How Baker Mayfield forced the Browns to focus and create a winning team: Doug Lesmerises – cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Baker Mayfield is both a player and an idea. He’s an efficient, aggressive fit and focal point for the Cleveland Browns offense, and the decision who forced them to become, at last, a winning franchise.

Too often we frame the idea of a franchise quarterback as a stand-alone, when the player obviously first and foremost serves a team purpose. The idea of a quarterback isn’t just to have a quarterback — ask the Houston Texans and Deshaun Watson. The idea is to have a franchise quarterback because in the modern NFL that’s typically the path to success. But winning, not great quarterback play, is the ultimate goal.

The play of the quarterback has a lot to do with that — but not everything to do with that.

Multiple recent examples around the league prove that, including what has happened in Cleveland. We just recorded a podcast ranking the 10 best players on the Browns. There were at least 15 candidates. Why do the Browns suddenly have competent football players throughout the roster when for decades they didn’t? I believe it’s because committing to Mayfield caused them commit to winning across the board in a way they hadn’t since they returned in 1999.

The Browns didn’t go 11-5 in 2020 because Mayfield dragged them to that record. The Browns went 11-5 because acquiring Mayfield with the No. 1 pick in the 2018 NFL Draft gave the Browns a purpose and a timeline. It gave them a rallying point for their new pledge to winning, and it gave them a window to do it within.

Mayfield has proven himself to be not just a player who accepts the idea of saving a franchise, but also one who welcomes it. When someone arrives to save you, you know what you do? You raise your game, too. The Browns did that. As we debate exactly when and how the Browns should lock up Mayfield’s future in Cleveland, his mere existence has already paid off.

Mayfield is why the Browns are where they are, as a playoff team with continuity, flexibility and a bright future. It’s a lesson for the Browns to remember and for every NFL team to be reminded of. And hopefully this serves as a worthy cap to all of our Mayfield coverage during his just completed Bark Week. Let’s explore this in two areas.

First, here are five ways in which the act of drafting Mayfield changed how the Browns planned their future:

Over an 11-year period between 2007 and 2017, the Browns spent six top picks on quarterbacks: three first-rounders (Brady Quinn, Brandon Weeden, Johnny Manziel), a second-rounder (DeShone Kizer) and two third-rounders (Colt McCoy, Cody Kessler). You think it costs a lot of draft capital for some teams to trade up for a quarterback? Think of the draft capital wasted chasing quarterbacks. By the time the Browns picked Mayfield, they viewed any quarterback taken beyond pick No. 15 or so in the first round as throwing a dart.

If high QB picks miss too often, QBs taken later miss more often. So instead of trying to capture lightning in a bottle (will this third-rounder be Russell Wilson?) the Browns invested a real pick.

Now, over the next 11 years with Mayfield locked in at QB, the Browns have no reason to pick a quarterback in the first three rounds. That’s six high picks that can be spent on offensive linemen, pass rushers, cornerbacks and linebackers to sustain a winning team. That’s how an investment pays off.

Quarterback competitions and uncertainty can divide locker rooms. Supporting the growth of a young quarterback that the franchise is behind can galvanize a locker room. As long as that quarterback can inspire some level of belief — and Mayfield does — lining up behind a clear quarterback choice points everyone in the right direction.

Everyone, the Browns included, knows that the five-year window when a quarterback is on his rookie deal is a golden age. It’s win-now time. The decision-making process has to keep an eye on the future, but big-money moves for players like Odell Beckham Jr., Olivier Vernon, Sheldon Richardson, Austin Hooper and Jack Conklin could be made because the QB was pretty cheap, and they were made because the window to win is so obvious.

The Browns misfired initially on this front with Hue Jackson and Freddie Kitchens. But they were encouraged to rectify those mistakes as quickly as possible, until they finally settled on a winner in Kevin Stefanski, because lost years with a young QB hurt more. While you’re searching for a quarterback, you can convince yourself to tread water with a coach. Once you have one, you know treading water too long will cause you to sink. So move on.

Yes, a cheap young quarterback frees up money to spend elsewhere. But there’s also a mental drain associated with a quarterback chase that can make owners, general managers, and coaches crazy. You can’t plan long-term, or take smart risks elsewhere, if you think the lack of a quarterback is going to doom your team and get you fired.

