DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns GM Andrew Berry: ‘No rule against extending’ Deshaun Watson’s contract; QB battle is performance-based

PHOENIX — Just when the Browns are close to digging out from under Deshaun Watson’s fully-guaranteed $230 million contract, Browns GM Andrew Berry revealed Sunday that it might not be over just yet.

By Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com

If Watson wins the quarterback battle and plays well, the Browns could always bring him back for more.

In fact, when Berry first traded three first-round picks and more in 2022 for Watson, he said he hoped it would be a 10-year proposition and not just the original five.

So when it comes to Watson vs. Shedeur Sanders and whoever else is in the quarterback room this offseason, his expiring contract -- worth $46 million a year — won’t be a factor.

“We’re probably just more focused on performance and best players,” Berry told a small group of Browns beat writers at the NFL owners meetings here. “Certainly time horizon factors into that, but just with any veteran player, there’s no rule against extending the player’s contract if they perform and they do well. So I wouldn’t necessarily box it into any one approach. It really will be performance-based.”

Berry also re-iterated that no one has a leg up in the competition at this point. All three quarterbacks currently on the roster — including 2025 third-round pick Dillon Gabriel — are on equal footing heading into the start of the offseason program on April 7.

“I’d say as we sit here on March 29th, and nobody has touched the grass, nobody has really worked with our coaching staff, I wouldn’t handicap it for anyone,” Berry said. “I think everyone in that room deserves opportunity. And so we’ll certainly know a lot more as we get to the spring. We’ll know even more as we get to camp. But I think honestly, we wouldn’t be doing the right thing for the team, we wouldn’t be doing the right thing for that position if we didn’t go in with it eyes wide open.”

What’s more, he acknowledged that it’s “wholly realistic” for the Browns to add another quarterback to the mix, most likely a younger one. The Browns have hosted Alabama quarterback Ty Simpson for a top 30 pre-draft visit and will spend more time on him. They’ll also consider other QBs in the draft and elsewhere, and Berry won’t “rule out any method of acquisition.”

But the Browns seem eager to see what Sanders can do in his second season with an upgraded supporting cast, a new scheme and a new head coach in Todd Monken, who cited his elite playmaking ability last month at the NFL Combine. With Berry and Monken both noting that Sanders has a long way to go, can he make up that ground by the opener?

“That’s a little bit TBD (to be determined), because all of our guys coming in, they’re going to learn a new offensive system,” Berry said. “We’re going to have a fair amount of turnover on that side of the ball. They’ll have new teammates to learn, which is why the spring will be really important for the guys that are at the offseason program for us to really, really get a sense of their progress year over year.”

He noted that Sanders has been “working really hard. I would expect him to take a step forward and we’ll deal with that kind of week-by-week and month-by-month.”

The quarterback competition will get underway at Browns headquarters in just over a week, and if Watson lives up to his vow to be better than ever, it might not be his last season in Browns uniform after all.

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...ract-qb-battle-is-performance-based.html

Well Pit, at least we're keeping all our options open!!

That's what husbands say while they're out looking for a hooker.

LOL 😂

If Watson gets an extension without winning a Super Bowl, I am done with this team.

You know ... it's ALWAYS a possibility that the Watson was bad because he didn't fit Kevin's very strict system. The one who lit it up with Kevin were the ones who ignored him like Flacco and Winston. What if we discover that the problem wasn't Watson but Kevin? We might find out if they keep the competition TRUE and let the best QB win. What if Monken returns Watson to his original glory?

I admit I would rather Sanders rise to the top after a brutally tough competition. Sanders has potential if he can speed up his game. Can he even learn the playbook in time though? I am not sure. He is a media darling who seem to know all the right things to say but he seems a bit slow in learning the playbook and reading defenses. He needs to focus more on improving his craft than paying attention to his public image. I would love to see him refocus and explode this year and lay all doubt to rest.

I'd say the chances are slim. However, Watson could beat out Shedufus, so who knows? If he played well, I wouldn't be against it.

I wouldn’t be against DW starting if he proves to be the better QB, which may happen.
I’d prefer SS take the job outright with his play because we’d have our future QB.

Watson is 30. For a QB that is still young enough for him to be considered your future QB. While unlikely, it isn't out of the question of him playing another 9-10 years. Even 5-6 years is far better than anything we have seen over the last 15 years or so. It's been like the Browns have been running a QB of the month club.

