Are you one of those Browns fans whose heart is already fixed on one player to draft with that crucial Number 3 pick? Are you a Quinn hater or an AD pimp? Is Browns Town the right and natural place for Calvinball? Are you sound and sensible and set in your stance that a tackle like Joe Thomas is the pivotal pick?
Or maybe you’re torn by the options? Daunted by the importance of the task and the Browns’ myriad needs? Equivocal to the point of muddled? Just ready to trust Phil implicitly? Insistent that we trade down repeatedly? Preparing your negative reaction to whatever does happen when the commish reads the Browns’ card?
Yeah, me too.
That’s why I came up with this handy-dandy metric. First I chose a reasonable set of goals to attempt when faced with a decision of this nature. Basically, you want to get help fast with the best available player, a low-risk prospect at a position of need that is worth major investment.
Then I prioritized those five factors for the Browns’ current circumstances by weighting them.
This nice Pro Football Weekly article on the importance of the Lions’ and Browns’ draft positions concludes, “There’s no one player in the top five they couldn’t put to good use.” So then it became a matter of ranking those five guys according to each of the five factors, applying the weights, and doing the math (or letting Excel do it).
In my quantified opinion, then, Calvin Johnson is the best choice, followed closely by Adrian Peterson. Decidedly in the second tier are Brady Quinn, Jamarcus Russell, and Joe Thomas, bunched closely, with Quinn just barely ahead.
That’s all you need to know right? After all, the Browns are guaranteed to get one of their first three choices. I’ve shown my work, here’s my digital proof, so dig it.
Not quite. Of the five factors, two are very specific to the Browns — “position of need” and “good financial fit” — while the other three are more player-specific and useful to a variety of teams. The top overall scorer, Johnson, came in last when considering only the Browns-specific factors. That might tip the scales toward Peterson, especially as these scores are based on so many fine judgments, which I’d expect to vary from person to person. But it also points out the need to consider the trade-down option, as Johnson clearly offers more value to other teams than he does to the Browns in their current situation.
So I went ahead and ranked “trade down” as a sixth option and adjusted the scores accordingly. I assumed that trading down means something like getting a lower first-round pick and at least another first-day pick this year. Though you probably (but not definitely) won’t end up with any of these five players, trading down has obvious appeal from a salary cap and risk-diversification standpoint.
But nobody sets out to marry an accountant, at least not for that reason. The numbers do indicate that trading down is a very defensible decision, but not quite as dynamic as either Johnson or Peterson.
Now, as for what will happen, that’s a whole nother spreadsheet. Johnson may be gone anyway. Peterson seems likely to be available. A good trade-down may not be in the offing. Phil’s draft board may rank either of the QBs — and/or the need at that position — higher than I did. Hey, that and baseball season are what April is for.
In any case, I invite you to tweak the weights and ranks, and let me know what you come up with. When you break it all down into lots of smaller decisions, you may find yourself surprised by how your big-picture view varies from your combined values and judgments. If that’s the case, be sure to learn something very profound about your essential nature from it. Then go ahead and blame the metric. And then, just like the rules of Calvinball, make it even better.
