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.

You are correct that I'm looking at a single part of it. In the end you have to pay the guaranteed portion of the contract. That accounts for dead cap space when you have to pay a player when they leave. If you are paying your cap increase in dead cap money you're not gaining cap space by doing that.

That is the exact part I was staking issue with.

No, I get that and agree with you. The difference is when it is getting paid. By doing restructures you ultimately keep using more money for the rest of the team during the years of restructure. The void years are down the road with much less impact to the overall amount when managed wisely. That's all I'm trying to explain. It does benefit the team while the player is still playing on the team and it also benefits the team by way of paying out the dead cap in a time where you have gained a lot more cap space to "hide" the hit. IF we were in a situation where we actually had a QB that we wanted.. this could be accentuated even further with a contract extension. It is just so much more to swallow because of who we are talking about.. I for one can't wait for him to be off the roster even if he is the starting QB for a Browns team that makes it to the Super Bowl. I don't care how much we win, I can argue the defense is the reason behind those wins. He needs to be gone as a post June 1 designee and we move on.

And I totally understand what you're saying. The problem is, as you yourself described this isn't an isolated situation. They do this type of restructuring on a fairly regular basis. An isolated situation is one thing but when it becomes a pattern it causes a cumulative effect.

It ISN'T an isolated situation. It's a philosophy. One that a team like the Browns can work with because of Haslem... Other teams can't even consider it because their owner doesn't/can't allow them to utilize cash to do it.

The problem becomes when these contracts all become due in the end. After the players are gone. As I said, an isolated contract is one thing. But when the bill comes due at the end on multiple contacts it's still all dead money. The bill still come due.

When a player is released or traded before their contract ends, any remaining future cap charges for those bonuses or guarantees typically accelerate immediately onto the current year's salary cap. The impact is "sunk cost" that eats up active cap space, meaning the team must account for that money without having the player available on the field.

I'm not sure how you think that dead money won't offset salary cap increases. I mean I get that you can delay those payments. I understand that an owner has to have and agree to putting that guaranteed money into a secure account to insure it will be paid. But bottom line is that money will come off your salary cap as dead money in the end.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to explain here. But as of now I see it as delaying the inevitable bill that will come due. And when it comes due you don't even have the player anymore.

It's like taking a five year loan out on a fifteen year old car. You'll still be making payments on it after the engine has blown up while having to make payments on the car you had to purchase you replace it.

If you have an owner willing to pay up front this process actually works and works quite well. If Watson would have played like a pro bowler, the last 4 years everyone would have been amazed how the team keeps signing players. Pay up front and push the cap hit ahead when the salary cap goes up and it actually counts less in % vs the cap than it would if not pushed. If the salary cap ever goes down, it will hit really hard, so the thought is the salary cap continues to increase. You have to think % of the cap. It works but only if Owner has deep packets.

That really doesn't address paying for players that aren't even hear while other teams are not. They get the benefit of salary cap increases while you are using those increases to pay for essentially ghosts. At the same time you have to pay the players you sign or draft to replace them. You're paying two players for the same position to be filled. Meanwhile every year the cap increases so do player salaries.

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand all (or even most of) the intricacies of the salary cap. I do understand that Haslam hands Berry a credit card every year though. I tried to lure AI into explaining this...


The Story of the High-Limit Platinum Card

Imagine the NFL is a high-stakes auction where 32 general managers are trying to buy the best house in the neighborhood (a Super Bowl roster).
To keep the game fair, the league imposes a strict rule: No one can spend more than $260 million this year. The league inspector checks everyone's ledger at the end of the year to make sure they didn’t break the rule.

Most GMs walk into the auction with a standard debit card. If they buy a player for $20 million, $20 million is immediately deducted from their account. They have to pass on great players because they are terrified of their account balance hitting zero.

But Andrew Berry walks into the auction room with a completely different weapon. He has a corporate Platinum Credit Card with an almost infinite limit, hand-delivered to him by his billionaire owner, Jimmy Haslam.


Step 1: The Magic Loophole (The Signing Bonus)
Berry sees a star player he wants. The player demands $50 million today.
Most GMs can't afford that because a $50 million swipe would destroy their $260 million budget. But Berry doesn’t sweat. He calls Haslam.

Haslam says, "I've got the cash. Sign the check."
Haslam writes a literal, physical check from his personal multibillion-dollar bank account and hands $50 million in cold, hard cash to the player on Day 1. The player is thrilled.
But here is where Berry plays the league rules like a piano. The NFL allows teams to take a cash signing bonus and spread the "accounting hit" evenly over 5 years. So, even though Haslam already paid the full $50 million in real life, Berry writes down a tiny $10 million charge on this year's official league ledger.


Step 2: Running Up the Tab
Many fans look at this and say, "Wait a minute! You still owe $40 million on that card! Next year you're going to hit your limit!"

But Berry smiles because he knows two secrets about his Platinum Card:

1. The limit automatically increases every year. Because the NFL signs massive new TV deals, the league budget cap jumps up significantly almost every single season. A $10 million charge today feels heavy; a $10 million charge four years from now feels like pocket change.

2. Haslam lets him roll the balance over. When next year comes around and that remaining $40 million starts to threaten the budget, Berry simply converts more of the player's upcoming base salary into another signing bonus. Haslam cuts another massive cash check upfront, and Berry pushes the credit card debt even further into the future.


Step 3: The Engine Blows Up (The Watson Situation)
Eventually, a player gets old, gets hurt, or doesn't pan out. The "car engine blows up," just like PitDAWG on your message board mentioned. The player is cut from the team.
The league inspector looks at Berry's ledger and says, "Okay, you cut him. All that remaining credit card debt you pushed into the future has to be accounted for right now as Dead Cap."
Some fans may shout, "See! I told you! The bill came due!"

