DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Which NFL team is the most analytics-advanced?

https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/1445740842468052997?s=20



https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3233...candidates-more


The Cleveland Browns have taken over the title of the NFL's analytically advanced franchise from a division rival.

When we surveyed analytics staffers across the league a year ago, they voted the Baltimore Ravens as the most analytically advanced -- defined by a combination of the level of data-driven work produced and the degree to which that work is implemented in decision-making. But in 2021, the Browns were runaway winners, as voted by their peers in an ESPN poll.

This was the second year we've conducted a 13-question survey of the league's analytics minds to gain a better understanding of the league's quantitative landscape and how it is evolving. We sent the survey to an analytics person with each team, and 22 responded.

Some staffers left additional comments, and others were called by ESPN for contextual follow-ups. Participants were allowed to select their own team where applicable, and questions were asked with the understanding that they don't have perfect information about other teams. All were granted anonymity so they could speak freely, and though there were 22 respondents, a few abstained from some questions. Let's begin with the teams that seek and use analytics the most in today's game.

Which NFL team is the most analytically advanced?
1. Cleveland Browns (17)
2. Baltimore Ravens (4)
3. Miami Dolphins (1)

Which team produces the highest level of analytics work?
1. Cleveland Browns (14)
2. Baltimore Ravens (3)
3. Buffalo Bills (2)
T4. Dallas Cowboys (1)
T4. Indianapolis Colts (1)
T4. Philadelphia Eagles (1)

Which team most incorporates analytics into its decision-making?
1. Cleveland Browns (11)
2. Baltimore Ravens (6)
3. Philadelphia Eagles (2)
T4. Green Bay Packers (1)
T4. New York Giants (1)
T4. Indianapolis Colts (1)

Cleveland received the most votes for highest level of work last year, but now it's a clean sweep of these three categories in the second season of the Andrew Berry-Kevin Stefanski regime. The Browns are "making best use of resources and making every effort to gain a competitive advantage through analytics, so hearing it was a runaway was not too surprising," said an NFC analytics staffer.

An AFC analytics employee added that Berry has "a very unique combination of people skills, general intelligence -- obviously he's got a strong IT and data science background -- and he's trained as a scout in the league. He's got a unique blend of all those things."



Fourth-down offense is at an all-time high: Why NFL teams are following the analytics and going for it

The Browns' integration of analytics into their fabric is hardly a secret. It was first strongly embraced when Sashi Brown ran the team in 2016, then went dormant under John Dorsey and then came back to the forefront again under Berry. The Browns now have the largest analytics staff in the league, with a group that includes chief strategy officer Paul DePodesta -- who began with Cleveland in 2016 at the start of the Brown era -- and three vice presidents in analytics or with an analytics background.

Multiple analytics staffers posited that the Browns probably should have received more credit previously and that votes swung their way now that they are having success on the field. (Cleveland is 3-1 through Week 4.)

"They got a lot of criticism for a number of years, I guess a lot of traditional scouts would say they were so married to the idea of winning draft-day trades and acquiring future years' draft capital," a veteran analytics director said. "And they smartly did that and they're kind of reaping the rewards now. Their roster is pretty much as talented as any you'll find in the league top to bottom, and I think that's directly a product of their ability to acquire so many valuable draft assets."

The Ravens still earned a few votes for most analytically advanced and a few more for the degree they incorporate data into decision-making. The most obvious place this shows up is in their fourth-down aggression, which was on display in their win over the Chiefs in Week 2, when QB Lamar Jackson sealed the win with a fourth-down conversion.

"Andrew Berry leads the NFL in terms of acceptance and adoption of analytics. On the coaching side, John Harbaugh has the most buy-in," wrote one survey-taker.

