To state the obvious, the NFL lockout isn't a good situation for anyone. Whether it's the owners, the league, the players, the staff or the fans, no one is deriving any pleasure from the present state of the NFL.
Work stoppages in professional sports don't usually have a "winner", per se. The distinction made usually winds up being about designating who loses the most.
All parties involved will insist they're suffering more than everyone else. Whether it's the fans, the owners, or the players, everyone thinks they got the shortest end of a very short stick. While the fans are certainly the only one of those three parties who bear no responsibility for the problem, it's still not accurate to say they're the only ones who suffer from this, even when considering the (very valid) argument that the other two groups brought the suffering on themselves.
But beyond the debate over whether the owners or the fans or the players suffer the most, lies a more interesting and nuanced question of lockout-induced suffering. That is, which team(s) stand to lose the most as a result of the 2011 lockout?
Obviously, this situation is bad for every team in the league. But might it perhaps be just a bit worse for some than for others?
The following piece examines the Browns' involvement in lockout issues, including how the lockout affects and involves the Browns specifically in an attempt to pinpoint the problems caused by the lockout that are unique to the team as well as to determine whether the Browns are hurt more by the lockout than other teams.