DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Terry's Talkin' Browns

What Coach Kevin Stefanski can learn from the Cleveland Browns' dismal opener – Terry Pluto

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2020/09...erry-pluto.html

By Terry Pluto, The Plain Dealer
CLEVELAND, Ohio – What happens next?

That’s the nice part of the Cleveland Browns playing again Thursday night. They need a fresh start after the 38-6 loss in Baltimore Sunday. That can lead some fans to think, “Same Old Browns.”

I felt the same way at times watching the game in person. But that’s not fair to Kevin Stefanski and the new coaching staff.

Yes, they looked “ill-prepared and overwhelmed,” as I wrote after the game.

By “ill-prepared” I meant how play-caller Stefanski moved away from his generally solid game plan of running the ball and throwing to tight ends.

Yes, the Browns were down 24-6 at the half.

But did anyone really think it was wise for the Browns offense to open the third quarter throwing the ball on eight of the first 10 plays? Six of those to Odell Beckham?

That’s what I meant by “overwhelmed.” Stefanski was caught up in the emotion of the game and moved away from his basic plan.

WHAT WAS WORKING?

What did the Browns do best in the first half?

They put ball in the hands of Kareem Hunt and Nick Chubb. The two backs combined for 79 yards on 12 carries (6.5-yard average).

In the first half, Baker Mayfield was 5-of-6 passing to three different tight ends.

Running backs. Tight ends. Then hit a receiver for a solid gain.

That’s the foundation of the offense. It’s what made Stefanski a successful play-caller in Minnesota. It’s a system the Browns wanted run here when they hired the 37-year-old Stefanski.

There were times in the first half when fans could see Stefanski’s offense could be productive.

The defense was another story. It was deplorable as the Browns trailed 24-6 at the intermission.

But still run the ball. Still throw to tight ends. Still stick with the basic game plan.

Part of being prepared is also being persistent with your plan when the plan shows progress.

The Ravens could have scored 50 points if needed. The second half of that game should have been used as an intense practice session.

They needed to establish an identity because there were no preseason games and such limited practices. They needed Mayfield to gain some confidence in the new offense.

Stefanski missed a chance to do that Sunday.

HERE COME THE BENGALS

In rookie Joe Burrow’s first start, the Bengals lost to old friend Tyrod Taylor and the Chargers, 16-13.

When the schedule came, the thought was, “The Browns should win this game.”

But the Browns have started this season even behind the Bengals, whose coach Zac Taylor is in his second season. While Burrow is a new QB, not everything is new for the Bengals.

It is for the Browns.

Can new defensive coordinator Joe Woods find a way to disrupt a rookie QB? He should with the Browns' high-priced defensive line.

Can they stop the run? A year ago, Cincinnati’s Joe Mixon gained 308 yards in two games vs. the Browns.

That’s not a misprint. It was 308 yards in 49 carries vs. the Browns in 2019.

How about holding him to a mere 100 yards Thursday?

The Browns offensive line did a good job run blocking and was reasonably effective protecting Mayfield when he dropped back to pass.

You can’t make big changes when you open the season on Sunday and then play again Thursday.

You need to do the basics: Run the ball, stop the run.

If the Browns do that, they can beat the Bengals and give the fans a reason to hope.

Pluto on the money with that write up.

The topic of the coming game ..

" Can new defensive coordinator Joe Woods find a way to disrupt a rookie QB? He should with the Browns' high-priced defensive line. "

Can the front FOUR do it ?

I disagree with Pluto. You have talent all over the field. We aren't the Vikings. When you're down by that much, do you really stick with what netted you a whopping six points in the first half?

If Pluto thinks "working" means scoring a total of six points in an entire half of football, then maybe he has a point. But when doing the math, that netted you being behind at the half by 18 points. At that juncture the score is no longer 0-0.

