The funny thing about ESPN’s coverage last night is that they both did what the Sanders family wanted and also made Shedeur Sanders look terrible.
1. Remember Quinn Ewers?
From the sounds of it, consensus holds that there are three routes the Browns could go in tonight’s second round, a second round in which they right now hold two of the first four picks. They could take a quarterback and make that quarterback Shedeur Sanders. They could take a quarterback and make that quarterback Tyler Shough. They could decline to take a quarterback with those two picks, then try to grab Jalen Milroe later.
I’m curious if there’s a fourth route, one who opened last college football season looking like the best quarterback in the country, then underwhelmed while playing through two injuries.
We’ve never been out on Quinn Ewers, though there were times when Texas’s offense looked lifeless last fall and we thought Steve Sarkisian might give Arch Manning more run. The guy knows how to play quarterback. His physical tools aren’t the best, and he’s probably closer to his ceiling than Milroe and maybe Shough, but if you’re the Cleveland Browns, you could do worse than tossing Ewers into a quarterback room with Joe Flacco and Kenny Pickett. You have options there. You have a solid best-case scenario in both the short and long-term. I’m not saying the Browns should take Ewers 33rd or 36th overall. That isn’t necessary. But if they think he’ll be there at 67, where they hold the third pick in the third round?
Cases for and against each of the four guys:
- Shedeur Sanders: The case for Sanders is that he’s a good playmaker, he’s lethal underneath, and he excels under pressure. The case against is that he’s liable to be a distraction, that he might be difficult to coach, and that as someone who—like Ewers—has spent nearly every day of his life training to be an NFL quarterback, there might not be room for much more growth. The other case against is that his arm strength isn’t all that good, that he isn’t particularly big, and that his speed won’t play on an NFL field the way it did against Texas Tech and Utah.
- Tyler Shough: The case for Shough is that he’s the most impressive passer of these four. In that sense, I guess you could call his upside the highest, although that’s kind of a specific angle. He spent seven years in college, but he only started 32 games, and he played under a variety of coaches, which can be helpful and unhelpful in developing a quarterback. For a guy who profiles a lot like Joe Flacco, there’s something to be said for putting him in a film room with Joe Flacco for a year. Plus, since he’s 25, a big part of his prime will be covered by his rookie contract, so in the best-case scenario the Browns could theoretically cut bait without having to do the dance of overpaying a quarterback who’s only the 15th-best in the league. The case against? If you needed to beat Ohio State last year, Shough was the last of these four quarterbacks you’d take. He wasn’t as effective as Sanders and Ewers. His best performances weren’t as good as Milroe’s.
- Jalen Milroe: The case for Milroe is that his raw tools are the loudest, and that new Browns offensive coordinator Tommy Rees already coached Milroe once at Alabama, giving a potential familiarity advantage. (I think the better way to take this than “this would help Milroe/Rees” is that Rees probably has a solid idea of how easy it’ll be to convert those tools into an NFL starting quarterback. Meaning: If the Browns take Milroe, it’s probably a good idea. If they don’t take him, it’s probably also a good idea. Theoretically.) The case against Milroe is that he was just never that good, and he might never be that good. His on-field floor is the lowest, and he’s closest to his floor coming in.
- Quinn Ewers: The case for Ewers is that he knows how to play quarterback, that he’s tough, and that like Sanders, he’s used to pressure. To be honest, Ewers and Sanders are similar in a ton of ways. Ewers is smarter in the pocket and in the press, and Sanders is a much better runner, but both are great underneath, both know how to compete under pressure, both are extremely confident, both have been groomed for this, and neither throws a great deep ball. I don’t think the public accepts how physically limited Ewers was last season. Obliques are nasty injuries. Add the ankle, and that guy was hobbled. The case against Ewers is, then, pretty similar to the football case against Sanders: Ewers might be too physically limited to be a good NFL starter.
I’d lump Ewers and Sanders together, and I’d lump Shough and Milroe together. I’d determine how much appetite the Browns organization has for risk at this position. Once I’d chosen which category was preferable, I’d look at the opportunity cost associated with these two early second round picks. Conveniently for the Browns, if there are two players they really like in those early picks, they can almost definitely figure out how to take Ewers or Milroe later tonight, either at 67 or by trading back into the second round.
It’s probably smarter to go the Shough/Milroe route. But Ewers is tempting. The off-field distraction risk might be way too high with Sanders to justify a second round pick, especially since the point of the Sanders/Ewers route is that you can be more certain they’re ready right now. Catastrophic floors are not something to flirt with when you’re already the Browns. Don’t do that to your fans.
2. Green Bay is an awesome place to have the NFL Draft.
I am biased, a Packer fan raised by a Packer fan, but I don’t know that there’s anywhere better to hold the NFL Draft than right outside of Lambeau Field. Last night was perfect. Gigantic crowd. Huge celebration for Matthew Golden, the Packers’ first-round pick. Plenty of opposing fans.
The thing about the NFL Draft is that it doesn’t need to be in Nashville or New York City or another place that’s attractive to the average tourist. Anyone who attends the NFL Draft is not an average tourist. They’re an NFL fan. Put it in Green Bay. Put it outside whatever they call Heinz Field now. I guess this is a continuation of what they were going for with Detroit and Kansas City, and I guess I’m just late to understanding what they’re doing, but long story short, I love it.
3. The Thunder comeback showed something better than resilience.
The Thunder pulled off a ridiculous comeback last night in Game 3 against the Grizzlies, and what was striking was how routine they made it look. To be fair, the Grizzlies are the Grizzlies and were down Ja Morant. But the flipside of that is that the Thunder didn’t need last night’s game. They could have packed it up, called it a night, and moved on to Game 4, content to clinch the series in Game 5 at home. In fact, I think they got close to that approach. There wasn’t some rallying moment where they put on their tough pants. Alex Caruso is just Alex Caruso, and Chet Holmgren is Chet Holmgren, and the rest of them are the rest of them, and the Thunder are just really good. That’s the point of last night’s comeback: The Thunder are just really good.
**
