What went right
They traded down for massive amounts of draft capital. I've written about Cleveland's strategy at length, both in regards to the Carson Wentz trade and its series of trades during the draft. The Browns rightly believe that teams are overconfident when it comes to scouting and identifying talent and thus quantity of draft picks is more important than quality. They also see future draft picks as an undervalued asset class.
The cumulative return they got for their moves, then, was pretty staggering. Even after making the Wentz deal before the draft, they traded down four times during the draft weekend, taking advantage of teams that felt like they were smarter than the rest of the league. Five times! They ended up making 14 selections, including eight picks across the fourth and fifth rounds, and have a staggering amount of capital set up in the years to come. In 2017, they'll have an extra first-round pick (from the Eagles), second-round pick (Titans), third-round pick (Eagles) and as many as three fourth-round picks as compensation for losing free agents. They're down their own fourth-round pick from the Wentz trade and have essentially swapped seventh-round picks with the Colts, but otherwise, they still have their own 2017 picks to work with and a 2018 second-rounder coming from Philadelphia too.
Since this is an offseason recap, let's put all of these moves together into one big mash of trades. Let's be conservative too. We're going to treat future picks from other teams as if they're the average pick in each round, even if that's a generous interpretation of how good the Titans will be next year, and we'll treat the Browns as if they're the worst team in football and have the first pick in each round. We'll also give the cornerback the Browns acquired from Miami, former second-rounder Jamar Taylor, zero value. Let's see what the Browns have accomplished with their trades:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/155001...sburgh-steelersPer the Chase Stuart draft chart, by even a conservative estimate, the Browns added 32 points of draft capital to their coffers with their trades. To put that in context, the expected return from the No. 1 pick in a typical draft is 34.6 points. Throw in the expected value of the four compensatory picks the Browns will receive after losing free agents, and they're up to 43.9 points of added draft capital this offseason. That's as aggressive of a game plan as any one organization has executed in a single offseason in recent memory.
I've read arguments that the plan is doomed to fail because it's the Browns and Cleveland is inevitably cursed regardless of what it does. That's reductive and silly -- if the Browns are cursed no matter what, why not try the best possible process. Other arguments compare the Browns to the Philadelphia 76ers, another quantitatively inclined team that shed talent and acquired as many draft picks as possible in an attempt to rebuild. The Philadelphia rebuild hasn't worked out as planned, although that may very well look different after the upcoming NBA draft, in which the Sixers could have as many as five first-round picks.
Cleveland's attempt to rebuild by hoarding draft picks isn't foolproof, but no plan for a team this bad is. Spending heavily on free agents isn't a great strategy. Trading all your picks to move up and grab a quarterback hasn't worked out for many teams in the past. There's no guarantee this will work either, but history -- not that of the Sixers, but teams such as the Patriots and Packers -- tells us it's the best way to try to build a team.
Think about it like saving for retirement. The Eagles just put all their money in a fast-rising stock hoping that they hopped on at the right time. The Browns are maxing out their 401(k) every year, investing in index funds and hoping that compound interest and variance does the trick. The market could crash, or there could be an expensive illness in the family, or they could suddenly get undisciplined and chase after the fast-rising stock too. All of those things can happen between now and the point at which the Browns would expect to be good. That doesn't make it the wrong idea, either.
They signed Robert Griffin. One of the few free agents the Browns did sign was Griffin, who came in on a two-year, $15-million deal with no guaranteed money in 2017. If the Browns were going to add a quarterback, as I wrote in March, taking a low-risk flier on a high-upside quarterback like Griffin made the most sense. Signing a short-term steadying hand like Ryan Fitzpatrick or Brian Hoyer (or turning the reins back over to Josh McCown) wouldn't have done a rebuilding team any favors.
Griffin may not work out, but if he fails, all it costs the Browns is $6.8 million, and it pushes them closer to the No. 1 pick in 2017, which they obviously want anyway. And if he does work out, the Browns suddenly acquired a franchise quarterback without even impacting their compensatory picks, because Griffin was cut by Washington and won't result in any compensation from the NFL.
What went wrong
They let a lot of young talent go. I just wrote about how the Browns are smart to gobble up compensatory picks, so I can't be too harsh on them here. You can understand why they would want to move on from Alex Mack after Mack opted out of his deal, given that he's already 30 and got $9 million per year from the Falcons. You can justify moving on from Travis Benjamin, who had one year of effectiveness and was entering a market where wide receivers were going to be grossly overpaid.
Did they have to let all of their free agents go, though? Defensive back Tashaun Gipson is 25 and has averaged more than four interceptions per 16 games. He was a Pro Bowler at 24 last season, and the five-year, $36 million deal he signed with Jacksonville wouldn't have been onerous for the Browns. And Mitchell Schwartz is one of the better right tackles in football. The Raiders helped fuel their rebuild by focusing heavily on the offensive line, and while they did it in free agency, the Browns could have helped Griffin (or whomever their quarterback of the future ends up being) by keeping him upright. Re-signing one or both of them would have made sense.
They didn't trade Joe Thomas. If the Browns are going to tear down everything and rebuild, why not complete the process by trading away their best player? Thomas is a future Hall of Famer at left tackle and a truly valuable asset. He's also 31 and has three years left on his deal at a relatively friendly price of $29.5 million. With the Browns clearly building toward 2018 or 2019, Thomas will either be diminished as a player or on another roster. It's impossible to say what they could have gotten for Thomas, but holding onto their star seems like a strange half-measure given the moves Cleveland made elsewhere.
What's next
Signing players after May 12. The Browns still have plenty of holes on their roster and more than $30 million in cap space with which to work. Once they can shop without incurring the risk of losing their compensatory picks, it would behoove the Browns to target some veterans with upside still left in the free-agent market. There aren't exactly a lot of players fitting that definition still around, but even players such as Andrew Quarless and Trumaine McBride could be an upgrade in rotation roles given what's left on this Browns roster.
Grade: A-
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