I think Pluto's point - and I agree - was that we were not going to win the game. Instead of getting desperate, changing the script and chasing the game, the smart thing to do would have been to use the game as an opportunity to run and practice what should be the backbone of the offense for the rest of the season ... this given that we've had no preseason games. I agree with that concept and think it would have [1] led to more points than we actually scored [2] helped prep for Thursday and the rest of the season. jmo

I agree with that. Maybe leave the game with a little better taste in your mouth and something to build off of for the next game.

j/c:

I'm somewhat troubled by all this talk about how the Browns should run, run, and run some more.

Our QB was drafted #1 overall. And we want that guy to be a guy who just hands it off?

Our two WRs are among the top duos in the entire NFL.

We signed a FA TE, making him the highest paid TE in the game at that particular point in time.

We invested heavily in the OL in both FA and the draft.

I think being one-dimensional either way is a bad idea. I think being balanced makes much more sense.

If the damn place kicker had done his job, the score at the half should have been 17-10 - game on.

We will simply have to disagree here. I can't think of any time in sports that you as a HC or player do not "play to win the game".

As in this game, there will be times we will be down big. It's not like you can play 16 games only using your preferred plays. A good HC has the ability to switch things up when the circumstances call for it.

Maybe a dominant team like the ravens can do that, but not us. This isn't the last time you will see Stefanski switch things up as circumstances dictate. And I certainly hope I'm right here.

I don't want a HC who settles for "moral victories" and one who uses games as some kind of "learning experience". I want a HC who does what he thinks it takes to "win". And if that means switching things up as the scoreboard dictates, switch things up.

I don't disagree with that. But the fact remains he didn't. And that is what we faced when the second half started.

I understand what you're saying but it only makes sense because we lost.

So to me, that's a hindsight mechanism for fans and media. If anybody from staff to players thought the game was over at 24-6, they should be relieved of their duties... especially since we had chances to capitalize and made dumb mistakes.

Our success running the ball evaporated shortly into the 3rd Q. So what then? Three yards and a cloud of dust, punt, punt, punt? Makes no sense.

Once the Ravens went up 31-6, we did mix in the run game and short passing game (which should be our bread and butter).

The game wasn't over until Chubb fumbled deep in our territory. That was the last play in the third and then the writing was on the wall. Players and coaches aren't supposed to "quit" for some greater good - not at 24-6. As the game wore down from then, Pluto's point becomes irrelevant, because we actually did (in my eyes) exactly what he said we should.

Sounds like a bunch a philosophical bs in order to drive home a point that the Browns missed some "golden opportunity". As if some human can predict that we would have had some "aha" moment, or grown by leaps and bounds, if we would have done things his way.

Hindsight doesn't live on a football field. Between the lines - you play to win for sixty minutes.

what was the score? 10-6 .. then OBJ dropped it? then we missed the FG? Then they scored ... did I get that correct?

We were also moving the ball not too bad. We picked up yards and managed to score little.

We were losing that game no matter what.

BUT, it would have been nice to see us compete and not have the wheels fall off ... and feel like “here we go again”

So why abandon the game plan and get desperate? I'd have liked to see more continuation of the O game plan ... I think our D is going to be a problem all year, I have 'hope' the O will find an identity and be able to move the ball.

If our D is that bad all year, we'll have a new game plan. Maybe that's what they were running in the second half? Changing the game plan to fit the circumstances isn't desperation.

Like you said - maybe we simply disagree.... we went from moving the ball to looking like Freddie was calling plays. Maybe KS is just bad and a knee jerk sorta guy? I hope not. . . . I said after the game and I will maintain, Ravens are a top 3 or 4 team. The game shouldn't be used to determine the ability of the team/players/coach. Next 3 weeks will tell us more.

The game was getting away from us, and you always try to win. I was expecting us to get pass-happy when they kept scoring and we kept tripping over our own feet.

I would hope that as we get more time in the offense that we can start establishing some scripted plays for the beginning of games. Our offense last year actually looked competent when we ran these.

I think there is still some level of sticking with the plan and sticking to what is working. For instance, in this game, our running scheme was working in the first half. Blunders, and not necessarily scheme, kept us from scoring more in the first half.

