I'd suggest Doks picks your avatar or something just to make this bet happen, Orph.

I'd also venture that if Mitchell doesn't match his production Dorsett, Patterson, or now Matthews might (although he's probably just replacing Amendola's stats).

Mitchell can move a 2003 Hyundai like you've never seen

he's a pure closer

Boy, I loved Jarvis as a Dolphins fan but he definitely is not worth this. Can't take the top off.

how about you take your top off

i bet tree has stupid looking nipples

it's going to feel strange when the Browns win games next year

4-12?

i think they win at least 6 games

if they do i'll get a tattoo of dev

So most people agree that (1) getting a great QB is the most consequential talent acquisition a team can make and (2) picking the right player doesn't appear to be a fully developed skill.

Based on (2) many teams and a lot of analysts and fans support the idea of trying to get as many picks as possible so as to maximize your chances of hitting on good players. Even if your scouting/player analysis doesn't improve at all, if you have more picks you should have more successful picks due to an increase in the # of picks even if your hit rate is the same.

Here's my thought...I'm sure it's been tossed out there before, but I don't recall hearing/reading it. And any team who did this would probably get crushed by media and the general public. But why not apply the above strategy to picking QB's? What if a team decided to pick two QB's high in the draft? I know Washington did a version of this with RG3 and Cousins, but Cousins was a 4th round pick. What if the Browns decided that there were, let's say 5 QB's in this draft worth a 1st round pick, but they acknowledge that it is unlikely for all 5 to pan out. So rather than picking one and hoping they picked right, what if they decided to take 2 QB's in the 1st round?

This would increase their chances of obtaining a franchise QB. The monetary cost is relatively low. The opportunity cost might be high because you're necessarily forgoing at least one, if not several, players who could contribute at other positions since you aren't likely to play 2 QB's at once. So you're essentially relegating a 1st round pick to the bench no matter what. I'm sure some people would find this unpalatable. I think with the Browns specifically, there would be ways to mitigate this.

Let's say they decide that all five have equal chances of developing and equal chances of being a bust. This is a simplification because I'm sure they have preferences, but again this is based on the assumption they think there are 5 QB's worthy of a 1st round pick which means they must like each of them to some degree. They could decide that since they are equally happy with any of the top 5 that they have no need for the 1st pick. So they could trade down to no lower than 4th, picking up additional picks. At the 4th pick if 3 QB's have already been taken, then they can use the next two picks on the 4th and 5th QB's and have whatever they received by dropping down 3 spots (usually not an insignificant return). If they're confident that they could trade down again by trading with a team that will not take a QB, they could take that risk. This could play out in different ways obviously.

But with their draft position they could essentially guarantee that they get the 4th and 5th QB's taken and could accumulate additional picks as well. If one develops and turns out to be a stud and the other is trash, fine. What team wouldn't set a 1st round pick on fire right now if you told them that they'd get a franchise QB if they did so? If they're both good, well the trade market for young backup QB's on rookie deals who look like they might be good is pretty lucrative, so they'll probably recover that 1st round pick. And if they both suck, well, you're in a pretty similar position to what you'd have been in otherwise.

tl;dr version: I'm probably insane, but I think taking two QBs with high picks might be a good idea.

mods?

April Fifth, it's not beyond the Browns to do something this stupid - commit so much draft capital on one position in the same year - I wouldn't be surprised to see them trade back in the first with the #4 pick to still land their new OT, but get a 1st for next year to conceivably go to the rookie-deal QB well again. If they hadn't turned over their front office they might have actually done this exact thing, b/c "look at us, we're unconventional baseball-sabermetrics guys."

Alas, they will take Josh Allen at #1 (I think he's a bust) and Mike McGlinchey at #4 (will probably be good, but not Joe Thomas good) and then get 7 games out of Tyrod before he's injured, ineffective, or just himself, but then the coaches will decide to role with Allen too early and they'll ruin him and be the Browns for the next 3 years until everything is turned over again.

I've thought about the two QBs thing before in the past. It's an interesting thought experiment.

So why exactly would my proposed alternative be so stupid if you think what they're probably going to isn't going to work at all? I understand it's a lot of draft capital, but any team that has ever traded two firsts for one first is essentially using two first round picks on one position. In this case at least they'd get two guys at the same position with those two picks.

Bye bye Dez Bryant

where will he land?

Please, God, don't let The Dolphins sign him.

Arizona?

Why not in LA? The Rams clearly need the help.

Clearly