Which teams are among the top five most analytically inclined?
Cleveland Browns (22), Baltimore Ravens (22), Philadelphia Eagles (14), Buffalo Bills (12), Indianapolis Colts (8), Los Angeles Rams (6), Minnesota Vikings (4), San Francisco 49ers (4), Jacksonville Jaguars (3), Atlanta Falcons (2), Green Bay Packers (2), New England Patriots (2), Dallas Cowboys (1), Denver Broncos (1), Detroit Lions (1) and New York Jets (1)

The Eagles remained the No. 3 team on this list, despite an offseason report that their analytics department was at the center of an organizational conflict during the Doug Pederson era. A veteran director said, "It kind of comes from Howie Roseman down. He's always been a proponent of analytics. I think, at least on the scouting side, they've always been pretty advanced."

One front-office member was particularly impressed with the Rams' ability to go against the grain, citing examples from limiting staff pro day and combine attendance to the pass-first approach they took to defense in 2020: "I love that they just seem that they challenge themselves in terms of their thought process." Even if Los Angeles' contrarian angles weren't all analytically based, they felt that their openness to being different indicated they were likely open to using data to find an edge, too. Prioritizing the pass is certainly an analytical tenet.

"I'm inferring a little bit, but everything they did on defense last year, even what McVay was looking for when he was trying to find a defensive coach," the senior staffer said. "The pass-focused part of it, which still is not the norm in the NFL. The norm is we have to stop the run first even though everybody knows it's a passing league -- I think it was progressive for them to act that way." The staffer added that those who think outside the box are often the ones who find temporary advantages.

Indianapolis got some attention here, too. An AFC staffer said, "I hear the Colts do some interesting things with game management. I hear [Frank] Reich is really into it and those guys are really involved."

Staying in the AFC South, the Jaguars have a large analytics staff, though many members have hybrid roles split between football and business responsibilities. This past offseason, the team hired senior vice president of football operations and strategy Karim Kassam, but he then left in what the team described as a mutual agreement just a few months later.

"I considered Jacksonville for another team but having people in the area doesn't mean much if it's Urban Meyer's show," wrote one front-office member. "See that as a mess where they don't seem to know what they're doing unfortunately. ... They clearly have a divide in the building. I don't understand why anybody puts a big investment in this stuff and then also entrust the most key roles with folks who don't want to have anything to do with it."


Lastly, in follow-up conversations, a survey-taker named the Jets and Lions as under-the-radar teams here, and another pointed to the Giants and Seahawks as potential top-10 clubs.

Which team in the NFL is least analytically advanced?
1. Tennessee Titans (8)
T2. Cincinnati Bengals (4)
T2. Washington Football Team (4)
4. Las Vegas Raiders (2)
T5. New Orleans Saints (1)
T5. New York Giants (1)
T5. New York Jets (1)

One voter abstained.

This end of the spectrum actually seems tougher for staffers to decipher. After all, being the most analytically arcane might be hard to spot relative to the competition. But there's one way a team can stand out in this area: staffing. And that seemed to be a factor for why the Titans took the category.

Until recently, the Titans were the only team, to our knowledge, without a full-time analytics worker in their football operations department. That changed when Tennessee hired Matt Iammarino as assistant developer of analytical football research in August. Not having a defined analytics department doesn't definitively mean an eschewing of analytics, but it is a strong clue. Plus, a veteran analytics employee noted that the Titans' infamous 4th-and-2 punt from the Ravens' 40-yard line in the fourth quarter of the team's wild-card loss last year was a red flag.

Still, Tennessee was far from an unanimous vote. Cincinnati and Washington were runners-up here, and each have only one known full-time analytics worker.


"I mean, the Bengals are an easy target," said an AFC analytics staffer. "I just know how their scouting department works, and you look at their directory online. They have one guy? Their decision-making isn't quite there yet. I don't know for a fact that they're worse than anyone else, but they're an easy target, and I'm probably right."

Which player-level metric in the public sphere is most useful for player evaluation?
EPA-based metrics/Total QBR (6)
Pro Football Focus grades/WAR (3)
Pressure statistics (2)
Approximate Value (2)
Target rate (1)
Yards per attempt (1)

Seven voters abstained.