I harken back to when KS was calling plays for us in '14 and we came back and beat the Titans. We stuck with his plan and didn't avoid the run, and stuck with what worked. That ultimately led us back to a W.

I simply admire a HC who is willing to adapt to the circumstances at hand.

I think you can do both, meaning utilize something within the auspices of your original game plan, and your team's strengths while adjusting to what is occurring in the game. I think that's what Shanny ended up doing to the Titans in '14.

And I agree with you. I guess with just watching one single game in his NFL head coaching tenure that leaves into question what are "the auspices of your original game plan, and your team's strengths". Is there an actual single plan, or is the plan set with allowing a variance depending on how circumstances unfold themselves? Surely you're not suggesting "We'll play all four quarters the same way no matter what the other team does, how well we are at executing the plan or what the score is", are you?

From where I sit I think in terms of our offense, our teams strengths are all over the field. At RB, TE and WR. Huge investments have been made and the talent is all over that side of the ball. With that in mind, I feel you can go in any direction and still be playing to one of your strengths.

You see, we are in an actual rather envious position in terms of offensive weapons. Considering that, a very balanced approach to our offense seems to make the most sense. When you try and "create a situation" where you utilize parts of your talent while ignoring others, you become very predictable. This gives the opposing defense and advantage by knowing where to focus.

There are teams who need to focus on certain areas of their offense due to the fact they are weak in other departments. But we are certainly not in that category. By being a complete and balanced offense it leaves the opposing defense on the edge. They have to distribute their defense evenly and spread them out all over the field. To not be able to concentrate on certain aspects of your offense. This allows you to find mismatches much easier.

While people are predicting how Stefanski will run this offense, with one game under his belt as HC I don't believe anyone actually knows for sure at this juncture. If as some suggest it's RB and TE centric while ignoring a good balance of the WR game incorporated, I think that would actually be neglecting to use a lot of your talent.

I'm hoping for a very balanced offensive game plan in order to use our resources rather than concentrate on other aspects while ignoring a large portion of our talent.

I think we're on the same page...and don't call me Shirley.

Where we might somewhat disagree is the strengths and the balance. On paper, we have strong position groups across the board, but I don't feel like Stefanski has really seen what works and what doesn't yet given our offseason, hence yesterday.

A lot of teams that are trying to establish themselves, like Buffalo when McDermott was hired, and San Fran when Harbaugh was hired, established themselves with a basic style and then went from there.

I believe the core of Stefanski's game planning includes a strong run game and a heavy dose of tight ends. Our receivers on paper should be a strength, but they haven't proven themselves to be so on this team, outside of Landry. I think we veered away from a run game, which I believe got 5.7 ypc and a tight end game, and started forcing the ball to Beckham. Now, to be fair, I don't know yet if that was by scheme or Mayfield forcing it.

To me, it was just an all-around combination of abhorrent execution, shifting from what was working, clock management, bad kicks, poor resilience, and just about everything else that could go wrong, and it reflected in the score.

The team needs a spark to build on, and I think that will have to come from some combination of Stefanski, Mayfield and the defense all bringing it together and clicking into place.

I don't think the corner gets turned until we can handily beat a talented team.

I fear that, if (or in my mind "when") we lose this week, the wheels will start to come off again.

We seem to be stuck in this death spiral of underperforming, Haslam meddling, everyone getting fired, bringing in new guys, reshaping the roster, underperforming, Haslam meddling, everyone getting fired, bringing in new guys...and so on...

Sickening.

Sorry, that devolved into a rant.

This is not an insult at all, but I think you guys might be over-analyzing things. The discussion has been good and a lot of intellectual thought processes. I just don't think things are all that complicated. We got behind. We had to throw. We still ran it 27 times, which is a lot considering the final score.

Being one dimensional is dumb. Balance is the key. We have the talent to run and throw. We have two huge question marks and one other issue. They are the same as last year.

