Schwartz says staying would’ve been a bad fit

Jim Schwartz says he resigned from the Browns after being passed over for the head-coaching job, explaining that it would have created an awkward NFL “arranged marriage” with Todd Monken and left him unable to do his job. He also addressed what the decision co

Jim Schwartz knew the decision wasn’t going to be easy the moment the Browns chose an offensive coach after firing Kevin Stefanski. When Todd Monken was hired as the team’s new head coach, the longtime defensive coordinator decided to step away.

In an appearance with Ryan Ripken, Schwartz described why he didn’t stay with the Browns. He pointed to the success the defense had under him and the fact that, despite that, the team passed over him for the head-coaching job.

“ We had a lot of success on defense. and the Browns made a change at head coach. and they passed over me. with all the success that we had and the ability to develop players. our best players had their best years. all those different things. ” Schwartz said. “ And that was the decision they made. They wanted to go with an offensive guy. They chose Todd. I’m fine with that.”.

Schwartz said he understands the Browns can make the choice they want. but that it wasn’t realistic to keep working in a situation where he felt blocked despite doing his job at a high level. “They can make, you know, decisions that they want to make. But they can’t expect me to stay on board for that,” he said. “Anybody that’s in any business. you get passed over for a promotion. when you’ve done a really. really good job in your job. and you think you were in line for that promotion. it’s time to go.”.

Central to Schwartz’s explanation was the idea of authority inside the building—who commands the locker room, who leads the staff, and how players respond. He argued that forcing a shared setup would put everyone in a difficult position.

“Todd deserved his own guy. A forced marriage isn’t gonna work in the NFL,” Schwartz said. “And. you know. like having command of the players and having command in a locker room. all those things are extremely important. and I didn’t feel like I could do my job after getting passed over for that coaching job. It sort of, you know, just put me in a tough position. ‘Hey. we want you to listen to this guy. but we didn’t think — we didn’t want to make him that coach.’”.

Schwartz said the resignation was his decision, not an argument or a refusal to work with Monken. “So I made the decision to resign,” he said. “And I have to sit out this year as a result. but I think anybody that’s been in any business when you’ve done a good job when you mentioned those numbers — we weren’t one of the best defenses in three years. We were the best defense in three years.”.

He added that the Browns’ choice was ultimately theirs. but he returned to the same point: expecting him to remain in that role would be unhealthy for both sides. “But to expect me to stay and to be on board for that. that’s just a tough situation. ” Schwartz said. “And it wouldn’t have been good for me, and it wouldn’t have been good for Todd.”.

Schwartz suggested the potential loyalty split—players aligning more with the coordinator than the head coach—could have made the working environment even harder to manage. “So it was best for him to get his own guy in there. and to move forward with him. as opposed to just having an arranged marriage. and having me there. and maybe having some players more loyal to me than him. ” Schwartz said. “It can just be a bad situation.”.

He framed his comments in terms of experience, emphasizing how unusual the scenario felt after three decades in the NFL. “Thirty-three years in the NFL, I’ve never been around that before,” Schwartz said. “You know, that all went into decision. I wasn’t upset about it. I was disappointed about it. I wasn’t upset about it. I wasn’t mad about it. but it’s just. you know my experience told me that wasn’t gonna be a situation that was gonna work.”.

The most direct question raised by the timing is what it would have meant for defensive end Myles Garrett. Schwartz himself pointed to the underlying tension—what happens when a team’s plans change but the people tied to its on-field success still have to make choices. If Garrett would have wanted to stay with the Browns under Schwartz’s leadership had he been hired as head coach is left hanging. but the decision carries a clear practical consequence anyway.

Even with the uncertainty around fit, the Browns’ decision to move on appears to create a different path for value. The discussion notes that it’s better for the Browns to have gotten significant value for the 30-year-old Garrett, because with each passing year it would have become harder to do.

Jim Schwartz Browns Todd Monken Kevin Stefanski Myles Garrett NFL coaching defensive coordinator resignation