“Until you have a baseline of any level of quarterback play, it is really difficult to win and make progress in the NFL,” Browns GM Andrew Berry said last week. “Oftentimes if that position is not productive or it is not solidified, it can feel a lot like operating in neutral. That is something that is certainly not lost on us and it is definitely not lost on us as an organization.”

Getting a quarterback doesn’t automatically make you smart (again, see the Texans.). But not having one can make you look and feel dumb.

The Browns were taking all of that into consideration as they started a new round of rebuilding after the 2015 season. They also wanted to line up their quarterback timeline with their franchise timeline. The two operate on parallel paths. Without an offensive line and skill players to maximize a quarterback, and a defense that won’t immediately give up a touchdown for every one he scores, a quarterback may not reach his ceiling. The Browns lived this with Tim Couch.

But the Browns also assumed that a young quarterback would need at least one year to adjust, maybe two. You don’t want to line up your high-priced, Pro Bowl talent at a time when your quarterback may waste it with ill-timed interceptions.

So the Browns didn’t pick a quarterback in 2016 because they didn’t think the franchise was ready. It might have been ready by 2017, so not taking Deshaun Watson can’t be passed off as timing. There was a misevaluation by multiple teams then, because a redraft of 2017 today would have Patrick Mahomes and Deshaun Watson as the top two picks, and Myles Garrett third.

By 2018, the Browns were definitely ready.

It has worked. It didn’t happen as quickly as the Browns hoped — 2019 was an unanticipated detour and reset — but they are on the path they hoped they would be on, a winner walking toward something more.

So now let’s explore the second part of this idea, that committing to a young quarterback in recent years focused franchises, even if the quarterback didn’t work out. I have at least 15 examples from the last seven years.

Do not read this as a suggestion that the Browns should move on from Mayfield the way the Rams and Eagles moved on from Jared Goff and Carson Wentz. The idea is to re-emphasize that once the Browns committed to a quarterback, there were multiple ways to succeed, and that the process is not only about finding the next Mahomes.

Mayfield has been the right guy for the Browns, and I believe he’ll continue to be that. I do not think Wentz and Goff should serve as cautionary tales about extending quarterbacks, because I don’t think either is a fair comparison for Mayfield. Goff is more limited on the field, and Wentz is more of a problem off of it. I think Mayfield fits snugly in between the Mahomes/Watson superstar class and the Goff/Wentz burnout class. The Browns should deal with Mayfield as if Wentz and Goff don’t exist — the Browns correctly passed on those two in the 2016 draft, and they shouldn’t be guided by their examples now.

But the Rams and Eagles were still right to pick them and they shouldn’t have too many regrets about extending them. It was a step in the commitment, because though the quarterbacks eventually failed, the quarterback plans succeeded.

That’s the case around the league, because drafting a quarterback high and committing to him is seldom a bad move. The failure is guaranteed when franchises refuse to commit and are stuck in quarterback purgatory, as the Browns were pre-Mayfield. Here’s the proof:

Tennessee Titans: The Titans drafted Marcus Mariota with the No. 2 overall pick in 2015 after six straight years of missing the playoffs. Mariota started for four-and-a-half seasons, made the playoffs once and compiled a record of 29-32 as a starter. In the meantime, Tennessee fired Mike Mularkey in spite of the fact he had winning records in his two full seasons as head coach because it wasn’t good enough, and the Titans reshaped the franchise under Mike Vrabel. For a team that had lost for a decade, the standard still had been raised. When the Titans replaced Mariota with veteran Ryan Tannehill, he played like a top-10 quarterback in the league, surrounded by an offense that could help him. The Titans are 18-8 with Tannehill as a starter and they’ve made the playoffs both years, with an AFC Championship Game appearance. They replaced their franchise quarterback, but they have the winning franchise. Quarterback failed, franchise succeeded.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: This might be a stretch, but Tom Brady stepped in and won a Super Bowl on the team that Tampa built for Jameis Winston. The Bucs took Winston No. 1 in 2015 and tried him for five seasons. Tampa missed the playoffs the seven years before they took Winston and the five years they started him, his record 28-42. Along the way, they drafted receiver Chris Godwin and defensive starters like Vita Vea, Devin White, Carlton Davis, Jamel Dean and Jordan Whitehead. The Bucs went all-in on vets when Brady signed, but why did the greatest quarterback in NFL history pick Tampa? In part, because the franchise was in better shape than it had been at any point since winning the Super Bowl in 2002, because it had been trying to maximize its potential during Winston’s five-year window. They won it all in what would have been Winston’s sixth year, which instead was Brady’s first. Quarterback failed, franchise succeeded.