1. QB. Dude was the first pick in the draft and we want him to just hand it off? DCs are too smart to play that game. He needs to get better and get better fast.

2. Once again, we hired a HC who does not have any HC experience at any level. Hell, I believe he only has one year as an OC. He did a terrible job in game one. He has to be at least decent.

3. Character. This team has quit when things get difficult all last year and in game one this year. We need to get mentally and emotionally tougher.

I am getting to the point that I am really worried that we are going to waste all the talent that has been assembled because of the three things I mentioned.

No doubt. I think we’re well on the way to waste the talent we have. Truth be told, Chubb, Hunt, Garrett, Ward, OBJ, Landry, Ogunjobi, Bitonio, Tretter, Conklin, Hooper ... they’re ALL Uber talented for the NFL .. and it is going for naught

One of the problems we have is that we are a soft team. No bad A** attitude on the field.

If we had continued to run as many are complaining about and lost as we did, they would be complaining how it was moronic to keep running when down by 21.

The only thing I would like to point out in response to your comments is regarding OBJ and whether or not it was Baker forcing the ball to him or the scheme.

I believe on any given pass play designed to go to our WR's that either Landry or OBJ will most certainly be your primary WR in the vast majority of cases. They are certainly the two that will get the call in regards to being the primary WR. While that can be attributed to scheme and it certainly is, it's up to the QB to decide whether that primary WR is open. Whether he should throw to his primary read or go through his progression and look elsewhere. And if he decides to make the throw to that primary WR, it's up to him to place that ball where only his WR has a chance at the ball.

I've never heard of a scheme where the HC tells his QB that he has a primary WR on a certain play and that he must throw to that WR no matter what the circumstances are. Once the ball is snapped, all decisions from that point forward rest on your QB.

In the Baltimore game you are certainly correct. And what Peen posted right after you is certainly correct. My comments were regarding the overall scheme of the team moving forward. Even then, you must vary your scheme based on the given circumstances in the game and the opponent you are facing.

Football is much closer to a chess game than some would like to admit.

You won't get any argument from me on that one.

Honestly, I'm not that big a fan of the chess comparison.

You have to use strategy and think ahead, but that's pretty much where the comparison ends.

Lots of things require strategy.

The stakes are clearly different, but I think war is more apt.

In chess, both sides start with the same pieces. You take turns. The pieces have extremely limited moves they are allowed to perform. None of that is like football.

In football (and war), different "teams" have different strengths and weaknesses. The action takes place simultaneously. Your options for using "pieces" is practically limitless.

You have to use strategy and tactics, and it's a thinking man's game. But, it's really not all that much like chess.

j/c...

So the winning teams used motion and the losers didnt

I'll give that one to you. It does sound like a better analogy. I think the overall point remains basically the same however. The conditions of what's happening on the battlefield dictate your response.

A big game for rookie coach Kevin Stefanski to take control: Cleveland Browns scribbles


https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2020/09...-scribbles.html

By Terry Pluto, The Plain Dealer
CLEVELAND, Ohio: Scribbling about the Cleveland Browns as they open at home against the Cincinnati Bengals tonight:

1. In politics, they call it “changing the narrative.” It means doing something to make people feel different about what has become the same old story. Or in the case after the Browns were hammered 38-6 in Baltimore, the theme of “Same Old Browns.” It also looked like the “same old” overwhelmed coaching staff.

2. A victory over the Bengals can mean a lot to Kevin Stefanski and his coaching staff. Then the loss can be written off as “Baltimore is a great team. The Browns were dealt a lousy hand with a rookie coach, no preseason games or spring practices.” In other words, the narrative changes.

3. For that to happen, Stefanski has to make some changes. We’ve dwelled on more carries for Kareem Hunt and Nick Chubb. But the Browns give Austin Hooper a $44 million contract to be the target of only two passes. He did catch both on Sunday.

4. For an offense that needs to feature ball control and keeping the defense off the field, the tight ends need to be targeted more than eight times. That was the situation in Baltimore. They caught six.



