Cleveland Is the Kind of Cheap That Tests Your Courage

There is a particular kind of optimism available only after your offense finishes 31st in scoring.

Well, it can't get much worse.

This is technically true.

It is also not an especially ambitious rebuilding plan.

The Cleveland Browns scored 16.4 points per game in 2025, finished 5–12, changed starting quarterbacks twice, allowed 51 sacks and ended the season with more interceptions than passing touchdowns. They were 30th in total offense and produced 4.2 yards per play.

And somehow, buried inside all of that, Cleveland may have found a couple of useful young offensive players.

Which brings us to 2026.

The AutoDraftYears model projects the Browns to improve to 20.5 points per game.

That is a healthy 4.1-point jump.

It also ranks 28th.

This is the Cleveland question:

What should we actually pay for an offense getting better when “better” still means one of the worst offenses in football?

What Actually Happened in 2025?

Cleveland entered last season looking for a quarterback.

It ended the season still looking for a quarterback, but with substantially more information.

Joe Flacco opened as the starter. After a 1–3 start, the Browns benched him for rookie Dillon Gabriel, hoping the move would create some offense and reduce turnovers.

Eventually Shedeur Sanders got his turn.

By January, Cleveland's quarterback stat line looked like something created by three people sharing one unfortunate fantasy roster:

Sanders actually led the team with just 1,400 passing yards. Gabriel threw for 937. Flacco threw for 815 before Cleveland moved on.

No Browns quarterback reached 1,500 yards.

That is generally not how the forward pass is supposed to work.

Yet the weird part of Cleveland's season is that the rookies gave the offense something resembling a pulse.

Quinshon Judkins rushed for 827 yards and seven touchdowns in 14 games.

He did it behind an offense that averaged only 3.9 yards per team rushing attempt.

Then Harold Fannin Jr. became perhaps the strangest bright spot on the roster.

The rookie tight end led Cleveland in receiving with 72 catches, 731 yards and six touchdowns. Jerry Jeudy, coming off his 1,000-yard 2024 season, fell to 602 yards and two touchdowns.

So Cleveland's season wasn't simply bad.

It was transitional.

The Browns spent much of 2025 finding out which young players might matter whenever the offense eventually becomes functional.

Then the organization made the transition official.

Kevin Stefanski was fired after the 5–12 season, ending his six-year run in Cleveland.

Todd Monken replaced him.

And this is where optimism becomes at least slightly more defensible.

Monken spent the previous three years coordinating Baltimore's offense. Over that stretch, the Ravens ranked third in the NFL in points per game and first in rushing yards.

Cleveland is not Baltimore.

Quinshon Judkins is not Derrick Henry.

And whoever wins Cleveland's quarterback job is not Lamar Jackson.

This feels worth mentioning.

But the Browns aren't simply asking the same offense to magically score four more points per game.

Something actually changed.

What Does the Model Think Happens Next?

AutoDraftYears expects improvement.

Just not salvation.

The scoring projection basically returns Cleveland toward its five-year average of 19.2 points per game.

This isn't a breakout forecast.

It's rehabilitation.

And the positional environments reinforce that.

Running back is Cleveland's best fantasy environment.

It ranks 18th.

This is like winning employee of the month while HR is carrying boxes out of the building.

The historical comps aren't much more exciting.

The 30 offenses since 2016 most similar to Cleveland's projected scoring, passing and red-zone profile produced 2.2 fantasy starters per season.

League average: 2.6.

Bear case: 1.

Base case: 2.

Bull case: 3.

This does not look like an offense where we should be collecting Browns just because Monken arrived with an offensive résumé.

There probably isn't enough production.

The question is who gets it.

What Does That Mean for Fantasy Managers?

Interestingly, the market already seems aware that Cleveland has a few useful players.

AutoDraftYears ranks the Browns' fantasy roster 22nd.

The market ranks it 26th.

That's not a meaningful disagreement.

There is no secret Browns discount.

Actually, there are no model buys on the entire roster.

Quinshon Judkins Is Almost Annoyingly Fair

Judkins goes around pick 52 as RB23.

The model ranks him...

RB23.

Wonderful.

Months of data analysis have produced the revolutionary conclusion that everyone basically agrees.

But the logic makes sense.

Judkins already survived this offense once. He handled 230 carries as a rookie, scored seven times and now gets Monken, whose recent offenses have been extremely friendly to the running game.

His Role Score is 76. His risk grade is Low. Cleveland's RB environment is the best on the roster.

I don't particularly want Browns exposure.

I do want starting running backs with strong workloads.

At RB23, those two ideas can coexist.

Harold Fannin Is Where 2025 Success Gets Expensive

Fannin is more complicated because he was legitimately good last season.

You don't accidentally lead an NFL team in receptions and receiving yards as a rookie tight end.

That happened.

The problem is what fantasy managers are charging for the sequel.

Market: TE7.

Model: TE21.

Adjusted edge: -14.

His Role Score is actually excellent at 80, and his risk grade is Low.

The model isn't arguing that Fannin disappears.

It's asking whether TE7 is an appropriate price for a player attached to the model's 26th-ranked tight-end environment.

Those are different questions.

Fantasy managers see a 22-year-old tight end coming off 72 catches and immediately begin mentally constructing Travis Kelce.

Understandable.

We have suffered at this position.

But TE7 requires the Cleveland improvement story to turn into real fantasy production quickly.

I'm not paying that price.

KC Concepcion Requires Even More Imagination

Then comes rookie receiver KC Concepcion.

WR54 in the market.

WR78 in the model.

Adjusted edge: -29.

Role Score: 66.

Medium risk.

WR environment: 26th.

Could he hit?

Of course.

Pick 128 isn't refinancing the house.

But late-round receiver is one of the few places in a fantasy draft where optimism is basically free. There are interesting young receivers everywhere.

I don't need to choose the one entering an offense that threw 16 touchdowns last season just because I enjoyed the college highlights.

Market and Model are ranks within the position. Edge is the model's position rank against the market's, after removing the drift that affects every player at that price — so it reads as “the model likes him this many places more than it likes the typical player who costs this much.” A call needs the edge to clear the position's bar (QB 5, RB 15, WR 11, TE 5 places), set at two-thirds of that position's own spread.

What Could Make This Wrong?

Todd Monken is the obvious answer.

If Cleveland's offense changes more dramatically than the model expects, these prices look better.

Quarterback is the other enormous variable. As of August, Monken is still evaluating Deshaun Watson and Shedeur Sanders rather than operating with an established starter.

And the number I'd watch once the season begins is red-zone trips.

2025: 2.2 per game.

Model projection: 2.9.

If Cleveland starts consistently approaching three red-zone trips per game, something meaningful has changed.

Then we can reconsider Fannin. Concepcion becomes more interesting. Judkins gets more touchdown equity.

If they're still hanging around 2.2?

Then we have our answer.

The Browns may have improved.

They just haven't improved enough for us to pay extra for the privilege of watching.

Sources: Auto Draft Years FF Model workbook — Team Data By Year, Team Stat Ranking, 2026 Team Context; Auto Draft Years 2026 consensus board (16 authoritative market sources); Player outcomes 2016–2025, Pro Football Reference via the project dataset. Team environment grades, forecasts and player model ranks are proprietary. Every figure on this page is generated from the dataset at build time; none is typed in by hand.