The Browns aren't a laughing stock because of the QB position; they're a laughing stock because the organization is a mess. They've had several QBs who have been sufficiently competent to run an offense and generate wins. If you look, Hoyer was actually their last winning QB. THat's not too long ago - a few years. McCown can win games - and is wining games for the Jets this year. Both of those guys played some games before becoming starters for Cleveland. The difference right now for the Packers is that their backup lacks actual NFL starting experience.

But back to Cleveland-Packers organization. These are vastly different situations. Obviously the Browns went with this moneyball approach run by non-football people. They've accumulated all these picks, but depleted the roster, gotten extraordinarily young at key positions, made lots of draft blunders, and passed on a franchise QB twice. In contrast, the Packers hired a coach who is a QB guru, and they found their guy. Stubby and TT organized the team around Rodgers and winning with mostly a dominant offense. That's why they suffer so much with Rodgers out - much like the Colts became dependent on Manning. The league is QB-centered and designed to punish success. The teams that can consistently win find ways to counter this, but mostly they do so centering their team around a talented dynamic QB. But to even suggest that Cleveland = GB - Rodgers is absurd, even if they both end up with the same record. Because if Rodgers is lost for more than a year/ when he retires, the Packers will go get that next QB and run their team around that guy. They may be less successful until they get/train him up, but they will be on the correct path. The same cannot - at all - be said for Cleveland, because - in addition to a myriad of other problems - they still haven't figured out that it's a QB driven league and that they must get their franchise QB - this, even though they hired a supposed QB guru/offensive-minded coach.