Los Angeles Rams: This is the clearest example as the Rams bailed on Jared Goff this offseason, but only after reaching a Super Bowl with him. They booted Jeff Fisher after one year of coaching Goff in 2016 because they wanted an offensive head coach to bring out the best in their young QB, and the result was Sean McVay. They’ve devalued first-round picks and used them in trades for established veterans like Jalen Ramsey and Brandon Cooks in order to win now. It’s easy to view trading Goff to Detroit this offseason for Matthew Stafford, and sending two first-rounders to the Lions as part of the deal, as a quarterback failure. But it’s not at all a franchise failure. They’re trying to do exactly what Tennessee or Tampa did. Slide the veteran — and Stafford is more talented than Tannehill — into the castle you built for the previous quarterback king. The Rams had missed the playoffs 11 straight years before drafting Goff. In five years with him on the roster, they were 47-33, made three playoff trips and a Super Bowl, and hired one of the best young coaches in the game. Now they’ll try to do what the Bucs did with Brady, and win a Super Bowl in what should be Year 6 of their draft pick when it’s actually Year 1 of a new veteran QB. What started it all? The Rams trading up to No. 1 from No. 15 in 2016 and surrendering an extra first, two second-round picks and two thirds. It was all worth it, not for the QB himself, but for the commitment it created in the franchise. Quarterback OK and then failed, franchise succeeded.

Philadelphia Eagles: Another obvious one. We know now it wasn’t the quarterbacks that led the Eagles to their first Super Bowl title in the 2017 season, it was the structure around them. Because neither Carson Wentz nor Nick Foles, who replaced the injured Wentz for the Super Bowl run, has been particularly effective since. The Eagles had seen the value of a quarterback commitment in the Donovan McNabb era, when they never won a Super Bowl but made the playoffs eight of 10 years with him as the full-time starter and reached five conference title games. This was also a trade-up, with the Browns, to take Wentz No. 2 in 2016, and a Super Bowl title two seasons later means it was the right decision. But the Eagles weren’t awful — they were 7-9 the year before drafting Wentz — which means they were more ready to win right away. They were just in QB no-man’s land with Foles, Mark Sanchez and Sam Bradford over the previous three years. Wentz coincided with new head coach Doug Pederson and, more importantly, new offensive coordinator Frank Reich. The Eagles drafted Derek Barnett and signed Chris Long to beef up their defensive line, and that side of the ball took a leap. The Eagles had been close, and the push for the quarterback answer sent them over the top. It all blew up in 2020, but they’d do it again. Quarterback succeeded and then failed, franchise succeeded.

Minnesota Vikings: Minnesota lost starter Daunte Culpepper to a serious knee injury in the middle of the 2005 season, and over the next eight seasons the Vikings tried five different primary starters to varying degrees of success, with none of them a true long-term answer. In 2014, Minnesota took Teddy Bridgewater with the last pick in the first round and was ready to hand him the reins. He went 17-11 in his first two seasons as a starter before suffering a devastating knee injury in the 2016 preseason. Case Keenum stepped in and went 13-3 with what should have been Bridgewater’s team. How? Because the early success of and commitment to Bridgewater under new coach Mike Zimmer had positioned Minnesota to win even without him. Adam Thielen, Stefon Diggs and Kyle Rudolph developed as pass catchers with Bridgewater and then succeeded without him. The Vikings then signed Kirk Cousins to replace the career they expected from Bridgewater, and as the first Minnesota starting QB since Culpepper to last at least three seasons, Cousins is 25-21-1. Quarterback succeeded then injured, franchise moderately succeeded.

