DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Stefanski looking to rid us of Baker???

“Instead of having faith in the process. . .”

So going against the advice of the training staff would have been having faith in the process? Interesting. I wonder how that would’ve gone over in the locker room.

If the training staff didn’t see that he was struggling when playing games then we don’t have the right type of coaches. Like you say. Interesting. Especially that thing about the locker room.

So it's more about the rant and acting as if two wrongs make a right?

Got it.

So let's recap. The medical staff said he was good to go. Not only that, he looked good in practice during the week. Add to that he said he was good to play. I think you're just butt hurt.

They said his risk for further injury had been minimized, not that he could play well.


Wearing a red jersey with no risk of being hit vs defenders he knew like the back of his hand.


Of course he did. As would most highly competitive individuals.


Nice finishing touch.

Thanks for the compliment at the end of your post. That's sure what it sounds like. Throwing the ball and seeing someone throw tells you if they're accurate. It tells you if their mechanics and footwork are okay. Now you can dismiss that if you like. Are in game conditions different? They most certainly are. But there is nothing else to base your decision on other than if the medical staff clears a player and how they practice. I guess a player could look great in practice all week and you bench him anyway. But I had no idea that's the way things worked.

Wrong. There was a body of evidence that the injury was affecting his play that grew with each game.

Are you trying to say that Case Keenum would have been a better option? And if so what do you base that on? Do you mean the Nov. 7th game against Cincy when he went 14 of 21 with 2 td's and no int's? Or do you mean like the Baltimore game on December 12th where he went 22 of 32 with 2 td's and 1 int.? I'm not so sure that falls under the description of "grew with each game".

2 outliers. The Lions beat the Cards and the Packers this year, but nobody's saying they're an elite team. The emotional damage and negativity surrounding this team, resulting from trotting Mayfield out there week after week could have been prevented. We would be going into next year on a positive note with a healthy qb well recovered from major surgery vs. the crap we're seeing here. Just look at the discussions. We might have had some "should have played Baker" type debates, but nothing like we're seeing here about canning our coaches and looking for a new qb.

This - 1000%.

Why do you keep insisting that Baker was probably going to be more accurate with he injuries and that the harness was a benefit?



Oh you didn't, I know.... I just thought I'd have a go at playing you at your own game.

I have shown where he seems pretty accurate with that harness "sometimes" and not accurate with it other times. You seem to have no problem using two games to make a point you want to make. And I never heard jfan take you to task for it either.

I'll ask again, the basic question you both avoided. Do you think keenum would have been a better option? If so what do you base that on?

jfan claimed that we wouldn't be having these questions if Baker hadn't remained the starter. Oh for sure that may have helped Baker. But if Stefanski had sat Baker after the doctors cleared him and he was performing well at practice, s#!+ would still be hitting the fan. And Bakers wife would have been screaming on Twitter all season.

Not after a couple of those crap performances. If they would have yanked him at the Cards game where he re-injured something, and said "The injury is preventing him from playing effectively, and it's time to shut him down and get it treated. It's what we feel is best for Baker and the team".....there wouldn't have been much of an argument, probably not even from you. Watching him strut out there with that straight jacket on was a joke. How could anyone perform anywhere near a constistent NFL qb level for 15 games with that on, a torn labrum and a humerus fracture that would not heal without surgical intervention. They can't. It's never been done. Stefanski made a huge mistake by not pulling him.

LOL.... which two complete games did Baker play with a harness on, back to back, that seems to support your statements of him being accurate while wearing it?

2 games is a short sample size. It is. 100%. But when something dramatic happens - say a player tearing his Labarum - and there is a stark contrast between the short sample size before the dramatic event and virtually everything after ... maybe, just maybe, a reasonable individual, a sane individual, an individual without an ever changing perspective .... might think it's at least a possibility that there is justification to look at the small sample size as being somewhat - possibly relevant.

AND .... regards how well Keenum could have performed, or not, is absolutely immaterial when you are prioritizing and looking to put your - alleged - franchise QB in a place to succeed. Plenty of fans think Keenum was as good or better than a wounded Baker. Some even thought our 3rd string QB wasn't a drop off from an injured Baker.

