Cleveland Browns: Why Haslams and John Dorsey needed a divorce

Cleveland Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam felt that they could only endure 1 Freddie Kitchens per lifetime. John Dorsey was asked to share authority, but…

Both Cleveland Browns owners, Dee and Jimmy Haslam felt they had to avoid some mistakes made in the past, but John Dorsey was unwilling to give up the control that was needed. Sometimes good people are unable to resolve their problems and a marriage falls apart.

In this case, the Haslams felt that they could only endure one Freddie Kitchens per lifetime. It’s especially painful because their analytics expert, Paul DePodesta, had warned them not to hire Kitchens, just as he had warned them not to hire Hue Jackson in previous years. DePodesta had advocated Sean McDermott over Jackson and Kevin Stefanski over Kitchens.

So it’s understandable that the Haslams would not hand the keys to a new Cadillac over to the kid who had totaled the previous one. Although Dorsey did not hire Hue Jackson, he did hire Kitchens as well as offensive coordinator Todd Haley.

Both of these hires were disastrous. Haley has been rightfully credited for helping Ben Roethlisberger hone his game, but feuded with Hue Jackson from the get-go.

He refused to use superstar Nick Chubb for more than three touches per game. It was so bad that Dorsey had to trade away incumbent Carlos Hyde (who by the way gained 1,000 yards this year, so it is not as if Hyde were expendable or particularly cheap).

The Kitchens hire was supported by many people both within the organization and outside, but Dorsey shoulders the ultimate responsibility. The result was an undisciplined, highly penalized team.

Dorsey may have spoken publicly about keeping expectations in check, but his use of the Haslam’s checkbook establishes beyond any doubt that 2019 was intended to be a serious run at a Super Bowl. The Browns cashed in future resources — namely salary cap and draft picks — in order to pick up players immediately and try for a Super Bowl berth.

But instead of a Super Bowl run, the team turned in a 6-10 season and now are facing the off-season without the extra draft picks they had used to improve the team in previous years.

One of the key issues no doubt was who has the authority to hire or fire the head coach. Dorsey probably feels that he needs to have that power in order to ensure that the head coach is on board with the personnel decisions. Otherwise, teams face the continual conflict between the coach’s desire to win now versus the general manager’s plan to build for the future.  The coach will usually ruin the team in the long run if given too much power.

On the other hand, the Haslams could not possibly risk another Kitchens-type hire. If Dorsey is unwilling to relinquish total control over the head coach, it is very understandable why ownership feels they can not risk another fiasco of that magnitude.

The salary cap also went out of control last year as Dorsey traded away draft picks and increased payroll beyond the cap allowance, by over $20 million dollars. The accountants and MBAs can juggle the numbers a bit, but eventually, the salary cap constrains the number of good players the team can have on the roster. The general manager can not damage the financial structure of the team by that large of an amount and expect the owner to just write a check and smile.

Certainly, ownership would not allow the general manager to go on another spending spree only a year later.  On the other hand, Dorsey may truly believe that the team has what it takes to make it to the Promised Land, and therefore this is the time to overspend and trade away future resources.

At the end of the day these opposing world views are not compatible, and it is the right decision to part ways.