Expected points added (EPA) is a longstanding staple of football analytics work. The idea is to view the game through the lens of points as opposed to yards -- meaning it includes the context of down, distance, yard line and clock.


"EPA is probably the most available thing and is definitely something we use on a regular basis," an NFC analyst said. "Because I think it just further allows you to delve into player contribution -- what true value is within a play that may not be as easily decipherable given your generic box scores and production."

Among current NFL analytics staffers, who will first become an NFL GM, if any?
Kwesi Adofo-Mensah, Browns VP of football operations (8)
Dave Giuliani, Browns director, research & strategy (2)
Alec Halaby, Eagles VP of football operations & strategy (1)
Brian Hampton, 49ers VP of football administration (1)
Dennis Lock, Bills director of football research & strategy (1)
Andrew Healy, Browns VP of research & strategy (0.5)
Ken Kovash, Browns VP of player personnel process & development (0.5)

Seven voters abstained. An additional vote was cast for "someone from Cleveland."

No one has ascended from an analytics role to the general manager chair yet. How quickly will that happen and who will do it first?


"It's going to happen soon," a senior staffer said. "I think you're going to have owners wanting GMs who have it all. There's really no reason you can't have a football person who is data fluent and data interested. It's not an either/or."

Adofo-Mensah, viewed as Berry's right-hand man in Cleveland, does appear to be the most likely candidate. He's a top lieutenant on the most analytically advanced team in the league, previously was the director of football research and development with the 49ers and interviewed for the Panthers' GM job last offseason.

He was one of four members of the Browns' front office to be mentioned on a ballot (one voter split between Healy and Kovash), another sign of their stature among teams analytically. How quickly the next data-first GM is hired may, the senior staffer noted, depend a lot on how well the Browns perform. An AFC staffer, however, was somewhat skeptical that any Cleveland copycats would necessarily work the same without Berry.

"If the Browns can show they can sustain success for the next two, three years, somebody's going to try and recreate that model," they said. "Whether or not that's successful, it's like anything else: You can't just take something and pick it up and move it somewhere else and expect it to work the same way."

The Bills being a contender similarly worked in Lock's favor, thought the analytics worker who voted for the current Buffalo director, saying "I've always just held him in high regard. ... PhD in statistics, as bright as they come."

The voters were asked specifically for the first person they thought would ascend to GM, but an NFC analyst added that down the line Rams manager of football analytics Sarah Bailey might one day reach that level, too.

Which areas of football operations do you or your analytics team work on?
Coaching (22)
Pro personnel (20)
Draft (20)
Game management (20)
Sport science (18)

The 22 voters were asked to check all that apply.

For me, the breadth of analytics departments really stood out here. But for those around the league, it was actually an expected result.

"It doesn't surprise me at all. Obviously there's differing levels of involvement," an AFC staffer said. "Anytime you're going to need any advanced data analysis, that's what the analytics departments is for. So you're going to do projects for everybody in those departments. How often you do them or the level of actual involvement will vary. But you're going to do a project for everybody on that list at some point."

An NFC front-office member noted that hitting low-hanging fruit across all five areas was a mechanism to get the analytics team in the door with different groups. From there, it could build upon that work for larger projects.

Does your team have an analytics staffer on the coaching headset during games?
Yes (15)
No (6)

One voter abstained.

Perhaps no analytics work is more visible than fourth-down and two-point conversion in-game decisions, and roughly two-thirds of the teams surveyed indicated they have an analytics employee on headset. What determines if this is the case?

"Honestly, either the head coach has to want it or the owner has to want it and make the head coach agree to it," an AFC analytics staffer said. Others noted that relationships play a key role, as the head coach is going to want a level of comfort with whoever is delivering the information. At least one team surveyed said they have an analytics staffer in the booth but not on the headset.

Does your team use raw player-tracking data to create proprietary in-house metrics?
Yes (19)
No (2)

Last year's survey asked if player-tracking data was used at all, and almost every respondent said yes. So this year, we tried to be a little more specific -- but the answers were still overwhelmingly positive.