So since the two games you use as an example were two in a row and mine weren't that changes the sample size? You seem to be trying to minimize the fact that according to you he couldn't play with that torn labrum. If that were true there wouldn't be those two games to show you as examples that at times he did play pretty well with that injury.

Sometimes evidence and reflection can change a persons perspective. Or the lack of evidence as the case may be. Because I felt exactly the same way both you and jfan felt at the time. I thought trotting him on the field was crazy. But then I realized a few things. I realized that Stefanski would have to limit his playbook whether he played an injured Baker or started Keenum. Keenum can in no way make the same passes a healthy Baker can. So as far as the play calling goes a limited game plan would have to happen either way.

I also realized I wasn't at practice. I had no way of knowing whether starting Keenum would have been a better decision or not. I was inserting my opinion and feelings on the matter rather than actually having the facts available to me with which to make an informed decision. As of now I have no idea which decision would have been the right decision. I would suggest nobody that wasn't deeply involved in the situation does.

I know on this very board posters were saying an injured Baker was better than a healthy Keenum. And that 70% of Baker was better than 100% of Keenum.

I don't know who was or is right. I don't have enough behind the scenes facts to know. But some people believe they do. That's up to them.

You are assuming that nobody would have found out that not only did the doctors clear him but that he wanted to play. Your claim seems to be that the sports media wouldn't have spun that into there being a rift between the HC and the QB. I would disagree with that.

You are assuming that the media wouldn't have found out that Baker was doing well in practice when Stefanski pulled him.

What I'm arguing is neither you nor I have enough information with which to know what the right decision was at the time and unless you were actually inside the coaches meetings and at those closed practices, you don't really know either.

You're the only one making assumptions here. I fully expect Baker would have wanted to play. After a few of those crap games, the coaches and the team could have pointed to the poor performance and said that they feel it's in the best interest of Baker and the team to get his shoulder treated and move on. Keep in mind the image of him on the field wearing that contraption and playing like crap that everybody witnessed. Surgery was required to repair his torn labrum and fractured humerus. I don't think anyone would have spun that there was a rift if he would have been yanked and had his surgery.


Again, you're the one doing the assuming. Doing well in practice wearing the red jersey isn't a game situation, and that's all that would have to have been said.


In hindsight, we do have enough information. Baker played horribly after the injury. We could have avoided a lot of disappointment, negativity and uncertainty in all levels of the organization and the media had Baker been pulled once it was obvious he couldn't perform. Some of us here saw it coming.

Hindsight, as you stated in your post, is a wonderful thing. Sadly hindsight isn't available when you make decisions. You're giving the Cleveland sports media and fan base as a whole much more credit than it deserves. I also don't believe when you think you know how or why the outcome would have played out differently under your scenario, that you actually have any idea how it would have played out. It's all based on what you feel would have happened.

You have no idea all of the factors involved into coming to the decision they made or how things would have turned out had they made a different decision. And neither do I. The only difference is that I'm not the one claiming to know.

2 random games amongst 16 games ... does not a strong argument make. But you carry on. 2 back to back games to begin the season - coming off the back of a 9 game streak where Baker was rated by PFF as the 5th best QB in the NFL .... might mean something a bit more. But yeah, like I posted, you'd need to be reasonable and sane to think that way. Carry on.

Lol. I knew you'd pounce on the word hindsight the second I hit the reply button. Of course you ignored that I said some of us saw it coming......but you can't ignore the fact that the team would be much better off had we yanked Mayfield as soon as it was obvious he couldn't perform after the injury.

I don't see any reason to think the "team would be better off". The only people who make the decisions are the coaching staff and FO. As I pointed out, they are the only ones who know what went on behind the scene. If you mean among the press and the fan base, things that really hold no meaning as to the decisions made, then you may or may not be right. Your claim seems to be that there wouldn't have been issues among the fans and the media that while Baker wanted to play, the medical staff cleared him to and he performed well in practice, that there wouldn't have been much the same negativity surrounding this situation. I've been around and watched the likes of MKC and Tony Grossi far too long to buy into that. Then we would have to depend on Mayfield's wife not raising hell about it on social media.

Nah, there would have still been hell raised. This time it would have been portrayed as a rift between the HC and our QB.

