DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns News & Notes (Continued)

That was your question. Fact is he WAS able to play this season. The reason teams wouldn't or didn't trade for him is because they thought the NFL would change his status and he wouldn't be able to play.

The reason no team would sign him to any long terms contract is because of possible future legal battles and his status moving forward.

I have no idea what you're smoking but I hope there isn't enough of it to infect a large portion of our population.

j/c...

Just what we need, a kicker named Blew it.

A part of me hopes he's in place to kick the game winner against the Bengals to win the division.

Overcoming his own last name!

I'm just glad Shankopotamus Jones wasn't available.

That's so freaking stuid. That would be so freaking stupid if they did that.
Doesn't everyone realize that's what they did for about 22 years between, (Kosar-Testeverde) - and (Baker Mayfield)

Bottom line is if the Browns can't find ways to win with Baker Mayfield, or the others, then they aren't going to find an answer in the bottom of a (draft pick) glass.
The reality is becoming that the Browns as an organization just don't know how to play the game to win as well as the other franchises, and in my opinion, if they get rid of Baker Mayfield, because they can't work with his talent, then it will be just further embarrassment on the franchise.

But I said an almost exact same thing 4 years ago if I remember right, (4-5)
Guess I have to come to grips that the USA, and the East Coast, is never going to Not, bribe the refs, or bend the rules so that Cleveland never wins anything.
Do we need more evidence...

Green Bay Jumps offsides, (should be a free play on a drive that would bring the score to the Browns lead by 5, in the 4th quarter)

But when Green Bay jumps offsides, the Refs get so (scaredy cat butt hurt) that the Browns have a free play that they blow the whistle out of flinching.
Then, to cover for their falsehood, they have to lie and say the browns jumped.
(Dya ever notice how the Browns never get a "free play" on their offense, but the announcers say the privelaged teams, like dallas, pittsburg, and green bay, tell you about about 4 per game for their offenses?)

Now we just need to bring back ol single bar Nintendo "Player" as our punter and we're set. Super Bowl!

I approve of that

j/c...

I think this speaks to the OLine as much as it does to Chubb. I think the world of Chubb as a runner, but he still needs to get some clean shots through.

I was thinking the same thing. Our offensive line has been in shambles and still has been producing in the run game. Bitonio has been one of the best offensive linemen in the league.

Indeed it does.

While I do agree about the OL, I think we also need to consider that Chubb is one of the league leaders in yards after contact.

Actually it's all about Baker - without the threat of Baker burning the defense on any given play for a TD, Chubb would never have so many holes to run through

Chubb being elite really makes a huge difference. It's a combination of OL, Chubb and scheme.

news. the idea of defense winning championships can suck an egg!

Todays results are a referendum on the Browns offense under Kevin Stefanski!
If the Browns and their head coach, don't CHANGE----> their offense, they will stay in 4th place in the division, for the rest of the century.

Don't blame him !

If he ever wants to be a head coach he needs to go somewhere else to call plays. I’d expect Klint Kubiak on the staff next year if the Vikings clean house.

why would he go from OC in Minnesota to OC in cleveland?

Because he would like to be employed. Also, he and Stefanski worked together in Minnesota and his dad basically mastered the offense that we currently run.

If Stefanski relinquishes game day play calling duties?

I don’t see that happening (and it shouldn’t).

Please, I dont know why Stefanski should be calling plays. All year he has shown he is adverse to change. QB1 hurt, leave him in. When teams stop the run, Stefanski cannot adjust his formations or calls to the new reality. Between Stefanski and Baker, they have not gotten the job done offensively. So something needs to change and it aint just the QB

I think your blame is misplaced disproportionately on Stefanski.

it 100% needs to

OK.. SO the head coach is also the play caller who is in charge of the offense. If the offense is not working well, the blame starts with him!! Then you go down the line, next Baker, then the rest of the offensive players coaches..etc. Have their been injuries, covid..etc that have effected things.. YES.. but the offensive output starts with Stefanski!!

We all know the offense revolves around the QB in the NFL. The offense goes as the QB goes. Based on several different standards our QB was among the worst in the league. Based on the film and advanced metrics our offense should have been much better if the QB was better.

I’m looking forward to next year when the QB is healthy and/or their is a new QB running the system.

OK... Who kept putting hurt Baker out on the field? Who kept stating how Baker gave them the best chance when everyone NOW is saying the harness is a problem??

I don’t see how playing Baker if he gives you the best chance to win is a problem.

Actually almost every poster on this board said that a hurt Baker gave us a better chance to win. Almost every poster on this board knew and stated that the harness had at least some impact on Baker throwing the ball. But they also said it still was the right move to keep starting Baker.

Until all of a sudden they want to blame someone for it.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. There was a lot of unresolved discussion about injured Baker starting over Keenum. Especially when Baker had the leg and was limping all over the field.

There was a lot of "if KS and the docs say he's gtg, then I guess he's gtg", but (IMO) that's not the same thing you're alleging.

And I "tried" to make the argument that being healthy enough to play doesn't mean you should start. Especially at QB. That being able to play and being able to play well were two different things. I certainly remember well the resistance I got about that from the vast majority of posters. I remember comments of how Baker at 70% was better than Keenum or that he was the best option we had. There may have been some discussion the week or two he was limping around. But then that's not what we were discussing here. If you look at what I was commenting on......


......it was about an ongoing situation. The harness being the focal point.

Right

but IIRC those posters fell back on the reasoning that if KS started him (since it's coach's decision), then coach thinks he's healthy enough to play well. Docs say if he's healthy enough to play, and that (apparently) only came into play for the 1 game.

Again, this is my recollection of the conversation(s). I could be wrong.

I believe when people think back they often times don't remember things as happening exactly the same way. I understand that. And while I don't totally disagree with you, I think you may remember how Stefanski said he was basing his decision on what he was seeing in practice as well. It was said that Baker was performing well in practice and I never saw anything that contradicted that.

I would find it hard for a HC to go against what the doctors say, what the player says and what he saw in practice. I mean I'm not sure what other factors there would be in making a decision to start a player.

Bakers problems have been more mental than Physical the last several weeks.

j/c...

The Browns finally broke Doug.

Bingo. And the mental problems are way harder to correct. Baker at the very least needs competition next year.