"That's actually great to hear," said a senior staffer of the results. "I wouldn't have guessed [19] of 32 even would have been creating in-house metrics from raw [NFL Next Gen Stats] data."

But others thought the result made sense.

"Just given how long we've had access to this data and the rate that teams are hiring, I would be very surprised if even on the lower department sizes if they don't have one person that's at least starting to play around with the player tracking and incorporating it in-house," an NFC analyst said. "Just because that's the direction the game is heading in."

The analyst added that when digging in to the player tracking themselves, they started by recreating public player-tracking work first -- from the Big Data Bowl (e.g. quantifying defensive pass coverage) and ESPN (e.g. pass block win rate) -- and then worked to progress beyond that. Asked for an example of player-tracking usage, an AFC staffer said their team uses a completion probability model, though they created their own in-house model rather than the one provided by NFL Next Gen Stats.

When it comes to analytics, the average NFL team is ____ years behind the average MLB team.
Average response: 9.8 years
Range of responses: 5-15 years

"Honestly how many teams are data-first in baseball? It's certainly a healthy number and it's an essential part for the vast majority," said a senior staffer. "We're just a really long way off that. The game, baseball, has fundamentally been changed in so many ways -- the shift, how teams use their pitchers. [In football], fourth down, things are moving, but that train just started in the last few years. I think in 10 years, I think you'll see football in a very, very different place."

Others felt like there wasn't as large a gap as it seemed, and that the added difficulty of quantifying a more fluid game in football was a key separator.

"Fifteen years is an eternity!" said a director when told of the range of votes. "I think it's harder to do in the NFL because there are just so many people that are coming from more of a traditional football background. Because I think the knowledge that's required is a lot more specialized. The coaches at the highest level are really kind of PhD's in the game of football."


The same director noted that the variety of both skills and body types in football were far more varied than in baseball, where specialized analysis of, for example, pitching mechanics can apply to half of the roster.

If you could wave a magic wand to improve analytics usage at your team through one of the following, which would you choose?
Increased buy-in from decision-makers (8)
More staff (8)
Higher quality raw data (5)
More third-party tools (0)

One voter abstained.

"We see the ability that we have with, say, five individuals in this department," said someone with an NFC team who voted for increased buy-in. "What's going to be that multiplicative factor if we add more people, or we allow them access to better data. As long as you're getting buy-in from decision-makers, the rest of it falls in place."

But another staffer argued that a larger staff could make a world of difference. "There's a need for the skills on analytics teams to be a little more specialized and a little less general purpose. When your staff is small, you have to be more of a generalist," they said. "You can get so bogged down with the routine of the NFL and responding to those [ad-hoc] requests. You need folks to clear their schedule and they can work on longer term projects."

A senior front-office member who voted for higher quality data said they viewed the question a little more philosophically and imagined a theoretical dataset that contained the assignments for every player on every play. That would go a long way toward quantifying individual player's value.

What typically prevents NFL teams from further adopting analytics in football operations?
This final question was left open-ended and generated a variety of responses. The most common theme was communication with decision-makers.

"I don't think it's tough to explain to them what the model is supposed to do. I think it's tough when the model doesn't match up with what they see," an AFC staffer said. "It's in the cases where they're clearly right about what they see and it's just some type of unique case where the model isn't strong in a certain area because it's not accounting for something."

Play for Free

They noted that in, say, a draft meeting you often don't have much time and typically are just giving a quick breakdown, but that in those edge cases, that staffer tries to take the time to explain why the model is producing a surprising result. Otherwise, they risk coaches quickly losing trust in the model.

"I don't think every team does that," said the AFC staffer. "[The decision-makers are] just like 'Oh, this model's f---ed up' and they move on."

Some responses placed an emphasis on the analytics workers' ability to communicate, while others placed the onus on decision-makers who aren't invested in data-based approaches or just have an old-school mentality in general.