You either believe he could play with the harness or not. You want it both ways. Sure he certainly didn't play well with it the vast majority of the time. But at times he did. I know, "Well yeah, he did but that doesn't count".

Alrighty then.

Funny. No I don't want it both ways.

And 'vast majority of the time' is an understatement. And that really is the point that I and others have made. Thank you.

Excellent post

I nor anyone else really knows what is going on in the FO or Stefanski's head about Mayfield. What seems to be very obvious though is that during the 9-game stretch of 2020 and the first 2-games of 2021, Mayfield performed at a high enough level of expectation that would make one believe that after 20 plus years the Browns had finally found their franchise QB. The W-L record was acceptable, the completion % was there, a playoff appearance and win was on the resume and even though the offense was not built to his skill set, Mayfield seemed to have a fairly accurate grasp as how to execute it successfully. Mayfield was doing all of this without a #1 WR who as it turns out was disgruntled the entire time, lack of an effective TE due to the scheme being played, and a defense that was leaking like a bucket full of holes even after it being the entire focus of the off season. That 11-game stretch, combined with what Mayfield was able to accomplish on the field his first 2-years with a team that had a 1-31 record at his arrival all the while be challenged with 3 different head coaches and schemes was somewhat remarkable and most franchises would be giddy yet Mayfield's future was still questioned by the FO, head coach, and some unappreciative fans.

Enter the injury during week-2 of the season. An injury that was serious enough that surgery was necessary to correct the problem. Now whether you are on the side that he should have continued to play or the other where he should have shut down is really immaterial at this point. Stefanski and the FO to a lesser extent, made the decision to trot out their franchise QB for 12 more games when they and the world knew he was not close to 100%. Game film would clearly show that the injury effected Mayfield's accuracy. He was unable to make all the throws, challenged his footwork, and led to additional minor injuries that Mayfield had to fight through as the season progressed. Additionally, add into the fact that Mayfield lost both starting tackles for an extended period, both RB's for a period, a WR group without a single receiver PFF rated in the top 64 (Landry was best at 73rd) and a TE group that as a whole couldn't get a step or more separation in man coverage even 30% of the time. Yet Mayfield was still out there injury and all competing in a scheme that isn't close to using his skill set at a level where the team lost 6 games by 6 points of less and was competitive down to the last 2 weeks with a QB playing 12 games nowhere near 100%.

Fast forward to today and now you have hoards of fans screaming to replace Mayfield. Let's ignore everything else and crucify the QB. The season collapse is all Baker's fault and he needs to be replaced. So much so that there's even been posters here campaigning for 'Trubisky," REALLY? Let's get Cousins that would cost double the money for a player that is 7-years older, has always had better talent to work with, better coaching stability, experience, and just 1 less loss than Mayfield over the last 4-years. Really, you think that would be a step up? Stefanski and Berrry are the decision makers - not Mayfield, the medical group, fans, or the press. They proceeded to trot out their franchise QB after a serious injury knowing full well that Mayfield was not close to being 100%. Now the FO and Stefanski might have thought that even a Mayfield at 75% was their best chance to win. If that was the case, then 2 things become glaringly apparent: 1) Who's responsible for ok'ing a backup QB who is incapable of replacing a 75% or less physically able starter and 2) Where's the open and solid support from the FO and head coach for a QB that just gave you 1,000 percent effort with a body that was less than 75% capable of performing up to the level previously exhibited?

This is not about being a Baker fan or not, this is about laying all the blame on Mayfield. Mayfield had nothing to do with the selection of the very weak WR group. It was not Mayfield's plan to run 2 and 3 TE sets almost 50% of the plays in a vanilla predictable offense. Mayfield had nothing to do with the selection of the backup tackles trotted out to protect him. Yet Mayfield is the fall guy for everything concerned according to posters on this forum. The buck stops at Stefanski and Berry because they are the decision makers. They are the ones who made a conscious decision to play Mayfield at less than 75%. Stefanski is the one who set the scheme and called the plays whether they were set to what Baker could do, the skill set, or not.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/badly-cleveland-browns-receiver-look-110039886.html

Many of the same questions I have are in this article. I'm not saying Mayfield doesn't have things to work on - of course he does - he's only in his 5th year. However, the DECISION making process cannot be ignored and Stefanski and Berry have way more liability than some will accept. Afterall, THEY ARE THE DECISION MAKERS and some of those decisions hurt the Browns way more than Baker's injury plagued sub-par play - whether you want to accept that or not.