5. Chubb on what the Browns need to do: “We all know we can run the ball. We kind of got away from it (in Baltimore). Running the ball has never been a problem here. We just have to stick to it and get in a rhythm.”

6. Amen, Mr. Chubb. Hunt and Chubb combined for 132 yards in 23 carries. That’s a 5.7-yard average. The Bengals allowed the Chargers to rush for 155 yards (4.0 average) while losing to L.A. The Chargers ran it 39 times against Bengals. The Browns should do the same.

7. In his Zoom press conference, Chubb also spoke this truth: “There is no excuse for us with who all is on our team to put up one touchdown. That’s unacceptable.”

8. That’s why this is a big game for Stefanski. The rookie coach is also calling the plays. It’s his offense. He told us what it’s supposed to look like: the running game, passes to the tight ends, the physical play. Now is the time to show it.

9. If things “get away” from the running game, there is only one guy to blame – Stefanski. When he called plays in Minnesota last season, the Vikings ranked No. 4 in rushing attempts. He seemed almost stubborn in his commitment to run. Do it again, only this time in Cleveland.

10. The offense should look better. Stefanski has been a successful QB coach and play caller in the past without superstar QBs. His primary pupils were Case Keenum and Kirk Cousins. He should be able to put Baker Mayfield in a better position than he did in Baltimore.



11. None of this is to excuse Mayfield, who had three passes tipped. He wildly overthrew a few receivers. He seemed anxious at times in the pocket when the protection wasn’t breaking down. In fact, the passing protection was pretty good in Baltimore. Profootballfocus said his accuracy rate was 47 percent. That meant passes on target. A few off target were caught. Mayfield was only sacked twice and was not under constant defensive pressure.

12. I’m weary of writing about throwing/not throwing the ball to Odell Beckham Jr. The fact is he shouldn’t be the focal point of the offense. The Browns need this game to establish their personality on offense. The Bengals aren’t strong defensively.

13. Meanwhile, Cincinnati’s Joe Mixon ran for 308 yards in two games against the Browns last year. That’s right, 308 yards in two games. Can new Browns defensive coordinator Joe Woods do anything about that?

14. This from Profootballfocus: “This Cincinnati offensive line projects to be one of the worst in the league. (QB) Joe Burrow had little success when Joey Bosa, Melvin Ingram and company got home. Bosa, in particular, was excellent in this one.”

15. The Chargers star pass rusher, Bosa had a sack, four QB hits and seven “hurries” against the Bengals. How about something like that from Myles Garrett?

16. The Browns need their defensive line to dominate because the linebackers/defensive backs looked slow and soft against the Ravens. The linebackers and secondary have been hit hard by injuries, but I also question how much talent is there even when Greedy Williams, Mack Wilson and Jacob Phillips are healthy and back on the field. I didn’t mention Grant Delpit because the rookie safety is out for the season with an Achilles injury.

17. New kicker Cody Parkey is on his second tour of duty with the Browns. The first was in 2016. He has been with five teams in six years. The new coaching staff must not have had any faith in Austin Seibert, cutting him after one game. Then the Bengals picked up Seibert.

18. I expect the offense to look better in this game. I expect (or at least hope) the Browns can hold Mixon under 125 yards (a very modest goal). But the defense seems overmatched right now.

19. Prediction: Bengals 27, Browns 24. Boy, I hope I’m wrong on this prediction.

20. Even if they are 0-2 after Thursday, I don’t write off the season. They have 10 days pull things together before facing Washington. They also will have a chance to assess the team after playing real games. That should help.

If we are 0-2 I’d most certainly write off this season ... i hope he’s wrong too (but I think he’s right)

Baker is going to be good and win, he has to. Our Offense is good and we will get the win.

j/c:

I think the Browns need to win tonight. They should win. They have way more talent.

Things will get real ugly if the Browns lose tonight. There will be 10 long days before they play again. The negativity surrounding the team will be palpable.

I know it's early, but this is a must win.