Mike Tannier

So with that in mind, Garrett was done.

He did not want to play there anymore.

There were no more financial apologies they could give him.

They move on there, and they go back into this wait until next year, wait until two years from now mode.

I think it's a little gross.

If they were doing that, they probably – doing that to a first-year coach is bad.

Doing that to leave a general manager dangling like they're doing with Barry, also a bad decision.

But that's just how the Browns do business.

That's an outstanding question because there were Garrett questions.

I think it was only last year that I was sitting there, maybe it was two years ago, listening to Barry answer questions at the Combine about a Garrett trade.

And it seemed at the time, two first-round picks.

could have been it.

And I don't know if verse and a first-round pick and a second and a third add up to two first-round picks, et cetera.

But had they done that, like clean-slated a couple years ago, maybe they'd be in better shape now.

The one thing I hate is when it's a trade for the far, far, far future.

It's one thing to trade for next year.

When you start talking about 2028, you lose me forever because a million things can happen in the interim.

So I don't know.

I'll say this was maybe the best move the Browns could have made right now

But the right move might have been not to hand Garrett financial apologies and pat him on the head and say one more year in the past, get that done in the past, and maybe they'd have a clearer perspective of what's happening right now in the present.