I don't think this is the relevant question. The question is can Baker put the team on his shoulders against the best when it matters most. The NFL is all about the QB and the QB playing their best when it matters most. If you can summarize the difference between winning and losing in the NFL to one thing, it's that.
Jack Nicklaus famously said that you can't win the Masters on Thur/Fri but you can lose it. It's all about the back nine on Sunday. With that said, somebody usually comes to the back 9 with a 2 or 3 shot lead and a few golfers still in the chase.. all have given themselves a chance to win.. but the guy with the 2 shot lead usually holds on and wins.... we were in that chase position against the Chiefs. We came to the final 7 minutes of the game having played well enough to have a chance to win. We didn't. So there are a couple obvious places to look to place blame.. either we didn't play the back 9 on Sunday well enough to overcome the deficit... or we could have been the one with the lead if not for the 2 double bogeys we made on Saturday... everybody gets to choose.. my opinion.. it's a bit of both.
Stefanski's offense is very emasculating to a QB. Run heavy and playing from in front a lot, Baker doesn't get much practice to come from behind. Nevertheless he's just a much better quarterback with the lead than when trailing. I don't think the Browns will ever win a Super Bowl unless that changes.
So you are advocating that we rely less on our running game that works, let Baker take a lot more chances, make mistakes that cause us to be playing from behind more.. then that will make us better. It sounds kind of silly when you say it out loud but I do believe there might be some truth to it.. Baker plays in an offense that doesn't require him to take chances, in fact to the contrary, it discourages them. So he does play very cautious.. maybe it is hard to flip that switch in the final few minutes... could be.
It's a very curious discussion to be having. I suppose I see Rish's point about not being a legitimately elite QB without that aspect of a body of work showing you can get it done by yourself. But when you start to picture what that would like you end up with all sorts of choices that don't seem to be very palatable.
Fore example: If Baker is constantly being put in to a position where he has to put the team on his shoulder to boost come from behind wins, that would mean our defense sucks so bad we're in weekly shoot outs and/or the offensive scheme is either trash or lacking talent. I don't think I like that trade off.
You make a great point that this offense discourages Baker from taking chances. If I have one criticism of Ski's offense is that it only moves at one speed. Each drive is controlled, purposeful, and eats up clock. Every now and then I would really like to see us run a no-huddle, just for giggles. We have the personnel for it.
There doesn't seem to be much room so far for Baker to improvise or just let it rip. But given how efficient and successful our Offense is, its difficult to justify the necessity of doing anything different.