DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Coulda, woulda, should

A bit premature, but I will play anyway.

The Browns "shoulda" hired Schwartz as head coach, "woulda" promoted Tarver to DC, and "coulda" looked to hire an OC.

Again, a bit premature, but I think that "woulda" been a better option.

Schwartz failed as a HC already . Some coordinators just aren't cut to be HCs.
This reminds me when Gregg Williams was getting hyped up by the fan base to be a HC.
Well 10 years later hes still not a HC.

I don't really think so bone.

Next season we'll be hearing "It's hard for Monken to win with a rookie QB". I believe you yourself have already alluded to the fact you believe the Browns won't be competitive until the rookie QB's second season.

I understand there is going to be a percentage of the fan base that will always search for a reason to believe. And hey I'm fine with that. But you realize that most think this is an improved roster. That the past two drafts have been better and made the roster stronger. So according to what many claim the talent on this roster is better than it's been in years.

I suppose the difference is that we do agree on at least one thing. I haven't written off Monken based on a single game. He can help develop the systems on both sides of the ball and show steady improvement over the curse of this season. I'm sure we're both hoping that's the case.

Because if he doesn't, the only excuse left is the QB. And if that wasn't a legitimate excuse for the prior HC why should it be for this one?

Bill Belichick, Pete Carroll, Tony Dungy and Mike Shanahan.

You know, "coulda, woulda, shoulda" is basically a hindsight type proposition. But here's the thing: you would think an NFL front office would have better foresight.

If the plan was to forge ahead and give Watson a fighting chance... knowing full well there was no way in hell you're re-signing him... your scenario makes waaay more sense as far as moving forward. Because obviously, there's no confidence that a fQB is on the roster.


Let Schwartz continue to do what he does best, draft your QB in 2027, if the current OC isn't a fit, custom fit the new OC to the QB.

Now you've given Monken a soft seat in the QB draft talks; which will either appease him or piss him off. Next stop: start all over and leave a new QB in a two-year state of flux.

Browns coulda dropped DW and eaten the loss. Keeping him now for the money considerations, and I see no way forward that includes him. We shoulda kept Schwartz; last game was a larger step backward than I anticipated. We woulda been ahead with a few more veterans, because MG's loss has more impact than we have seen yet.
Cute mental exercise to show common ground in Browns fans. But we have managed two things: First, we failed to address QB even in our own room, and we wasted time and reps doing so. Second, our basic fundamentals, especially tackling, blocking, pass rushing, and play mix are not going resemble how we see winning teams demonstrate. Cringe-worthy it is.

There is no way the Browns could have dropped Watson this season. The cap hit would have just destroyed their ability to field a team. They had to play out this team, and then designate him as a post June release so they can split the total left at that point between 2027 and 2028. If we had just dumped him this year, the dead cap was something like $128 million.

As sad as it is to say or admit, you are 100% correct. Restructuring these contracts can sometimes end up with unintended and drastic consequences no matter how brilliant some make them out to be.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. We've all been saying those words since 1999!!!

We have been saying that since December 17, 1995

Schwartz was a good DC because of Myles Garrett. I'm not saying Schwartz is not a good DC, but having Myles does make things easier. You have to ask yourself if Schwartz would be any more effective than Rutenberg with Verse.

You are assuming Schwartz would have hired a qualified OC. Maybe the OC he wanted wasn't what the organization wanted, or he was not better than Monken. Being that the majority of the talent was on defense, it was easier to hire a young DC.

I am aware of the dead cap. For discussion, regardless of cost, we shoulda eaten it and got rid of him. A lot of the issues would be reframed. The choices more defined. We damned the cost when we wrote it and issued it. Suddenly it is imperative.
I do not like this situation at all and I believe your information is correct and thorough. But had we done differently, then we would have different results, and other options. Nobody says we must solve it. We insisted on our dilemma. My response tried to re-work the framework. This is so SNAFU from the outset, and the due diligence (DO the due diligence!) a fail, we are again shattered by trying to be the smartest team in the room. Some posters just want to poke fingers and fix blame (more woulda, coulda, shoulda) that helps nothing and fixes less.
Other folks manage this splendidly; why does it elude the Browns? Nobody is keeping the answer secret. Any fans going down the rabbit hole again better drop bread crumbs too find their way back to Berea.