"Mistrust, lack of communication, arrogance, fear, short-sightedness, lack of resources, novelty all play a factor. Breaking down the wall between coaches/scouts and quants takes time, trust and collaboration," wrote one survey-taker.

"Decision inertia," another respondent said. "Teams are slow to adopt new methods and then need to see immediate success or risk going back to the 'traditional' way of doing things."

Lastly, one survey-taker laid out an issue that plagues NFL teams in analytics and beyond: "Excellent processes don't guarantee excellent results without a good QB."




(Sorry if some of this is jumbled. I hate ESPN's website.)

Thanks. My son sent me that link while I was down in Florida earlier in the week.

Depo is as valuable to this team as anyone else. A case could be made that he is the MVP of the team. He is the guy who stood firm to hire Stefanski 3 years ago when Dorsey nixed that in favor of Freddie, then lead the team search that brought Stefanski to town. I think he was also in Haslams ear to bring Berry back as GM.

No matter, it is working well and the results are much different than what most felt would happen when analytics was first being talked about and now see that it isn't simply computers making the decisions.

We have "football guys" at the helm.

I figured we’d be high on the list. The good news: the coaching staff/FO are lock step with this stuff. It’s not like we have “football guys” and “stats guys” … we have guys with the right mix

Found this particular piece interesting. ALL teams checked coaching as part of the analytics process.

Shame on the two teams who don't use analytics for the draft, free agency, and game mgmt.

Agree... that's the most important part. I think the last part of the article says a lot about the relationship and how it will affect a team's use of data. Generating the data is no longer the problem, or hurdle, per se.

Reading through a lot of that I imagined someone like Dorsey crumbling the paper and throwing it in the trash... while someone like Stefanski would want to get to the bottom of the "why".

What typically prevents NFL teams from further adopting analytics in football operations?
This final question was left open-ended and generated a variety of responses. The most common theme was communication with decision-makers.

"I don't think it's tough to explain to them what the model is supposed to do. I think it's tough when the model doesn't match up with what they see," an AFC staffer said. "It's in the cases where they're clearly right about what they see and it's just some type of unique case where the model isn't strong in a certain area because it's not accounting for something."

They noted that in, say, a draft meeting you often don't have much time and typically are just giving a quick breakdown, but that in those edge cases, that staffer tries to take the time to explain why the model is producing a surprising result. Otherwise, they risk coaches quickly losing trust in the model.

"I don't think every team does that," said the AFC staffer. "[The decision-makers are] just like 'Oh, this model's f---ed up' and they move on."

Some responses placed an emphasis on the analytics workers' ability to communicate, while others placed the onus on decision-makers who aren't invested in data-based approaches or just have an old-school mentality in general.

"Mistrust, lack of communication, arrogance, fear, short-sightedness, lack of resources, novelty all play a factor. Breaking down the wall between coaches/scouts and quants takes time, trust and collaboration," wrote one survey-taker.

"Decision inertia," another respondent said. "Teams are slow to adopt new methods and then need to see immediate success or risk going back to the 'traditional' way of doing things."


Thanks for the article cfrs!

Jon Gruden and Mike McCarthy! It was said Urban Meyer was against it as well and Jax has an entire analytics department.


Also, thanks for the read cfrs.

Then it is a good thing the Tampa GM, Jason Licht, is a believer.

I was going to say that tamoa isn't listed as one of the bottom teams.

I am sure Arians believe it more than he thinks. He just doesn't know it.

Jokes on him.

If he has a down and distance list of plays, he believes. If he looks at a players 40 time, he believes. If he thinks Paul Brown was a good coach, he believes.

I just want to point out this fact:

When Mickey McBride gave Paul Brown the reins, Paul was the most forward-thinking Football Man in the game. Classrooms. coms units in QB helmets. Taxi squad/personnel packages & substitutions. Film study. Weight room/conditioning specialists. 50's-era player analytics without regard to race/ethnicity (huge advancement). All these innovations transformed the old NFL into the modern NFL that we see today. Paul Brown did that (It's why I've always said that the championship trophy should have always been The Brown instead of The Lombardi).

