The Cleveland Browns shocked the NFL on Monday by putting fire to the clouds of smoke that had been building around a potential trade of star pass rusher Myles Garrett, sending him to the Rams for a package of young edge Jared Verse, a first-round pick in 2027, a second-round pick in 2028 and a third-round pick in 2029. It’s obviously a move designed for a rebuild around youth and picks–Verse is only 25 and has been a Pro Bowler in each of his two seasons in the league–but it also makes the Browns a less talented team in the short term.
That’s sparked speculation that the Browns’ real goal in 2026 is to fold as quickly as possible and lose games in order to move up on the NFL draft board. With Garrett anchoring one of the best defenses in the league, the Browns were in line for anywhere from 7-to-9 wins, probably not good enough for a player spot but not bad enough to land the Top 5 pick they’ll need to draft a top quarterback next April.
So trading Garrett looks like a means to begin dismantling the veterans, with trades sending out Denzel Ward, Grant Delpit, Maliek Collins and others possibly coming next. Let the tanking begin.
Browns Not Planning to Tank
But Browns GM Andrew Berry met with the media on Tuesday morning and was asked directly whether a fire sale and a tanking attempt was ahead in 2026. He said flatly that he does not expect further trades and that tanking was not the Browns’ intent.
If that had been the case, the team would have been shopping Garrett all offseason.
Said Berry: “I would say, No. 1, all of our goals are still in front of us. We have an excellent defense with really good players on all three levels, and Jared, he is an outstanding—he is one of the best players in the league. And so we’re excited to have him as part of our team. …
“Myles wasn’t on the trading block, we were not auctioning him off. That was not a primary consideration going into the spring.”
GettyAndrew Berry of the Cleveland Browns.
Myles Garrett Did Not Request a Trade From Browns
Berry added that the Browns had not gotten a trade request from Garrett, as happened more than a year ago in early 2025. Garrett had a no-trade clause in his contract, though, so he did need to approve the deal, and Berry said he’d let Garrett know that a deal was getting close starting last week.
“There was no trade request or anything like that,” Berry said. “Obviously, we talked through it a little bit earlier because he did have the no-trade clause. But obviously, he was pleased with LA but that wasn’t the primary consideration.”
Rams Were Focused on Myles Garrett
Another topic that has bothered some Browns backers is the fact that the Browns appeared to zero in on a trade with the Rams and no one else. The team may have been able to wrangle more picks if it had become a more open bidding process. But Berry indicated that the availability of Verse and Rams’ willingness to include him with a significant pick package made the Rams one of a small group the Browns could actually make a deal with.
Said Berry: “That wasn’t the goal. That wasn’t the goal with Myles. As I mentioned at the onset, if we were to trade Myles, it is a very narrow universe of deals that would satisfy it. Everyone wants to have a Myles Garrett on their team but not everyone can afford that acquisition cost—players, picks and dollars. That was not the intent.”
Browns GM Addresses Tanking Accusations After Myles Garrett Trade