Stop Saying the Browns Should Blow It Up

We need to talk about the Cleveland Browns.

Everybody knows they had a bad year in 2024. Everybody knows that the Deshaun Watson trade and contract were massive mistakes that cost the team not only financial flexibility but also draft picks. Everybody knows this team is not where it needs to be to consistently contend for the playoffs, let alone a Super Bowl. That part isn’t up for debate. My issue is projecting what the team should do in response to that bad season.

Over the years, this entire fan base and the media that covers the team have been indoctrinated to think that firing people solves something. I'll admit that I've felt that sense of relief over the years when the Browns announced various Wicked Witches were dead. But for every justified firing, mistakes were also made.

I wasn't necessarily relieved or happy when Mike Pettine was fired. He was a coach who seemed like a leader and was actually good at something, namely defense. Maybe more time was the missing variable for him. No firing was more egregious in my mind than Rob Chudzinski, who had assembled what I felt was the most experienced and capable staffs in quite some time. He was run out less than 12 months from when he was hired. Which brings us to our current moment.

Some fans and media want to clean house rather than look at Andrew Berry and Kevin Stefanski and see two guys who are as qualified as any we’ve ever seen in this team's leadership roles. Instead of seeing them as the duo that combined to win multiple Coaches of the Year awards and make the playoffs twice in their tenure, they're being defined by a bad, awkward year that seems designed as a last-gasp effort to salvage the worst trade ever. It was awkward, for sure, including Stefanski mysteriously giving up play-calling to Ken Dorsey midway through the season. It was as bad as it sounds with the falloff on the offensive line as well. But if it was a house cleaning you wanted, then you could look only as far as poor Ken Dorsey being shown the door after one year as evidence they're not dumb enough to continue down the same path.

(It was appropriate to move on from Dorsey, but you have to feel for the guy if you believe his only path to success was tied to the success of a completely lost Deshaun Watson. I digress.)

I'm sure Kevin Stefanski and Andrew Berry have some arguments and occasional power struggles. If they just agreed on everything, I'd be terrified. However, the fact that they've maintained a working relationship, at least publicly to the point that we haven't heard about infighting, and without working back channels to try to get the other fired over their working relationship, is indicative of something better than we've seen in the past.

Which brings me to the owner. For once, it looks like the owner is actually doing what we’ve begged him to do for years: be hands-off. He's shut his mouth and continues to write checks. He's stood by his people, giving them a vote of confidence to stop speculation that they'd be fired in a difficult moment as they've owned up to the Deshaun Watson trade as an organizational decision. Rather than try to find a boogeyman and eliminate that fall guy for the benefit of public relations, they're being allowed to try and clean up the mess they made.

And rather than being patient and saying this is prudent, many within the loudest corners of Browns Nation are decrying this as a failure and tantrum-ing around like their sense of bloodlust is righteous and dripping with wisdom. Because all those satisfying firings have led to what, exactly?

There’s this idea floating around that the Browns could fix things by firing Berry. Or Stefanski. Or, worst of all, that they can somehow get better by getting worse, by trading Myles Garrett. Even if I grant you that the team is two years away from serious contention (and I’m not even sure I believe that), how does subtracting one of the greatest players in franchise history and potentially rendering much of the roster irrelevant to a new regime's "system" improve the situation?

How many times have the Browns wasted perfectly good players like Jabaal Sheard because they didn't fit a new defensive scheme? Sheard goes on to play a decade of productive football in the league, never making more than $10 million in any one season while averaging about $4 million per year over his career. You don't think the Browns could have used a player like that in their second contract rather than having them go on to win a Super Bowl with the Pats in 2016? I'm not saying Sheard wins the Browns a Super Bowl, but I'm saying that man was a valuable middle class NFL player on a Super Bowl champ, but due to change, he wasn't worth a second contract. Talk about a wasted draft pick.

The point is that there's a real switching cost, both in terms of culture and in terms of starting over on the plan. Installing new offensive and defensive schemes has cost us a lot over the years as fans. It's also served to minimize player investments. One regime's favorite second-round player is another's bad scheme fit.

So, in that lens, let's discuss the idea that many in the media continue to tout that the Browns should have traded Myles Garrett. Simply asked, why?

Yes, they could have traded him at his request, but there's no way the Browns can get fair value for a player of Garrett's caliber. And given the financial implications of eating tons of dead money, it would have led to a downfall to an existing roster that still has some of the best middle-class NFL starters since the team returned to the league. So, you're not only selling out the present, you're doing so for speculative draft picks that almost definitely can't get you a player of Garrett's caliber. "A bird in the hand," is a well-worn cliche because there's truth to it.

So the idea is that you not only trade Garrett for future picks with unknown upside or quality, to be utilized by a new regime that will be rebuilding a team in their image, while wasting the existing players on the roster who might be valuable, but not the right scheme fit?

If the Browns are at least two years away WITH Garrett and their draft picks back, how are they any better off without him? Because they have more draft picks that almost definitely will never be as good as HIM? I think it's more reasonable to say that all the change prescribed by the loudest voices puts the team further behind than what they appear to be doing.

Especially right now.

This team finally has a little daylight ahead of it. Deshaun Watson is still on the roster and will be for a little while longer, but the team finally has its draft picks back. Presuming Watson isn't able to play this season, another year of his contract expires with some financial relief due to insurance. You truly never wish injury on anyone, but it's strategically useful in this moment if we're being brutally honest. It puts the end of that horrid contract in sight. And the Browns finally appear to not only be in position, but in the mood, to move on from one of the worst players in team history, who was paid the most money in team history.

See? You can say all that while still not trying to fire everyone in a counterproductive maneuver.

Lastly on Watson... Obviously, it's all worked out as badly as it could have, but the process almost certainly shouldn't have been this bad. Watson was supposed to be risky as a P.R. maneuver, but nobody ever dreamed that he'd be this bad at football, right? Can we at least be that intellectually honest that we all figured he'd at least light up the box score and be good under center?

The whole analytics revolution in sports has been centered around the idea of process over results. It's nice to finally see the Browns continue to build on a process that they've invested heavily in over the years, allowing adults and professionals to iterate and try to improve. Obviously, at some point, results need to get there too, but a year removed from a playoff appearance and the coach's second award for coach of the year, while resurrecting Joe Flacco into the Comeback Player of the Year, it's pretty silly to suggest it's time to give up.

There have been some good results. This past season there were some bad results. Processes aren't measured year-to-year and I think it's smart to give this one some more time. It's not easy to say because if and when they fail, someone will point out this column and say I "was wrong." I'll take that chance. I've been wrong before. But at least I'm using more logic than those who are screaming the loudest about blowing it all up again.