The Monken Method: Why Cleveland's Measured QB Approach Makes Sense in a League Built on Urgency

There is something refreshingly old school about the way Todd Monken is handling the Cleveland Browns quarterback situation heading into the 2025 season. In an era where front offices obsess over analytics, where every decision is parsed through the lens of advanced metrics and fan opinion polls, where patience has become a four letter word in the modern NFL, the Browns offensive coordinator has chosen to let two talented signal callers compete for the starting position the way it has traditionally been done: through meaningful work in preseason games, with a final determination coming only after both have had a genuine opportunity to execute his system under live fire.

This is the kind of decision making that feels increasingly endangered in professional football. The impulse to name a starter immediately, to draw a line in the sand and declare a winner before August even arrives, is something we have grown accustomed to seeing. It is the safe play. It is the decisive play. It is the play that looks good on the sports media landscape because it provides clarity and generates headlines and eliminates the uncomfortable ambiguity that comes with saying, "We will know more after we see them both play."

But Monken appears to understand something fundamental about quarterback development and readiness that the most successful coaching staffs have never forgotten: you learn very little about how a quarterback will perform in your system until he is actually operating within it against real opposition. You can conduct all the film study you want. You can run endless walk throughs and scout team reps and individual drills. You can have your evaluators graded out every conceivable metric. But none of it carries the same weight as watching a player execute your concepts against linebackers who are trying to disrupt him, against safeties reading his eyes, against edge rushers determined to get to him before he can complete his progression.

Let us consider what Monken is working with here. On one side, you have Deshaun Watson, a quarterback with significant NFL experience, a former top-three overall pick, a player whose talent is not in question even if the circumstances surrounding his arrival in Cleveland remain complicated. Watson threw 23 touchdown passes against 9 interceptions in 2023, which was his first season with the Browns. Last year he dealt with Achilles and shoulder injuries that limited him to 15 games, during which he threw 15 touchdowns and 9 interceptions while completing 63.9 percent of his passes. There are injury concerns to monitor, and there are consistency questions that linger, but Watson is a known quantity at the professional level.

On the other side stands Shedeur Sanders, a prospect who carries enormous natural talent, a large physical frame, legitimate arm strength, and the kind of pedigree that comes from playing for his father at Colorado. Sanders completed 68.5 percent of his passes as a senior in 2024, throwing 27 touchdowns against 6 interceptions. His athleticism is compelling. His decision making showed marked improvement in his final collegiate season. And yet, like all college players stepping into the professional arena, there remains a considerable gap between his college production and proven NFL readiness. The combine will provide some data points. The preseason will provide considerably more.

What makes Monken's approach particularly thoughtful is that it acknowledges this reality without dismissing either player. The offensive coordinator is not saying, "Watson is our guy, end of story." That would be the safer political play, the one that protects the investment already made in Watson and avoids the perception that the organization is already moving on. Neither is he saying, "Sanders is the future, Watson is done." That would be the narrative-driven play, the one that captures the attention of fans hungry for a youth movement and generational change. Instead, Monken is saying something simpler and more honest: we will know who should start once we see them both play against genuine NFL competition in a structured environment where our coaching staff can evaluate decision making, accuracy, command of the offense, and how each player responds to adversity.

This methodology has historical precedent. Think back to the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, when Dennis Green allowed both Daunte Culpepper and Randall Cunningham to compete in preseason. Green ultimately went with Cunningham, and the Vikings finished 15-1 with one of the greatest offensive seasons in league history. Or consider the 2005 Cincinnati Bengals, when Marvin Lewis allowed Jon Kitna to compete against Carson Palmer in the preseason after Palmer's rookie year. Palmer emerged and eventually became the franchise cornerstone. The point is not that every preseason quarterback battle produces legendary results. The point is that actual game situations, even in the controlled environment of exhibition football, provide invaluable information that meetings and drills simply cannot replicate.

There is also something to be said for the effect that this kind of transparent process has on team morale and the broader locker room dynamic. When a coaching staff declares a winner before meaningful action has occurred, it can create an undercurrent of frustration or division. Players talk. They observe. They understand when a decision feels premature or politically motivated rather than merit based. Conversely, when a coach says, "You both are going to get real opportunities, and we will make our determination based on what we see," it sends a message that nothing is guaranteed, that earning your role matters, that the organization is serious about finding the best answer rather than defending past choices.

The Browns have been hunting for stability at quarterback for the better part of a decade. They have cycled through starter after starter, disappointment after disappointment. They invested enormously in Watson. They also invested in Sanders through the draft. Rather than doubling down on either one before the season actually begins, Monken has chosen to gather more information. That information is worth collecting.

There is also the matter of context. The Browns have been dealing with injuries and organizational uncertainty. Watson's recent injury history means that understanding his readiness and his command of the system under competitive conditions is genuinely important. Sanders has yet to throw a single NFL pass. The gap between what he did at Colorado and what will be required of him in the NFL is substantial. Two preseason starts for each player will not answer every question, but it will answer some important ones.

Ultimately, this is a decision that reflects confidence in the coaching staff's ability to evaluate talent and confidence in the process itself. It is the kind of measured, deliberate approach that has fallen out of favor in an impatient league, but it is also the kind of approach that tends to produce better long-term outcomes. The urgency to declare a winner immediately is a false urgency. The real urgency is getting the decision right, and sometimes that requires waiting until you have actually seen what you are evaluating perform at the level where it matters.