And for years, The Cleveland Browns were the class of the league.

It's only fitting that the newest (permanent) NFL Big Thing being fully embraced by CLE puts them at the head of the class. In football threads, I've heard the beginnings of 'dynasty' talk. Tho it's way too early for me to sign on to such notions, I will say this: if it does happen, it's because of the philosophy, approach and personnel we have now. Another mix of people, and it doesn't happen (read: John Dorsey).

I've been watching this group pretty closely. Some of you may remember Vers talking me out of bailing a few years ago (Thanks Vers- I still appreciate the pitch you made). The Dorsey Dump© seems to have exorcised the last dysfunction demon from 76, and the guys who are now in place are a bunch of freakkin professionals. They are all oars stroking in unison. They are disciplined. They are smarter than their contemporaries. They are quicker to the punch, and they are dictating to the league how things are going to be. Just like Paul did, when I was a wee zygote. I couldn't be happier.

This is shaping up to be an entertaining season no matter how it plays out, but I'm more excited about where the Browns are, going forward. After decades of careening clown cars with no guardrails, we have sane, smart, competent adults behind the wheel

-and not a moment too soon.


.02

I agree. As in anything, information is a big advantage. It's stupid to think it isn't.

A CEO of a top corporation may not know all that much about IT, chemical composition or whatever, but they make sure they have the people on board who do as it pertains to their business. The ones who don't because they don't understand are the ones who get fired after their company flounders compared to the competition.

Smart GM's and coaches learn to adapt and incorporate that information in to their decision making process.

The days of the "football guy" who relies on his gut to make decisions are over.

Berry, Depo, and Stefanski are as sharp as people get. In turn, they hire the same. I don't think we will find many dummies in decision making positions in Berea.

It may not be as easy as following the yellow brick road was to find Oz but our decision makers are pretty tuned in on the direction we need to take.

I'm losing faith in Stefanski's real-time "analysis" of the situation.

Not me.
Not yet.


Just like this team, I'm watching this coach make his way through an NFL season- only his 2nd, I'll remind you.

The overarching theme behind this new bunch is relentless self-evaluation and adjustment. No ego. No territories. I have no doubt that KS is getting evals of his own performances in his daily data feed.

We just started the 2nd Q of the NFL season.
I'm not losing or gaining faith at this point.
I'm just watching and studying. Nothing I see is causing me undue concern, to date.


Just another way of seeing CLE's season, so far...

I don't question the call all that much as I have seen similar by many teams over the years. What I do question is putting your faith in a D that hadn't stopped anything all day long.

That's what I question. A defense that looks great one week and sucks the next isn't something you can count on.

It was just last week that the 3rd and 10 draw play netted like 35 yards.

It did. Two things:
1. We all know that was an EXTREME outlier play
2. It was "just last week." Predictable for other team to put on "Browns play watch list."

I haven't "lost" faith in Stefanski, but we have to stay unpredictable to some degree for plays to be effective. I still have faith they'll work it out.

I would have preferred:

1. Play action rollout pass on 1st down.
2. Draw play on 2nd down.
3. Pass on 3rd down, if necessary.

Maybe your "concern" should be considering how far we were down on the depth chart.

mac, you do remember Hunt picking up an important 3rd and twenty 2 weeks ago. So, this week a run play did not work in the 5th game of a 17 game season.

Did the play succeed? No. Did it accomplish anything? Yes. Next week, what does a DC think after KS ran the ball twice on a third and long?

Remember, this is a 17 game schedule. It's an evolving season.

Remember also we simply need to win the AFCN. The more KS learns what he can do with this team the better. You can't take chances later without trying things early. I think we fans get too caught up in a perfect season. Head coaches who learn what their team can do succeed later.

There is the fact that everyone and their brother was expecting a pass on third and ten in that situation. If the play had succeeded everyone would be saying he caught them off guard as they were expecting a pass play. That it was a great call because they never saw the run play coming.