I think the scheme that Stefanski runs doesnt stress the defense
In fact his scheme where the ball distribution is heavily placed on running
The ball and throwing 2nd level passes to TEs speaks is not a recipie
Of being able to consistently score over 24 pts a game

Baker Mayfield was the 1st QB taken in.that draft and basically his
Role has been reduced to a game manager
Yet look around the AFC, guys like Burrow Allen Mahomes and Herbert
Their offensives go through them.
Baker is not asked to carry the offense like those QBs yet he has more
INTs per pass attempts than the Big 4.
So ask.yourself, why is the Browns offensive idenity running the ball?
Is it because their is no trust in Baker or does Moneyball analytics dictate
That its cheaper.To pay TEs and RBs the big dollars

The Stefanski offense not stressing the D is a pretty good description. It is more of a battle of attrition, possession, limiting opportunities for the other team. It's helped by the fact we have the best RB trio in the NFL bar none. Helped by Bitonio, Teller, Conklin and Wills when they are all 100% healthy. Helped by Baker when he was healthy based on the 9 games last season and the 2 games before being injured.

The rest of your comments about Baker being a game manager? Well that's not entirely true - when he was healthy. But even if it was true - it is not a reflection of Baker. It is Stefanski's offense. Complaining or comparing to other QB's and what they do in very very different passing attacks is pointless. As is referencing where Baker was picked in the draft. At this point it doesn't matter. It only matters what Berry and KS think a healthy Baker can do - and who they think they can replace him.

How do.you explain Mayfield leading the NFL in turning the ball over
Since coming into the league?
It's ironic considering the Browns passing offense isnt exactly.
The most dynamic in the league.
The question is, if Stefanski was the head coach instead of Kitchens
Would he have wanted Baker?

We went 11-5 and made the playoffs when Baker was healthy in the very first year of Stefanski's system. With that in mind, can you explain why Stefanski wouldn't want Baker as our QB?

Bakers low passer rating in the 4th quarter
And he is turnover prone.
The fact that Baker wasnt given a contract extention should
Tell you the Browns organization isnt totally sold on Mayfield
Even a healthy Mayfield doesnt guarantee a return to the playoffs
In 2022.

Mahomes doesn't guarantee the Chiefs a return to the playoffs in 2022 either. There are no guarantees. You seem to be trying to tie the "organization" into being the same as Stefanski. What we both seem to agree on is that this FO decided to wait out extending Baker's contract until they saw further evidence. I've actually made that same point myself at times. What that doesn't do is connect the dots to Stefanski not wanting Baker at the QB position.

2018 Rookie - 14 Int. == Not good or bad. Average for a rookie starting on a terrible team.
2019 Kitchens - 21 Int. == Woeful.
2020 KS - 8 Int. == Very good. 5th best in the NFL with 300+ attempts. Even with 4th OC in 3 years - new footwork and playbook, terrible start, strong finish.
2021 - 13 Int. == Bad. With a bum shoulder. . . but less Int than Allen, Herbert, Carr, Tannerhill, Carr, Burrows,

I know - I know... using data to support why and when Baker was good vs Bad.... someone is going to say I am making excuses.

How attempts did Baker have compared to those other guys in 2021?

A healthy Baker will take us back to the Playoffs ...

Burrow 520 attempts 14 INTs
Mayfield 413 attempts 13 INTs

Peyton Manning:

1998 - 28 interceptions
1999 - 15 interceptions
2000 - 15 interceptions
2001 - 23 interceptions

Manning's first 4-years: 82 ints or 1/27.15 attempts with a 60.96% completion percentage, record 32-32 .500, 0-2 playoff record
Mayfield's first 4-years: 56 ints or 1/33.74 attempts with a 61.59% completion percentage, record 29-30 .492, 1-1 playoff record

Good thing Manning didn't play in Cleveland because the fans here would have been trying to run him out of town too after his 6-10 record with 23 interceptions in his 4th year.

Again.

Manning played in a completely different era of football. This is apples and oranges.