Kansas City Chiefs: This is the dream. The Chiefs were a playoff team three straight years when they traded a third-rounder and a future first to jump from No. 27 to No. 10 in the 2017 draft and take Patrick Mahomes. Buffalo made the deal to move down, and with the extra first-rounder in 2018 drafted future Pro Bowl linebacker Tremaine Edmunds. The Chiefs picked the greatest player of his generation, but he watched Alex Smith from the sideline as a rookie and stepped into a team ready to win big immediately because they were already winners when he got there. The timelines synced perfectly. Quarterback succeeded, franchise succeeded.

Buffalo Bills: They timed it up better than the Browns because they got the coach right immediately. Sean McDermott started the rebuild when he was hired in 2017 as the Bills hadn’t made the playoffs in 17 years. He made the postseason in Year 1, started getting the defense in shape, and then when Josh Allen arrived with the No. 7 pick in 2018, the quarterback and franchise were in lockstep. That meant a playoff berth in Allen’s second season in 2019, and a step forward with a 13-3 season and two playoff wins in 2020. The Browns are close to catching up and getting on the same timetable as the Bills, but Buffalo nailed every step in trying to pair franchise building and quarterback grooming. Adding No. 1 receiver Stefon Diggs in 2020 was the last ideal step. Allen was a risk, but other franchises should study this process, and the fact that the risk paid off is a credit to the structure Buffalo built around him. Quarterback succeeded, franchise succeeded.

Houston Texans: Houston is such a mess now, it’s easy to forget how much the Texans were on the right track when they traded up with the Browns to draft Deshaun Watson at No. 12 in 2017. They had gone 9-7 each of the previous three seasons with Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brian Hoyer and Brock Osweiler as their quarterbacks. They thought signing Osweiler as a free agent would get them over the top, and to their credit, they recognized that mistake immediately. Dropping Watson into a franchise that included DeAndre Hopkins as the No. 1 receiver and J.J Watt as one of the best defensive players in football should have produced an immediate Super Bowl contender. It was close, as the Texans made the playoffs in Watson’s second and third seasons after an injury ended his rookie season after six starts. Absolute incompetence by ownership and the front office has led to Watson wanting out. But in any normal situation, this would have worked, because the QB is a star and the roster was almost ready. Quarterback succeeded, franchise failed.

Chicago Bears: Why did the Bears trade for edge rusher Khalil Mack before they 2018 season, and fire coach John Fox and hire offensive-minded head coach Matt Nagy? Because they were ready to maximize their window with second-year quarterback Mitch Trubisky. In 2018, the Bears went 12-4 and would have advanced in the playoffs with a better field goal kicker. Nagy deserves some blame for this, but the issue for the Bears is that the quarterback didn’t work, and they know it. First, they brought in Foles for competition this season, and he wasn’t the answer, going 2-5 as a starter. But why are the Bears among the four teams that Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson has reportedly said he’ll accept a trade to, and why are the Bears reportedly targeting Wilson? Because both sides see the reality we’re talking about — the franchise built to win with one quarterback, and the new quarterback ready to do it. Chicago was 8-8 each of the last two seasons, and if they get Wilson, get ready for a Tannehill-Tennessee or Brady-Tampa situation. Both sides know what’s possible, because the examples are everywhere. The Bears had missed the playoffs six straight years before drafting Trubisky. Why do they interest Wilson now? Because they committed to a quarterback. Quarterback failed, franchise in limbo with a chance for a big move.

Baltimore Ravens: This is lessened by the fact that the Ravens took Lamar Jackson more as a high-ceiling gamble with the last pick in the first round in 2018. But he provided a clear transition from Joe Flacco and gave them a reason to get off that aging quarterback. The Ravens missed the playoffs the three seasons before they drafted Jackson while winning a total of 22 regular-season games. They’ve made the playoffs the three years with him while winning 35 regular-season games. Quarterback succeeded, franchise succeeded.

Cleveland Browns: The Browns didn’t draft a quarterback in the top-15 between Couch at No. 1 in 1999 and Mayfield at No. 1 in 2019, and all the misery in between was the direct result of their lack of quarterback commitment. Couch suffered through the reality of what the Browns hoped to avoid the second time around — a No. 1 pick at quarterback surrounded by a team unprepared to win. As an expansion franchise in 1999, it wasn’t the Browns’ fault. But they knew not to replicate that. This time, the franchise and the quarterback are growing together.

