One of the great mysteries of the 2026 offseason revolved around the Cleveland Browns and defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz, especially when the finalists for their head coach opening became known toward the end of January.
In terms of NFL coaching experience, familiarity with the Browns’ roster, and general favorability from the fanbase, Schwartz seemed like the most logical pick among a final group that included former Baltimore Ravens offensive coordinator Todd Monken and Los Angeles Rams passing game coordinator Nate Scheelhaase.
The Browns, of course, hired Monken, and spent the next week or so trying to convince Schwartz to remain on board as defensive coordinator. Initial reports indicated that, while technically under contract through 2027 due to a team option, Schwartz had zero interest in staying after getting passed over for Monken. Those reports held true. Schwartz officially resigned from his post on Feb. 6.
Owner Jimmy Haslam and the Browns still hold Schwartz’s rights, so unless some type of resolution happens in the coming months, Schwartz will sit out the 2026 season. His bitter departure left fans confused, as setting egos aside, why wouldn’t Schwartz look to leverage his post with one of the best defenses in football, before leaving Cleveland the right way during the 2027 hiring cycle?
We might’ve gotten our answer to that question Monday during the NFL Owners Meetings in Arizona. Haslam has proven to be the gift that keeps on giving whenever he speaks with reporters.
Haslam revealed that star defensive end Myles Garrett, the current subject of rampant trade speculation, is not expected to report to Phase 1 of the team’s voluntary workout program, which is scheduled for April 6. That’s not uncommon across the league for established veterans like Garrett, but you would think the face of the franchise who constantly obsesses over the team’s lack of winning would make every effort to be present for Day 1 of the Monken era.
Haslam was also asked about the Schwartz fallout, and the truth serum was clearly flowing out in Phoenix, as Browns reporter Daniel Oyefusi noted on Monday night.
"No, I thought Jim did a really nice job. He made it all the way to the very final group because he did a really nice job," Haslam said of Schwartz, per Oyefusi. "We know Jim really well. There was a bias to hire an offensive guy. So there's nothing against Jim. He did a nice job."
Why Jim Schwartz’s Browns exit now makes complete sense
Why was Schwartz so upset with Browns’ leadership following the Monken hire? The owner just told us. Schwartz’s participation in Cleveland’s head coach search — and every other candidate with a defensive background, for that matter — was essentially a sham.
While honesty is appreciated, it’s wild for the owner to say “there was a bias to hire an offensive guy.” That’s a perfectly acceptable mindset for the team to have internally, especially given the state of Cleveland’s roster back when these interviews were being conducted back in January. But to admit that during a session with local reporters? Let’s just say the Browns’ PR team would advise against what the owner just did.
It’s definitely telling, though. There was a contingent of Browns fans who felt Schwartz quit on the team, that he acted like he was entitled to the job and should have returned to honor the contract he signed. None of us were in the building during those head coach interviews, though, and if Schwartz felt an obvious bias in the room, no one should be blaming him for blowing a gasket and ditching town.
This whole thing could have played out differently, had the team not strung Schwartz along for the head coach job. He might still be preparing to coach the Browns' defense right now, rather than the brutal alternative of spending 2026 away from football.