But since it didn't work, we see posts like yours. How fans perceive a play call is determined by whether it works or not.

Disagree a little bit PIT. Yes, there is some outcome bias, but he called very conservatively at the exact time he should have been going for the throat. First of all, on 1st down, when everyone knows your goal is to run the clock, he called a run anyway. That would've been a much better time to do a quick pass (and would've supported your argument that he was going against expectations). On second down, Baker missed the throw AND they got away with PI. Not KS's fault. At that point, it was a 4 down situation, and so at 3rd and 9, if he wants to try and trick them with a draw, ok. But you have to come back and go for it on 4th down.

You would go for it on 4th and 6... from your own 18... with a one point lead and just over 2:00 remaining?

Punting was conceding the win at that point. There was no way we were stopping them from kicking a field goal.

My guess was that Stefanski was hoping to get some yards on the draw and then have a fourth and fourish, then go for it.

I believe third down and long is the most predictable play in the NFL. The chart at the link below shows just how much teams passed on third down and over three yards from 2011 through 2018. It also shows ratios for other down and distance. There's zero doubt that third down and long is by far the most predictable play for a defense to expect a pass play.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/situational-play-action-passing-nfl

Stefanski conceded the win? But he wouldn't have if he got two more yards on the draw and had a 4th and 4 rather than a 4th and 6? I don't know man, seems a little out there to me. To each his own.

I don’t think Stefanski thought he was conceding the win at the time but that’s effectively what he was doing.

Telling you and showing you that 93% of the time teams pass on third and everything over three yards isn't an excuse. It's a fact. I thought you could understand the difference. And maybe you should take a look at what it is he said and what that comment pertained to. I don't think he was actually referring to the third down call.

I think it was about punting.

I think that's a conclusion you have reached not based on the evidence. If teams run passing plays 93% of the time in that situation it stands to reason the last thing they would have seen coming was a running play.

Punting the ball away instead of going for it on fourth down when our D had not been stopping their O the entire quarter was the final nail in the coffin. You see it your way and I see it mine.

Common football sense given the "situation (3rd and 10 with 3 mins to go in the 4th qtr)" dictates that if you want to surprise them and catch them off guard, you call a run play.

Browns are one of the best running offenses in the league. Therefore, you feel the Browns should do something they are not the best at. Hmm.


Browns had nearly 200 yards rushing against the Charges. Hmm, what hasn't the Chargers stopped all game?



What failure? Browns' best strategy all game was to run the football. Knowing they had two plays and the element of a surprise why would they not choose to run the ball?



I see no issue running the football something they proved they can do well the entire game.



I understand you don't agree with the play call. But, you have to follow what is working. Browns don't have to follow the league numbers. They need to choose what works best for them.

What do you think the Browns offense is best doing running the football or passing?

It's called monday morning qb'ing while sitting in front of a computer.

Do the Browns have any of the coaches upstairs in the booth?

No Mac, he knew he made a play call that did not work. It is so easy for us couch sitters to declare it a bad play call after the fact. Our definition of a bad play call?? One that does not work. Easy to say after the play has run. Do you remember a few games ago we were third and 9-10 to go. We ran Kareem and he picked up 15 or so yards. Just curious, was that a bad play call?

Btw, dumbest question of the week in coach�s press conferencegoes to the guy who asked him if on the third and long would he now call a different play. Well duh!!! It did not work so of course he would!! Sadly they do not get redos.

The easiest thing in the world is for us fans , relying on our vast experience at play calling in the nfl, to deem it as a bad play call after the play is run. Coach has to call the play before it is run and sometimes they do not work.

Twice this season Stefanski has decided to go for two after a defensive penalty on the extra point try, no hesitation, both times we've converted. I remember thinking (against the Chiefs) "good, they made a mistake, (try to) make them pay".

The second time (Vikings), I thought there may be more to the story where analytics is concerned. Sure enough, a story in The Athletic today confirmed my suspicion...