Cleveland’s first week of free agency was focused heavily on rebuilding the offensive line as they re-signed Teven Jenkins for depth after he played all 17 games last season and then signed two-time Pro Bowler Elgton Jenkins to a two-year, $24 million deal following his release from Green Bay.
These moves came on top of a previous trade for Tytus Howard and the free-agent signing of Zion Johnson. In other words, the Browns clearly decided that their offensive line needed a fast rebuild.
While that was the right decision, the way they executed it raises some concerns.
The key mistake the Browns made in the first week of free agency was treating the offensive line overhaul as a numbers game rather than a reliability project, as they added names, bodies, and contracts, but they didn’t add enough certainty.
For a team trying to support a new head coach and stabilize a quarterback situation that feels precarious, reliability matters more than just the quantity of transactions.
This isn’t to say that the Browns should have ignored the offensive line; quite the opposite.
Their front was in dire need of attention, and trading for Howard made sense because the right tackle position had become unstable. Signing Zion Johnson was logical since the guard position needed another solid starter, and adding Elgton Jenkins was a good move because the center position had become a weak spot.
Re-signing Teven Jenkins as a reserve also made sense, as the team needed more than just five capable linemen, but the issue isn’t that any of these individual moves were unreasonable; the problem is that they stacked too much uncertainty and health risk. That approach is a lot riskier when building an offensive line.
Starting with Tytus Howard, it was reported that Cleveland traded a fifth-round pick to Houston for him, and ESPN noted that he would receive a new two-year, $45 million deal that begins after 2026.
He is versatile and experienced, which is beneficial, but he isn’t a guaranteed solution that alleviates concerns about the position.
Howard has played multiple roles because teams needed him to, not because he has emerged as a dominant player at one specific position, and therefore, the Browns paid for flexibility, which is valuable, but flexibility doesn’t equate to certainty.
Next is Zion Johnson. The Browns gave him a three-year, $49.5 million deal, with over $32 million guaranteed.
The concern is not whether Johnson can play but that they paid him as though the answer was already available. So far, his career reflects promising, uneven, and still trying to become consistently reliable.
If you’re going to invest that much, you want a player who eliminates questions, and Johnson still raises some.
Elgton Jenkins presents an interesting case because he is both an understandable signing and one of the biggest gambles in the group. He has a better resume than Johnson and can play all five positions, and he has a notable Pro Bowl-level performance on his record.
But the Packers released him due to a failed physical designation after a leg fracture and ligament damage in 2025, yet the Browns guaranteed him $20 million on a two-year deal.
This signing could be a great value move, but it remains a gamble, and when you factor in Howard, Johnson, and Elgton Jenkins, you see a significant amount of money committed to players who each come with a “yes, but” caveat.
Teven Jenkins fits this same pattern, albeit to a lesser extent, because he is useful, and bringing him back was a sound decision.
However, he also has a long history of injuries, despite managing to play all 17 games last season, and once again, the Browns opted for upside, recovery, flexibility, and hope that enough of it will pay off.
That’s not typically how the best offensive lines are constructed; the best lines are built so that the quarterback doesn’t have to worry about them.
As of now, I’m not convinced the Browns have achieved that standard, and to complicate matters, they cut Jack Conklin.
I understand the reasoning behind this move because he has missed 44 games since joining them and played only eight games last season, making his contract difficult to justify.
This wasn’t a shocking or cruel decision, but a simple case of football math. It matters, however, as Conklin’s departure eliminated one of the few veteran linemen on the roster whose job was straightforward: show up, start, and if healthy, provide a steady presence on the line.
They moved on from that stability and replaced it with a mix of varying elements, and while this may prove to be a smarter approach in the long run, it also made the offensive line feel more volatile instead of more secure in Week 1.
This is where the Browns’ week felt off to me, and while rebuilding the offensive line was necessary, the approach taken was flawed.
Todd Monken is stepping into a team that desperately needs a functional offense, not just potential or interesting football, and the messaging around the trade for Howard inadvertently highlighted this need.
When the team announced the trade, mentioning that they needed to give “Shedeur, Deshaun, and all these quarterbacks” time was a red flag.
If you have to list multiple quarterbacks when discussing your new tackle, it underscores the uncertainty surrounding the offense, and a team in this position needs a reliable line, not a flashy one.
So, what’s the matter with the Browns?
Another issue is what Cleveland didn’t do, and the focus in Week 1 was so heavily on the offensive line that it felt like the rest of the offense was sidelined.
Perhaps the Browns plan to address pass-catching later, believe they have a better situation than outsiders perceive, or intend to focus on this in the draft, but, once the line becomes the primary focus for the week, it needs to come out of that week appearing solid.
If it still feels reliant on medical updates and positional shifts, the effort may end up looking overly complex without producing clear results.
I don’t believe Quincy Williams was a significant error, nor do I think bringing Corey Bojorquez back was a mistake, and Devin Bush’s departure for Chicago can be debated, but Cleveland seemed to have a replacement plan there.
The line situation is different because it consumed the most resources, both financially and in terms of urgency, yet still feels incomplete in crucial ways. It does not appear settled; it looks chaotic.
This distinction stands out to me because many teams have busy first weeks, but busy does not equate to coherent or stable.
Just being “busy” does not guarantee that the quarterback will feel comfortable.
Cleveland needed to use Week 1 to create a more stable offense, and instead, the newly constructed line may improve, but it still relies on too many uncertain factors aligning simultaneously.
This kind of oversight may not seem disastrous now, but it typically reveals its consequences later this year.
