Cleveland Browns HC Kevin Stefanski lost his franchise quarterback when Deshaun Watson tore his Achilles on Sunday. Or did he? While the Browns paid Watson like a franchise quarterback, he never offered the quality nor availability of such. Speaking to reporters yesterday, Stefanski turned down an opportunity to commit to a future with Watson as his starter.
One reporter asked Stefanski point blank if he still believes Deshaun Watson is his starting quarterback. Instead of saying yes, he gave a roundabout answer, but it’s hard to know exactly what to read into it. You can decide for yourself what these comments say about Watson’s future.
“Yeah, obviously I believe in Deshaun [Watson]”, Stefanski said, via the Browns’ website, “but I also think it’s important just to acknowledge that he just had a bad injury and bad break for him, and we’re feeling bad for him and know that he’ll bounce back. But [I’m] not getting into all those things down the road. I’m looking forward to him getting the surgery and obviously getting his body back”.
While Stefanski didn’t say that he believes Watson is his future starter, he did say he believes in him. He also said that he is “not getting into all those things down the road”. But that thing down the road is a guy you still owe close to $100 million over the next two years, which, even with bloated salary caps, ain’t nothin’.
While the Browns have a colossal financial commitment to Deshaun Watson, the question remains whether Kevin Stefanski has an obligatory commitment to play him. Many believe that owner Jimmy Haslam is behind it and would not allow Stefanski to bench Watson.
While not an illogical assumption, there is also no hard evidence to support it. Sure, an owner doesn’t want such a massive investment sitting on the bench, but that investment isn’t producing wins, anyway. Over three years, Deshaun Watson has started 19 games and produced a 9-10 record. That included going 5-1 last year with a stellar defense. The only game he lost, he lost, with two defensive touchdowns off his own turnovers.
Sometimes teams need to make the best all-around decisions for themselves. This offseason, the Denver Broncos released QB Russell Wilson despite having major financial commitments to him. While Wilson looked good for the Steelers, they are having success with rookie Bo Nix. The Browns owe Watson a ton of money, but they don’t owe him a spot on the 53-man roster or playing time.
If the Browns were smart, which, I hasten to add, they are not, they would very strongly consider leaving Deshaun Watson on the bench or cutting him altogether. He has done very little in the past three years to justify—well, just about anything.
One might read into Kevin Stefanski’s comments that he would prefer to go down that road with Watson. But even if he does, would he have the authority to do so?
