Benching Deshaun Watson wouldn't be waste of Browns' $230M. He's just that bad | Opinion

Hilliard resident Ray Watford is a retired newspaper production director.

Years ago, I bought a rebuilt strapping machine for a newspaper operation. It was supposed to bundle newspapers for delivery. Instead, it proved unreliable, breaking down repeatedly and interrupting production when every minute mattered.

We had spent thousands of dollars on it, which made replacing it feel wasteful. Then I realized the money was already gone. Keeping an unreliable machine would not recover a dollar. It would only cost us more.

The Cleveland Browns now face the same economic lesson with Deshaun Watson − except their original investment was $230 million and three first-round draft picks.

In 2022, Cleveland sent Houston three first-round picks and three additional selections for Watson. Then the Browns gave him a five-year, fully guaranteed $230 million contract, the largest guarantee in NFL history at the time.

They made that wager while Watson faced more than two dozen civil lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct during massage sessions. Watson denied wrongdoing, and two Texas grand juries declined to indict him. The lawsuits were later resolved through settlements or dismissals. The NFL suspended him for 11 games and fined him $5 million.

What the Browns received on the field was hardly better.

Watson has started 19 games for Cleveland, going 9-10 with 19 touchdown passes, 12 interceptions and an 80.7 passer rating. He has never started more than seven games in a Browns season. A torn Achilles in October 2024, followed by a re-rupture and another surgery in January 2025, kept him out throughout 2025.

More: Deshaun Watson named Cleveland Browns starter over Shedeur Sanders

Even owner Jimmy Haslam has called the trade a “big swing and miss.” Yet the Browns have repeatedly reworked Watson’s deal, shifting cap consequences into future seasons rather than making them disappear.

Now first-year coach Todd Monken has chosen Watson over second-year quarterback Shedeur Sanders for the Sept. 13 opener at Jacksonville. Watson got the job after sitting out all of last season, being booed by Cleveland fans and completing 5 of 12 passes for 35 yards and an interception in his latest preseason appearance.

Monken cited Watson’s experience. That is a legitimate, forward-looking argument—if he truly believes Watson gives Cleveland its best chance to win now.

But the contract isn’t an argument. Neither are the draft picks. Those resources disappeared years ago and cannot complete a pass this fall.

Starting Watson will not recover Cleveland’s $230 million. Benching him would not waste it. The waste occurred when the deal was made.

The lesson I learned from that strapping machine was simple: A bad purchase does not become better because you keep using it. It merely causes more breakdowns.

Watson should play only as long as he is Cleveland’s best quarterback. The moment he isn’t, the Browns must stop consulting the receipt and start reading the scoreboard.

Hilliard resident Ray Watford is a retired newspaper production director.

.oembed-frame {width:100%;height:100%;margin:0;border:0;}

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Benching Deshaun Watson wouldn't be waste of Browns' $230M. He's just that bad | Opinion