When it comes to Desean Watson, this is what I see as the most likely outcome. He wins the battle, starts two games. He looks great, but gets hurt, nothing season ending, but keeps him out for about 10 weeks. Browns start out 1-1.

Sanders replaces him and looks like we all thought he would, hoped he would be better, but isn’t. We are convinced he is no the QB of the future. Wins 2 out of 10 games.

At 3-9, Watson returns healthy. Looks as great as he did the first two games, The Browns finish the season on a 5 game win streak. Finish the season 8-9. No hope for a playoff, but hope that Watson could be the QB everyone wanted.

Then he gives them the middle finger on his way to free agency as he signs with the next big chump willing to give him more than he is worth.

I hate being negative, it isn’t part of my DNA, except when it comes to Watson.

I can see him being just good enough to ruin our season of what could have been and also winning just enough to ruin our chances of getting a QB in the 2027 draft. At 8-9, it’s possible we would be picking in the 11-28 range. Just out of reach of moving up far enough to get one of them without the option of trading 5 years worth of first round picks.

Watson would have to regress even more than he has in his time here for him to lose out to Shedeur.
That does not mean he will be good, though, only that he'll be the best of a fairly bad bunch.

Ohhhh - I think that's a brave statement. I think the worst of DW was as bad or worse than the worst we saw of Sanders (not including Pre-season). The best we saw of DW was far better that the best we saw from Sanders. If you take the whole and average it ... DW was really really sucky for about 1/3 of the games. Bad for 1/3. Average for most of the other 1/3 and had from what I remember maybe 1 1/2 games of good. There was nothing I saw from DW that indicated he was just slightly off - for whatever reason - it looked a mess. If it is at all close I'd roll with SS or Gabriel. I don't think Gabriel is going to suit Monken's scheme but I would not throw him out of the mix yet either. He faced by far the superior defenses.

I agree with Purp. Our QB room saw a stiff range of defenses. Gabriel held up well against tough defenses behind a lousy line. DW should be able to win it, but king of the hill in this room doesn't mean good enough. Good enough to start doesn't suggest good enough to win. Seems that some here are committed to awarding the starter job to SS. Hope Monken doesn't explain this to death. Just too much of a leap to say I see starter in SS. We need more than these there have shown.

No one knows for sure, but I could see your scenario playing out. It may be the worst possible of all possibilities. Slightly less than average season, not bad enough to benefit us, not good enough to enjoy even mild success.

For me, worst case scenario has Watson playing just well enough to get another big contract
So we pass on next years Qb class that ends up producing 5 hall of fame Qb's taken in round
Watson then returns to playing like crap and an inept watson ends up being the face of our franchise for the next 10 years
Then he gets brought up on new sexual predator charges

Accuracy of Berry’s statement: 100%

Probability of it an extension occurring: 0%

It is the silly season for football.

I agree it deserves at least a chuckle, but maybe not a full out roll on the floor. Some systems don't fit a player and it's possible that Kevin's system and Watson were like oil and vinegar.

I could buy that if we hadn't witnessed what we all saw. The QB we had over the past few years that actually had the arm to throw the deep ball was Flacco. When Flacco was here Stefanski called plays allowing him to air it out. From that it appeared to me that Stefanski's play calling was dependent on the talent of his QB's and not a set in stone system that was never adjusted according to who was playing the QB position. If anything sometimes I got the feeling that he let QB's throw too much. I'm not sure how that would impede a QB's ability to perform.

The part that was so funny is he made it sound like these two QB's just went rogue and ignored Stenfanski's play calling and did what they wanted. That's hilarious.

The system last year was "Throw the ball before you get killed"

I thought the title of this thread was an April Fool's joke.

I'd say there is a big difference between the way Flacco plays the position v Watson. It's more than both players having big arms.

I would say you are right. That's why he changed the play calling for Flacco. That was my entire point. He adjusts the play calling to suit the QB.

Funny Berry has been on the job for 7 years ,and this is the best QB room
He can put together . Ranking the NFL GMs he is definitely bottom 5

Watson has what? Maybe just over 1000 yds passing since joining the team. Bench fodder in my book 3rd QB. He’ll get playing time when the other two go down.

Honestly, I'd rather him start the year while the offensive line has to gel together.

I don't want to even see watson wearing a Browns jersey again much less wearing one on the field of play. Signing watson to begin with was disgusting the biggest insult to the fan base I've seen in this entire debacle since 1999 and most likely ever.

Quoted for emphsis

Quoted for agreement

Quoted for quadruplfication.

