The Cleveland Browns’ 2025 offseason featured bold moves, but NFL analysts have highlighted two key decisions that raised questions about the team’s direction. While the Browns managed to secure draft capital and add young talent, the extension of Myles Garrett and the acquisition of Kenny Pickett drew sharp criticism.

Myles Garrett’s $160 million extension, making him the highest-paid defender in the league, sparked debate about whether it aligned with the Browns’ current rebuilding phase. Critics argue that trading Garrett, a six-time All-Pro entering the latter half of his career, could have yielded valuable assets for the future.

With Cleveland’s salary cap under pressure and no clear path to contention, some viewed the extension as a missed opportunity to reset the roster. The trade for Pickett added to the scrutiny. After acquiring him in a deal that cost more than the Eagles paid for him a year earlier, the Browns raised eyebrows by drafting two quarterbacks—Shedeur Sanders and Dillon Gabriel—in the same offseason.

This has created a crowded quarterback room with no clear starter, leaving analysts questioning the team’s plan at the position. Despite retaining Garrett as a defensive cornerstone, the Browns’ inconsistency in roster strategy is evident.

NFL Expert Points Out Cleveland Browns’ Offseason Issues With Kenny Pickett Trade and Myles Garrett Extension

An NFL expert pointed out two offseason issues with Cleveland, including trading Pickett and extending Garrett’s contract. This can be seen in an analysis by Seth Walder for ESPN.

“Not every move fit into the rebuilding thesis — most notably, the Garrett extension. I criticized the move at the time and feel the same now. This was a missed opportunity for Cleveland to turn Garrett — a Browns legend but also heading into the latter half of his career — into future assets. Instead, they handed Garrett a huge contract, burning his value in 2025 (and perhaps beyond) when the Browns aren’t contenders. The Browns are not in a good cap position and could have used the financial savings, too,” Walder wrote.

“The Pickett trade was also a head-scratcher. The Browns didn’t know they were going to draft two quarterbacks when they dealt for him, but they still gave up more for him than the Eagles did a year ago, even though Pickett didn’t show anything to improve his value during the 2024 season,” he added.

On one hand, they are rebuilding with young quarterbacks; on the other, they are investing heavily in established veterans. This mixed approach has left many wondering whether the team is fully committed to either competing now or planning for the future.

The Browns’ offseason moves show ambition but also underline a lack of cohesion in their long-term vision. While Garrett’s extension and Pickett’s trade may offer short-term benefits, their questionable fit within the team’s overall strategy could limit Cleveland’s progress. The upcoming season will reveal whether these decisions propel the Browns forward or set them back.