Browns "Shoulda" kept Stefanski

"Woulda promoted Shedure to starting QB

"Coulda" proved that no matter what they do, it just sucks ! lol

Definitely couldn't have dropped him, but I'm curious how much of the restructures to drag out the cap hit were necessary or if we were still trying to save the plan vs blow everything up.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda---- Nothing in this forum since the Jax massace. WOW, now 3-1 and in FIRST PLACE. Coulda kept Ski....JMHO, Stefanski’s message had run stale in Cleveland. Woulda our OLD DC been 3-1....I doubt it. Shoulda hired our current head coach, he has worked hard to get the best out of an offensive line with whole new crew.....and they are doing well. He has brought "freshness to the O, and has Watson playing his best football since the trade......GREAT, go Browns!!!!

Your post several weeks ago....
Browns "Shoulda" kept Stefanski

"Woulda promoted Shedure to starting QB

"Coulda" proved that no matter what they do, it just sucks ! lol

Laugh out loud!!!!

Shoulda known Monken would be 4-2
Woulda missed FOUR fab wins with very limited QB
Clouda known Browns games never suck, they just try the whole body......GO Browns!!!!

I totally missed this way back when...

I can break it down without restructures..

Watson, if released without any restrutures:

2023 $219.96M before June 1, 109.98 in 2023 and 109.98 in 2024 if post June 1
2024 $164.97M before June 1, 82.49 in 2024 and 82.49 in 2025 if post June 1
2025 $109.98 before June 1, 54.99 in 2025 and 54.99 in 2026 if post June 1
2026 $54.99 before June 1, 27.50 in 2026 and 2027 if post June 1... knowing what we know now, this would have been the best choice, however, we would not have saved any of the left over cap space to absorb any of this hit they received with the restructures or the massive change in actual cap availability you receive in passing the cost down the line (kicking the can as some call it)

NOW, with all the restructures, The Browns will be on the hit for $35M in 2027 and $51M in 2028, however, that is lessened with an expected cap increase of around $24M in 2026 and another $24-25M in 2027. So taking the hit in what is expected to be a changing of the guard with a rookie contract replacing Watson's salary... It should all work out for the best.

I do think they expected Watson to work out all along and not have to worry about "getting rid of him" before now. Once the first restructure happened, the plan had to see itself out.

Best case scenario would have had a non restructure and release this year, so we would have only taken one year off the burden, but also would not have save the millions of dollars they did during the previous 3 years for carry over cap, which wasn't addressed in the previous scenarios. That saved the team $35.83/35.796/36M over the past 3 years... so overall, that final $36M will be able to be used to cover the $35M in 2027 for his void year, while still owing $51M in 2028. I am assuming much of the other carryover amounts were used for increased contracts for players like Garret and Ward from the savings in the previous years. It's a complex game, but saving the $51M hit for 2028, the NFL increased the salary cap by roughly $124M between the years they started the restructures and when that $51M actually comes due in 2028.

The only thing about those cap increases that get presented as if it offsets to paying dead money. It's true that it offsets the dead money. It's also true that every other team in the NFL gets that same salary cap increase. Which means you lose the advantage of that salary cap increase that teams without all that dead money do get. because all of your salary cap increase went towards paying dead money instead of investing that increase in building your team. And at the very same time salaries increase across the league as the salary cap increases putting you at an even greater disadvantage.

Of course you can just keep back loading contracts the same way you can just pay the interest rate on your credit card.

Thank you for laying that out.

It sounds to me like, when all is said and done and you look at it after taking out all the emotion/frustration, there was no real off-ramp from the Watson experience once we signed that fully-guaranteed contract. Sure, it was technically possible to cut him earlier, but not without kicking off 2-3 additional immediate problems.

You are only looking at a single part of the equation Pit. It isn't just about the dead money, it's the carry over cap that Haslem allows Berry to work with and how that plays a role in the roster. Each of these years, the Browns have been leaders in both paid salary to the roster AND cap space available. That's because teams like the Bengals don't carry over their entire allotted cap space because it costs the owners cash in escrow. Without that leeway, Berry wouldn't be able to do what he has done.

So, every team in the NFL gets the cap increase.. BUT, not every team has an equal salary cap because they don't work the system for carry over because they don't want to wrap up cash in escrow. The Browns have a distinct advantage to the salary cap because of Jimmy Haslem.. like him or hate him, but all he wants to do is win and he is willing to put his money where his mouth is. He just needs to stay out of trying to micro manage.