  38. DeShone Kizer wasn’t the diamond in the rough the “experts” had him as. Expect that same thing with Lamar Jackson with who ever drafts him. He is no better than a 3rd round pick. Can’t operate under center and is not an accurate thrower, not a good recipe for success in the NFL.

  39. If the Browns took two QB’s, they would have to keep 4 QB’s on the roster. You can’t put one on the practice squad, he would be gone in 5 minutes. Things get sillier and sillier. The draft can’t come soon enough, they are NOT taking two QB’s!

  40. The Browns had two rookie QB’s in 2005. Charlie Frye who they drafted in the 3rd round and Josh Cribbs as an undrafted free agent. The second guy only played one game in his NFL career at QB and became one of the greatest return men in NFL history.

    They’re also the team that convinced QB Terrelle Pryor to be WR Terrelle Pryor Sr.

    Just because they could be planning on drafting 2 QB’s doesn’t mean both will still be QB’s once the season starts. Lamar Jackson for example is pretty versatile and Cleveland doesn’t get the credit it deserves on finding better roles for players than the ones they were drafted as.

  41. So, the perceived negative is having practice time to develop two guys. Yet, doesn’t Griffin/Cousins prove that two guys can get enough time to develop? I am sure that Cousins practice snaps were minimal at first. But, that does not preclude them from working the any “extra” QB in other drills besides specifically snaps in scrimmage like situations.

    It CAN be done. And, it would make it more likely to get a good one. But, they will have to be willing to put up with the internet scorn they get if they were to do that. If only one QB turns out good, then they have covered themselves by making sure they got one. If both turn out good, then you can trade one. If they draft two and they both stink, then it will be another housecleaning of the front office.

  42. Remember when the T-Wolves drafted two point guards back-to-back but neither of them was Steph Curry?

    That was funny.

  43. jjackwagon says:
    April 19, 2018 at 1:04 pm

    araidersfan says:
    April 19, 2018 at 11:36 am
    First and foremost, I think that the Browns need Haslam to be replaced by a decent owner (similar to the ownership situation with my Raiders).
    —————————————
    They are already a sub-500 team, why would they want to stay there?

    =================================

    Perhaps my wording was ambiguous but my point was that in order for both the Browns & my Raiders to achieve long-term success the ownership would have to change (for both teams).

  44. The only problem with doing this, is getting both QBs enough reps for evaluation purposes.
    Of course, they could also draft two QBs with their first two picks and trade one of them for more picks.

  45. twinfan24 says:
    April 19, 2018 at 1:32 pm So, the perceived negative is having practice time to develop two guys. Yet, doesn’t Griffin/Cousins prove that two guys can get enough time to develop? I am sure that Cousins practice snaps were minimal at first. But, that does not preclude them from working the any “extra” QB in other drills besides specifically snaps in scrimmage like situations.

    It CAN be done. And, it would make it more likely to get a good one. But, they will have to be willing to put up with the internet scorn they get if they were to do that. If only one QB turns out good, then they have covered themselves by making sure they got one. If both turn out good, then you can trade one. If they draft two and they both stink, then it will be another housecleaning of the front office.
    ============================================================================================================
    No, the actual negative is you waste a top 4 draft pick, guaranteed. Only one can play at a time. So one top 4 pick QB is on your bench doing nothing or you decide to trade the loser of the competition and get nowhere near top 4 draft pick value back. You can draft 2 QBs just not in the top 4, like in this case.

  46. They should do it!

    As soon as they do their phone will blow up with calls offering picks this year and next. No one will really expect them to do it and some teams will expect a QB to drop to them if they pick one or two places below the Browns.

    Buffalo has previously paid overly high for a Browns 1st round pick (#4 overall) that they used on WR Sammy Watkins… what will they pay for a top 3 QB?

  47. Not a terrible idea. Let them compete and the Browns most likely will have a franchise QB…..keep the other around a few seasons as insurance and then trade him (ala Garoppolo) a few seasons later.

  48. New hot rumor, maybe Cleveland will take THREE quarterbacks. You know, because they COULD. And then they have tripled their chances to have a franchise QB.

  49. This is not a crazy idea at all. Draft two QBs and keep them for a year. Who knows, the guy drafted at #4 might end up looking better than the guy drafted #1. Next year, keep the one who looked better and trade the other one for a haul of picks … believe me, there will be a team desperate for a QB who will shell out for a QB who was drafted in the top 4 a year earlier. That way you get to keep the better QB and you also get extra draft picks. Doesn’t help you short-term but it’s a viable long-term strategy.

  50. 1st round picks are typically 50/50 propositions. Each of the top 4 QBs has perceived issues so none are sure fire hits. We have had so many QBs that sucked, I don’t understand why it is preposterous to pick 1 and 4. We would have increased our odds and since you really never know how a guy is going to be until he gets into the room, you really are making a guess anyway.

    Say we would have taken Watson last year at 12 and he sucked. Say we went 0-16 with him. Would anyone blame the Browns for taking another shot at a QB at 1 this year? No. So, admit the mistake and double down on finding one.

    Do I want them to do this? No – assuming they have identified the guy they truly believe in at 1. But I wouldn’t kill them for this. I think the Houston Oilers did it years ago as well (with much success because they traded the other QB for picks later on).

  51. People who think this is a dumb idea are stuck in 2010 when a QB like Sam Bradford could get a 50 million dollar contract just for going #1 overall.

    The rookie contracts are MUCH friendlier. That’s how you get a Russel Wilson and a Dak Prescott playing for $700k a year or something ridiculous like that. 1st rounders are much cheaper these days to the point that a team CAN afford to take 2 QBs if they wanted.