2 Great Drafts 2025-26

Green means no chance of Watson being resigned. Sanders and Green will end up being the only QBs on this team next season if Sanders survives.

I am now a Green fan. He might whip everybody in the room. Don't know if I am bigger, better Browns fan by rooting for somebody or against somebody. I will play it safe and do both. Welcome, Green!

I guess there is no rule against beating a dead horse.

watson will not be a dead horse until he leaves Cleveland. Until then that horse is still breathing.

I agree. It isn't entirely over for him a Cleveland. If he looks good, Monken is going to play the QB he feels gives him the best shot at winning. Looking better than Shedufus isn't that high of a bar.

As for Green, I am not sure he will ever turn in to a good QB. I might have him go catch a few passes. He has all the attributes from a physical standpoint to be a stud #1 receiver in the NFL. As a QB he already has some idea of receiver routes.

I think he stands a better chance of studding out at receiver than even being a decent QB at the NFL level.

JMO

I think Green would make the prefect QB to play in the Wildcat and trick plays. How he develops from there moving forward is anyone's guess.

As for Monken starting watson. If he has no more scruples than the rest of them regarding watson he can go too as far as I'm concerned.

Nice

Terrelle Pryor is definitely the comparison.

Here is something that is lost, in 2016 he had 77 receptions for 1007 yards and 4 TD's with the Browns. That was his best season as a reciever.

Terrelle Pryor was a bit of a mess from a personal standpoint, Green does not appear to have those type of issues.

Green offers too much potential to add to the explosiveness to the O to sit the bench for long stretches. The problem with bringing him in for a package of plays here and there is you are telling the D what you are hoping to do. At least do it from a WR slot where the intent isn't as obvious...at least as long as it isn't as obvious as it was under Stefanski where you knew it was some sort of jet sweep or reverse 95% of the time.

Yeah, it was pretty predictable when Elijah Moore showed up it was going to be a jet sweep. A player has to have more than one calling card to be effective. That is on the coaches as well.

Yeah, it was pretty predictable when Elijah Moore showed up it was going to be a jet sweep. A player has to have more than one calling card to be effective. That is on the coaches as well.

Moore was a WR. Green is a QB who is a threat to pass or run the ball. These two situations are not similar.

Except when they are running onto the field, the other team is screaming their name and the probable play.

Once again Moore a WR. Green is an actual QB. Green opens up the option to pass or run from the pocket which does not give the play away when he comes on the field. You do understand the difference there don't you?

Exactly Pit..

You can build a short yardage/red zone scheme based on what Green can do. It won't be 1 or 2 plays, it will be a scheme with 10-15 plays built around the look the defense gives you. Now, given a defense each week, there might only be 4-5 of those plays that will be practiced against their particular defense set. THEN, you take those 5 plays inserted for that weekly game plan and it automatically turns into 10 plays by inverting the alignment.

Nothing is TOO vanilla in the NFL. Monken will be able to hide what he is doing with the limited number of plays schemed to Green.

It's why this type of scheming can work a lot better than the wildcat.

The difference to me is more the coach.

If you run the same play everytime one player is on the filed it's predictable
If you run multiple plays then it is no different than using any other substitution

The difference to me is more the coach.

If you run the same play everytime one player is on the filed it's predictable
If you run multiple plays then it is no different than using any other substitution

WR's aren't a legitimate threat to run or pass equally from the pocket. Your options are far more limited than having a QB in there who can be a legitimate threat to do both. In Monken's first year here they drafted him and gave him an option we didn't see them give Stefanski. I won't try predict or try to guess what Stefanski would have done with such a tool at his disposal but at the same time I'm not going to point the finger at him because he never had such an option. But I am quite convinced that won't prevent others from doing so.

I think in order to make something like this work, the offense first has to establish an identity, and then you can start adding chunks of plays off of a subset of looks.

Ex. Jacoby Brissett and the QB sneaks. We still had a strong Oline and he was really good at executing that play. Then KS added wrinkles to it. I think this is how we build a subset of plays for Green (slowly).

I think him having already been a starting QB that worked in an O where he has already worked well in the run/pass option would make this an easy transition for him. As a senior he rushed for 777 yards and eight touchdowns on 139 carries.

Based on his 2025 season at Arkansas and his performance at the 2026 Senior Bowl, Taylen Green is a dual-threat quarterback who frequently operates out of RPO (Run-Pass Option) and read-option sets, utilizing his 6'6" frame and elite speed.

