Browns are widely acknowledged to have talent.
That a team has been bad historically is not really a good argument for its future performance necessarily being bad--especially if the 'bad' was long ago and/or new management is in place.
They can be widely acknowledged to have talent or not, but that talent has not translated to on the field wins, regardless of the coach. Plus, they are based in the bad part of Ohio (i.e. Cleveland).
A teams historical performance is relevant if it is in part a reflection of owner/GM issues, non-shared revenue, or there being some hidden aspect that makes free agents less likely to agree to play there, salary aside. For instance, players preferring to play their home games in warmer climes.
None of this should distract from the fact that teams like the Browns and Indians are sinister and unwholesome, in contrast to noble and righteous teams (i.e. The Reds).