    If you’re the Browns and you’ve been without a QB for the last 25 years, this is NOT a bad idea.

  52. Given the over-emphasis on the QB in the modern NFL, if I were a gm, I’d take at least one every year, regardless of need. QB’s are solid-gold bars in the nfl, pure currency and you would be crazy not to hoard them.

  53. C’mon Cleveland… you take the “Best Available” regardless of need:

    1. Saquon Barkley (Rd 1, Pick 1)
    2. Baker Mayfield (Rd 1, Pick 4, assuming “Gangrene” (Jets) doesn’t scoop him up at Pick No.3)

    This isn’t Astrophysics, peeps: Barkley + Mayfield = “minimum” 9 game wins lol

  54. To me that’s common sense! You saw Fitzpatrick and Barkley in how many prime time games? Do you really need to question their skill set and performance on the field? They are ballers from big name schools that showed up in every big game! And Chubb is NFL ready with his skill set. Don’t be surprised if they don’t take Barkley 1 overall and Quarterback #4 overall if they don’t trade #4

  55. This is not a crazy idea at all. Draft two QBs and keep them for a year. Who knows, the guy drafted at #4 might end up looking better than the guy drafted #1. Next year, keep the one who looked better and trade the other one for a haul of picks … believe me, there will be a team desperate for a QB who will shell out for a QB who was drafted in the top 4 a year earlier. That way you get to keep the better QB and you also get extra draft picks. Doesn’t help you short-term but it’s a viable long-term strategy.
    ======================================================================================================
    People keep saying this. It definitely is a crazy idea, because you are wasting a top 4 draft pick. Why would any team give “a haul of picks” for a QB that lost in his competition for starting job w/the Browns? You don’t or at least shouldn’t gamble with a top 4 pick in the draft. The one who loses the competition will sit on the bench doing nothing for the team & a trade will never get you back the value of the top 4 pick that you just wasted on that player.

  56. egomaniac247 says:
    April 19, 2018 at 2:22 pm

    People who think this is a dumb idea are stuck in 2010 when a QB like Sam Bradford could get a 50 million dollar contract just for going #1 overall.

    The rookie contracts are MUCH friendlier. That’s how you get a Russel Wilson and a Dak Prescott playing for $700k a year or something ridiculous like that. 1st rounders are much cheaper these days to the point that a team CAN afford to take 2 QBs if they wanted.

    If you’re the Browns and you’ve been without a QB for the last 25 years, this is NOT a bad idea.
    =============================================================================================================
    Teams trade a boatload of picks just to get a chance at a superstar rookie QB, and you think it is a good idea to waste one of their’s?
    Why draft 2 QBs in the top 4 just to have one not play? There is only 1 football, they cant both throw the same football. The one who lost the starting job isn’t command a trade with anything near top 4 draft pick value that you used to draft him. It makes no sense.

  57. They should because the Browns will somehow screw up both guys’ careers, which will prompt some sort of rule to prevent teams from drafting QBs in the same round.

    Otherwise if both are a bust, people are going to blame the Browns anyway and no future top QB will want to go there. Players will pull an Eli Manning whenever Cleveland drafts in the top of 1st.

  58. mkbane says:
    April 19, 2018 at 12:27 pm
    brewster1 says:
    April 19, 2018 at 12:14 pm
    rkt4mayor says:
    April 19, 2018 at 11:51 am
    Only the Browns! You have to laugh!

    Not true! This worked for the Redskins. RG3 and Cousins in the same draft.

    ——————————————-

    Since when is drafting a bust at #2 considered working?

    8 7 Rate This
    _______________________

    SEE! This is how people aren’t sharp evaluators of success. Lets see, they use a ton of picks to draft RG3, who goes on to win the division taking the team from 3-13 to 10-6, winning 7 straight to run the table and put the skins in the playoffs! The team used a fourth round pick on Cousins who did not win very many games at all during Shanahans tenure! Cousins came in for relief of an injured RG3 in the playoff game at the time they were up 14-0. Cousins did not score another point and the skins lost 24-14 against Seattle. How is that worked? Had they have drafted another key playmaker like a pass rusher, or a corner back, they may have won that game with a veteran coming in for relief of Griffin.

    Also the next year with out top picks and a cap space hit, they had two QB’s but neither played well at all with a weak team once RG3 was coming back slow from injury. RG3 was the catalyst of that team. So with Cousins leading the team and RG3 injured the second year, the team goes back down to the basement. The Shannahans are fired! How is that GOOD, or worked out? Cousins then gets the start and turns into a turnover machine, but the coach still pushes RG3 OUT as Cousins fits his scheme which he insisted on running, and then forced to make Cousins successful, they put him in a dink and dunk system run through Jordan Reed and RB’s. This solidifies mediocrity. They win the division in a very very down year for the division with Romo and Dez out and the Eagles with coaching and injury issues. And then they overpay cousins who loses badly in the home playoff game. And then they overpay him the next two years for mediocre seasons of missing the playoffs both years and finishing with a losing record. Cousins then plays games and goes to HIS dream situation after using Washington to improve his game. HOW different this could have turned out had they had just stuck with the plan and used that fourth round pick for another key playmaker!!!!!

  59. Of course in 1994 Washington got their eventual starter in the 7th round, with their 1st round (3 overall) QB being a bust. So Cousins/RG3 wasn’t even their biggest coup for a late round QB supplanting the #1.

  60. Pats haters – Pats fan here.

    We are heading into year #18 of TB & BB, aka the era of excellence. After the last of the players who were there when the era began retired, the Pats just kept going – year after year.

    After year

    after year

    “Organizations win championships.” – Jerry Krause.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!