I don't think there needs to be a big cause for alarm in thinking Monken needs to slow walk this.

I would slow walk him out to the WR position. Assuming he can catch. I don't see why he can't. He aces every other physical attribute. Find out with a machine whizzing balls at him. Find out if he can catch while running. Find out if he can track deep balls. If so, you have an all-pro receiver in a year. I seriously doubt he will ever be an all-pro QB.

There are guys that have been working at the WR position for years, that come in with the "raw" label, that never even come close to a second contract.

This guy would be starting from zero... you're talking about route-running, catching, route trees... the whole thing... starting from zero. Getting to 'almost-nfl-caliber' is probably not going to happen.

J/C
I think Taylen Green is further along at QB than Josh Allen was. His defense (and teammates propensity for fumbling) just had him playing from behind against better defenses. That's not a great recipe. He's not necessarily as (arm) talented as Josh, but was asked to do a lot more. Taylen needs to get quicker in his release and footwork. He's not the tank/magician that Allen is, but I think he's further along on the mental side than Josh was when he came out (that's not saying a ton.) Green has tools worth seeing if they can work at QB before considering a change that rarely ever works out.

That's not to say he'll definitely be a great QB, but he's much more QB than WR, and we've many more questions marks there.

That nay be true, but I remember when Stefanski ran 3rd or 4th and short using Harrison Bryant. I remember that 3 straight times when he was used. All 3 were distinctively different plays, and they were successful. It was a very creative use of one player to offer multiple play options.

Yeah as a player needs to be clutch along the way. Need to move on from Watson but cutting him seems to be easier said than done!

As a QB I would think he has some understanding of route trees. Catching, either he can or can't, and route running can be taught.

Yet when asked the Browns stated they drafted him to play QB and he said he wasn't going to play WR.

I read somewhere about the number of high quality starting NFL QB's there have been that were taken in the 3rd round or later in the last 20 something years. The answer was maybe 2? Brock Purdy being one. Wilson the other. Then you had Warner who wasn't drafted.

The odds for Sanders, Gabriel or Green making an impact are very long - it does not mean they can't ... just that the very large pool of data shows how challenging it will be. Green is something of a freak of nature and it's enticing to think of ways to use that athleticism - but there is still a large gulf between what might be and what is probable.

Maybe even possible. For that reason I don't rule out QB, but knowing the odds I would examine other avenues to tap in to his undeniable physical talent.

Unless everybody gets hurt, he isn't going to see any, or much time at QB. He can see time at some other position.

Warner is well over 20 years anyway. Kirk Cousins would be another one that comes to mind.

I certainly agree with you. That's why I think he was drafted late with a certain purpose in mind. As you stated the odds are very long of him ever being a starting NFL QB. And I'm not saying this FO is ruling that out as a possibility. (I'm being very careful so the "YOU'RE BEING NEGATIVE" crowd doesn't try to climb up my azz again.)

But his skill set I believe would make it easy to put him in on some downs for the RPO option. He certainly can throw and run quite well. Monken has a lot of plays designed in his playbook for Lamar that he could apply when putting Green in on packages.

That was the other one mentioned ... they mentioned Warner too. Hell's teeth. "Well over 20 years" makes me feel ancient.

They would be foolish not to. He has more potential than Lamar. I don’t know what Lamar’s numbers were at the combine but it would be hard to imagine they were as good as Taylens.

My only comment would be that Lamar fell to the 32nd pick in the draft. Barely in the first round but still at the end of it. Green was the 182nd overall pick (sixth round).

To some people that means nothing. For me it speaks volumes. As I said, it's not "impossible" for Green to eventually grow into being a starting QB.

The odds of a sixth-round quarterback pick becoming a long-term NFL starter are low, typically estimated around 5% to 6.38% based on historical data.

Roughly 36% to 50% of first-round quarterbacks become successful, long-term NFL starters.

It appears all 32 NFL GM's do not view him at the value you and some others do.

To me those numbers actually mean something. If you choose to ignore them that's fine.

Most late round QBs are coming in behind established QBs who get most of the work and focus.

If a team invests in a 1st round QB, that QB is generally going to be the focus.

I think the outcomes are as much about situation as player ability. If Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt, Brady might not have ever been a thing.

Green has interesting ability. Monken likes mobile QBs. The QBs in front of him aren't great. I don't think it's the typical historical situation that he's facing. I also see a path where he could get a small package to see the field early.