But here is the twist: Berry doesn't panic. He looks at his ledger. Yes, he has a $50 million "dead money" bill to pay on a player who isn't even on the roster anymore. But because he pushed that bill so far into the future, the league's total budget cap has grown from $260 million to $330 million.

That $50 million bill is still a punch to the gut, but it doesn't kill the team. It only takes up a fraction of their total spending power. Meanwhile, for the last four years, the Browns successfully fielded a roster filled with elite talent they never could have afforded on a standard debit card.


Why other teams can't do this

Some may ask: If it's this easy, why doesn't every team do it?

Because most owners don't have the stomach or the liquid cash to hand out high-limit credit cards.

To play this game, an owner has to be willing to write $40 million, $50 million, or $100 million checks out of their own pocket in actual cash, upfront, knowing they won't see the "cap relief" for years. Some owners are "cash-poor" compared to Haslam; their money is tied up in stadiums or family trusts. They force their GMs to operate on a strict cash-to-cap budget (the debit card).

Jimmy Haslam's willingness to spend real-world cash upfront is what gives Andrew Berry a financial superpower. The bill always comes due, but by the time it lands, inflation has turned a mountain of debt into a molehill.

Yes, but then if they choose to sign other players or resign their own players, they pay big signing bonuses upfront and push the cap hit off to where the cap hit is friendlier vs upfront and the dead cap hit is a lower % cap hit vs paying up front. I get what you are trying to say but the cap strategy works as long as the Owner pays up front, and the cap continues to go up. The other thing Berry does is keep the salary under the cap enough to roll over the balance that allows the team to eat most of the dead cap without it impacting the amount of open cap available. If the Owner closes the $ off or the cap goes down. There have been fans saying this will not work for some time now. My question is can you name 1 player Andrew Berry has had to let go for salary cap purposes besides players they decided to release on Jue 1st cuts to spread the cap out further?

I think it is a bit more nuanced than that, obviously, but for the most part that's accurate. It's quite remarkable that it is the same people that continue to refute the consistency of this process after all these years. The problem (record-wise, at least) has been draft picks selected and/or the players signed in FA, not the contract structures themselves. Unless the whole system is changed or another pandemic-like situation occurs (which would affect all teams), this current structure is working and will continue to work.

I wonder how many more years people are going to continue to fight this cap approach ( I think we might be on year 7 or 8 now) either due to intellectually not understanding it, just trying to picks fights, or both.

They don't actually "pay it" up front in the way that claims in regards to the salary cap. What they do is on paper stretch that out over time because very dime of it applies towards the salary cap.

If you keep paying the minimum amount possible every year, why would you have you need to cut anyone? Paying the minimum on your credit card every month won't eat up all your grocery money either. In this case you don't have to pay interest on the signing bonus but the principal is the same.

So that leaves then 50 million short of other teams that don't do this. And meanwhile salaries have increased over this entire time period. That's like saying you got a raise while inflation ate up the raise you got.

Or maybe the players they couldn't afford to sign in free agency that they really wanted.

Only if you're still caught up in basic math. Since the approach has already (and is constantly being) rolled forward with the current roster, you're getting much more bang for your buck than your actual salary for that year indicates.

You certainly are when you're delaying to pay them. If i sign a contract valuing your worth at 150k per year but am only paying out of my budget 90k a year I'm either getting a great deal for what I'm paying out or I made a huge mistake in your evaluation. Then comes the time you leave and my budget takes a big hit and you're not even there anymore. There comes a point in time you can't roll it over anymore.

I'm not trying to say it's some devastating news or huge blow that can't be overcome. It can be overcome. But it still can't and won't change the fact that for that one year when that player is no longer on the roster, you have to pay out a huge amount for a player who isn't even on the team anymore. That gives other teams a 50 or 60 million dollar advantage for that season. It's money being spent that you aren't getting anything for while other teams can use that cap increase to sign players.

It is not a loan. It does not collect interest. Yes, Haslam pays a signing bonus. Then when they renegotiate the contract another signing bonus and they add void years onto the cap without adding years to the contract. By the end of this season Watson will have received 100% of his 320-million-dollar contract. But the Browns will still have 80 million left on their cap in dead money. That is pushing the cap hit down the road. So, unless they resign him, they will designate his contract a post June 1st cut next season, and his dead cap hit will be 30 million next season and 50 million in 2028. The cap will go up each year and the overall % of the cap hit will be less % than if all hit this season. The Browns are also 16 million under the cap today and will be able to roll that over into next season. So, if the cap goes up 20 million and they roll over 16 million and owe the cap 30 million in dead money, they are still positive 6 million vs the cap. Then players that have expiring contracts that they choose not to resign opens more space and then players they renegotiate their contracts and push off money in void years will open more space. So, they can sign players, stay under the cap next season and roll over more money for 2028 to help cover the last 50 million and guess what the cap will go up again. To make that work you need an owner to pay multiple signing bonuses and add void years to the contract without increasing the years on the contract. Then as long as the salary cap continues to go up all is well. It is very sustainable. Teams that do not pay those multiple signing bonuses to push money off actually hover closer to the cap and have less space to roll over to cover. It is all about the owner and their willingness to spend. It works the Eagles have won 2 Super Bowls doing this same strategy. You just have to hit on your high-priced investments. Watson was not a hit, so the strategy gets questioned. If he was a 3-or 4-time pro bowler and the Browns were winning constantly Browns fans would not be questioning this approach.