Going into the 2026 offseason, there are 14 NFL teams who are projected to be above the cap once they have 51 players under contract, assuming a base cap of $295.5M. In some cases, the estimates may be high, but each of the 14 teams will have some work to do to become cap compliant.

In looking at most of these teams, there will be plenty of work ahead but it’s possible for them to become cap compliant without much trouble. For most of the teams, as long as they aren’t aggressive in free agency, there are enough things they can do to gain cap space without causing too much long-term pain.

There’s one exception, though, and that’s the Cleveland Browns.

The Browns are projected to be $12.3M above the cap and have 47 players under contract. Over the Cap estimates that the Browns will be $28M above the cap once they get to 51 players, but it won’t be that high, because the top 51 cutoff will take effect for the offseason. It’s more likely the Browns will be about $17M above the cap once they sign players to futures contracts.

The Browns’ problem isn’t that, though. It’s the fact that there is little they can do to become cap compliant without touching the one contract they shouldn’t touch.

You can probably guess that’s the contract for quarterback DeShaun Watson. The Browns gave up multiple first- and second-round picks to acquire Watson from the Texans and gave Watson a five-year, fully guaranteed contract for $230M. He enters the final year of fully guaranteed salary of $46M.

I say “final year of fully guaranteed salary” because the Browns, at some point, the Browns added two more years in the contract for 2027 and 2028 with non-guaranteed salaries at the veteran minimum.

Why would they add those years? After all, they could use a post-June 1 designation to cut Watson and be done with him. They wouldn’t gain any cap space but they would at least be able to move on.

And that brings us to the bigger issue: Because the Browns gain no cap space — and they would have to carry the full hit until June 1 anyway — they won’t be able to alleviate their cap situation by releasing him.

As things currently stand, the Browns have 12 unrestricted free agents, four restricted free agents, eight exclusive rights free agents and nine players whose contracts void (those nine players had contracts structured with void years for cap purposes). Thus, they have 33 players who they need to make a decision about whether to keep them or allow them to depart.

And then there’s the way the Browns have structured contracts for players currently under contract. Myles Garrett, Jerry Jeudy, Grant Delpit, Mason Graham and Maliek Collins all have option bonuses in their contracts that can be exercised at some point in 2026 to give the Browns cap space. The result is that these contracts can’t be restructured, because the option bonus is treated like a signing bonus and spread out over the next five years of the contract, to include any void years added for cap purposes.

Based on what Over the Cap has, the Browns could cut Denzel Ward and Cornelius Lucas to gain cap relief, but the two would combine for just $5.3M. That won’t be enough to get the Browns to become cap compliant.

Could the Browns trade players? They could trade Garrett as long as they do so by March 27, when his option bonus is due. A trade completed by March 27 means the acquiring team would take Garrett’s option bonus. OTC shows the impact of any trade based on the option bonus being exercised, but if a trade is done by March 27, I’d estimate the Browns would free about $13M in cap space.

And for some reason, David Njoku shows on OTC’s cap calculator that the Browns would gain $10M in cap space by cutting him, but his contract voids in 2026. I’m not sure if that goes back to something in the contract structure, but part of me wonders if that’s an error.

Let’s assume, as I am right now, that the Browns get no cap relief from Njoku’s contract voiding in 2026. Now, if we assume the Browns cut Ward and Lucas, then trade Garrett, and gain close to $19M in space, they would be operating with about $2M in space. That wouldn’t be enough for them to tender ERFAs or sign their draft picks and they would have no other options for freeing up space, unless they trade away recently drafted players (and that’s counterproductive because players that would fall under the top 51 cutoff would then count toward the cap).

That leaves only one option for the Browns to get cap relief that allows them to do simple things like signing draft picks or tendering ERFAs. It’s the one thing they shouldn’t do but have no choice: Restructure DeShaun Watson’s contract to convert the $46M base salary into a signing bonus.

By doing so, the Browns would be delaying the impact of any dead money charges by cutting Watson in 2027 with a post-June 1 designation. They would then take a $34.6M dead money charge in 2027 and $25.7M dead money charge in 2028, assuming they restructure the full amount.

The Browns could lower the impact of dead money charges if they only restructure a portion of his base salary. That would mean they could lower the dead money charges in future seasons by doing the post-June 1 release in 2027.

Ideally, the Browns should not be touching Watson’s contract but their cap situation going into 2026 means their hand will be forced. It appears the addition of those minimum salaries in 2027 and 2028 was for that purpose of allowing the Browns to restructure that remaining base salary, then delay a decision on releasing Watson until 2027.

The Browns would have had to pay Watson his money in 2026 unless he gets suspended, so while the restructure is not a move I would want to do, there’s not really any choice. The main thing the Browns have to watch is how they treat things this offseason. They cannot be aggressive in free agency and need to focus on the draft.

The Watson trade and contract are easily the worst decisions made by a team in NFL history when it comes to a player acquisition — and the Browns will continue to pay the price for it in 2026.