Unfortunately, I also see a potential path where he doesn't get much time this year, the Browns draft a QB early next year, and he never really gets a chance.

But, in the 6 round where most players aren't sticking around long, the high upside gamble on the most important position with an unsettled and uninspiring situation on the depth chart looks like good potential value.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the "numbers." Some people just don't give them undue weight as "history" isn't a 1 to 1 match for specific instances.

Edit: Plus, between Watson's health and Sanders' holding the ball, we'll probably need at least 3 QBs.

The historical situation is that players get drafted where they are ranked and according to what teams see their potential as. That didn't change in 2026.


And that's why I see him drafted where he was and what this FO saw him as. An RPO QB for special situations. Had they of seen more he would have been drafted higher. Surely you don't think every QB needy team passed on him five times and some six because they saw more than that do you?

As I said, it's "possible" he becomes more than that. But come on man. This wasn't some new "history breaking precedent" 6th round QB pick.

Or teams just didn't see him as a scheme fit or already had backups they like in that role in place.

Teams passed on Lamar Jackson. Teams passed on Brady. Teams passing isn't the end all, be all on talent.

He's literally the most athletic QB ever. We'll see if he "bucks history." Your taking the negative view is no more valid than others considering the potential positives. It's not decided yet. The numbers don't include him.

Dude, Lamar was drafted at #32. Not at pick #182. Teams passed on Lamar once. Every team passed on Green 5 times and some of them 6 times. I get it. Somehow in your world that's the same thing.

You bring up Tom Brady. You may as well bring up Brock Purdy too. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule that's why 6th round QB picks have a 5% to 6.38% chance of becoming a starter.

And allow me to explain what you claim is a "negative" which seems like a very clear loss of reality.

My assertion is that he is perfectly suited to run the RPO and can be used in schemes on a spot basis to keep opposing D's off balance. I also stated it is possible he could develop into a starting QB over time. Not likely but possible.

Do you have any clue how positive of a comment those things are for a 6th round pick at QB? Most 6th rounds QB's never contribute to any degree. With those statistical facts in mind do you have any clue how positive of a comment those things are for a 6th round pick at QB? t It appears that in Bull_Dawg land you don't.

Just because I'm not declaring him "the most athletic QB ever" or over inflating his odds of success is not negative. Actually I'm giving him a better odds of contributing to this offense than the stats would indicate he will.

I'm just not slobbering all over him which is what in some far off universe is your definition of being positive.

If an NFL GM drafts a QB in the 6th round and he becomes a solid cog in your offense by running the RPO in packages designed for him, you did a great job! You made a sixth round selection that became a sold contributor to your offense. That is a great return on your investment and a positive outcome. There's nothing "negative" about that.

Those guys were QBs that got passed over by 31 teams. Exactly the same? No, but nobody claimed that, before you in your strawman distraction attempt.

Statistics tell you what happened in the past. They don't tell you what will happen in a specific future case. The low percentage of success you keep throwing out has no direct connection to Taylen Green. If he fails or succeeds, it will have nothing to do with that percentage. No one but you is giving a percentage, and yours is being misapplied. You don't know if he's a Brock Purdy or Tom Brady. All 6th round QBs aren't the same. No one is saying he will absolutely be one of those guys. He could be. No one knows the percentage likelihood.

You bring up some good points on the positives.

He does have negatives, but repeatedly saying he'll "fail" ~95 times out of 100, because he's a 6th round QB, feels extra negative. Maybe I just don't like box score scout BS and bad usage of statistics.

Would Dack Prescott fit the definition, unless he isn't considered as good as Cousins?

It's how he rolls. Over and over, and over again.

Dak would fit for sure.

History dictates those percentages, not me. I just posted the numbers. I would recommend that if you try gambling based on your "feelings" or claim that proven statistics make no difference when you wager, you may not wish to gamble. But hey, it's your money.

Do you really believe that when Tom Brady and Brock Purdy were drafted that the teams who drafted them thought the odds of them becoming the players they became were high? If so, why did they wait so long while leaving them on the board to draft them? They took long shot fliers on them.

I on the other hand actually believe there is a role for Green right away. Not a starter right away if ever, but certainly a way to be a major contributor to the offense. Even me saying that is ignoring the odds but it's far more realistic than him ever being the Browns starter unless it's forced due to injuries.

Come on man. Can it happen? Yes it can. But claiming decades of data doesn't matter is not a thing. Well I guess it is to some who wish to ignore it.