In the last seven years, 23 quarterbacks have been drafted in the first round. I’d argue that 17 of the 23 times, the franchise is significantly better off for drafting the quarterback high and getting their houses in order by making the commitment. That would include the 11 examples just listed. Then there are four franchises that I expect will have similar stories but are just in the early stages at this point:

• Cincinnati and Joe Burrow

• Miami and Tua Tagovailoa

• L.A. Chargers and Justin Herbert

• Arizona and Kyler Murray

The other two examples are lesser successes, but still not total failures. Blake Bortles was the No. 3 pick in the 2014 draft and Jacksonville did almost make the Super Bowl in spite of Bortles because of the team, and outstanding defense, they built around him. They didn’t have a winning record in any of the six seasons before picking Bortles, and in his fourth season in 2017 they went 10-6 and led New England with three minutes to play in the AFC Championship Game. That’s something. For what has been a fairly consistently losing franchise in the last 20 years, picking Bortles led to a brief one-year peak. And then there’s Washington and the selection of Dwayne Haskins at No. 15 in 2019. He wasn’t good and lost his job this season and was released. But Washington won its division, built a talented, young defense, hired a solid veteran coach in Ron Rivera, and created a team that may be ready to win when it does slot in the right quarterback.

That leaves only six selections of a first-round quarterback since 2014 that did absolutely nothing for a franchise:

• Manziel and the Browns in 2014

• Paxton Lynch and Denver in 2016

• Sam Darnold and the N.Y. Jets in 2018

• Josh Rosen and Arizona in 2018

• Daniel Jones and the N.Y. Giants in 2019

• Jordan Love and Green Bay in 2020

Of those, Manziel and Lynch were longshots picked in the 20s, so the failures don’t hurt as much. Love was a bet on the future after Aaron Rodgers. He was also picked in the 20s, and that still could work. Rosen was a miss immediately rectified by the Cardinals, who picked Murray at No. 1 the next year. And Jones and Darnold are testaments to what a colossal mess football in New York is.

But there’s a clear lesson: Go draft your quarterback and commit. Cleveland finally did.

I think Mayfield is the long-term answer in Cleveland. I think the Browns will sign him to an extension at some point. I think he’ll lead the Browns to repeated playoff appearances. And I think he has a decent chance of being the quarterback when the Browns win their first Super Bowl.

None of these quarterbacks could control where they were picked. Somebody had to be the guy that the Browns finally committed to. But that doesn’t mean all of them could have handled it. Mayfield may not be a quarterback who can carry franchise by himself. But he has proven he can be a quarterback that a franchise can believe in, support and build around.

For any NFL team, drafting and truly committing to a young quarterback is never the wrong move. Whatever that quarterback does, the franchise will be better for the effort. The Browns finally figured it out because the presence of Baker Mayfield made them do it. For the rest of Mayfield’s career as a quarterback, the Browns are already better for believing in him.

Browns playoffs shirts, hats for sale: Here’s where Cleveland Browns fans can order shirts and hats celebrating the team qualifying for the 2020 NFL playoffs.

More Browns coverage

Free agents to keep? Making a list. Guess who is my No. 1? – Terry’s Talkin’ Browns

What to expect with Odell Beckham, David Njoku, Rashard Higgins, Lavonte David, Marshon Lattimore, others during free agency: Browns Insider

Browns quarterback Baker Mayfield and wife see something strange in night sky: Crowquill

With J.J. Watt gone, what other edge-rushers are the Browns targeting? Hey, Mary Kay!

3 offseason decisions that will tell us a lot about the Browns’ future

Stefanski: Browns can keep OBJ, Landry despite big salaries: ‘We’re in a good spot’

Getting active in the trade market and more takeaways from GM Berry

If Browns don’t extend Mayfield now, would it create a Prescott-type rift? Hey, Mary Kay!

Ranking the Browns’ 10 best players: Orange and Brown Roundtable

Wyatt Teller carries alligator over his shoulders in Central Florida

Hey Baker, Aaron Rodgers and maybe Tom Brady have seen UFOs, too

Greedy Williams opens up about shoulder, ‘fake injury’ attacks, and 2021 plans

NFL true or false: Is the 4-3 defense dead and what does that mean for Browns?