DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Kevin Stefanski cont

LOL

See how stupid what you accused Steve of sounds when someone accuses you of something very similar?

I believe you already know that answer: Stefanski. He is the common denominator on both sides of the ball and IMHO the sole reason that replacing Woods would be a futile move because the core reason would still be present and calling the shots.

If only it were that simple...it's all Stefanski's fault. I believe the answer might be a bit more complex than some might try to make it.

j/c: With one week to play in the season, the Browns have had the 5th toughest strength of schedule in the league. I was curious about this and most were done before the season. This one is current. Be sure that you go to the second chart because it is for the current average ranking for each opponent that a given team has faced to date rather than the remaining schedule, which is obviously just one game.

http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

Entire AFC North in the Top 9.

It seems that even when we are playing weak teams, we meet them when they're playing their best ball. It's uncanny.

Looking pretty good that either the Dolphins or Patriots will get a playoff berth... That means we played six of seven games straight, in the heart of our schedule, against playoff teams. Brutal.

Do we play the NFC West next year?

Yes.

We'll get another whoopin' from Shanny (31-3 in 2019). Rams will be back to form and healthy. Murray will have a new bionic knee in Arizona. The 'Hawks will use the Russel Wilson draft-pick-bounty (including the #3 overall) to retool and reload. 0-4

Well, at least we won't have to listen to Bosa's mocking chants. De-shawn doesn't have quite the same ring to it as Ba-ker does.

I wonder about the Rams. There are rumors McVey might walk.

Oh.........and I know you used purple. Sorry, I just got to thinking.

nrtu

These 'season-long' stats are meaningless without a huge helping of context.

The Jets looked legit after we pissed away the game with them...now they suck. The Bengals were quite good when we whipped them...but they did not look like the best team in the AFC at that time - like they do now unfortunately. We beat Pittsburgh when they were figuring it out and looked like an expansion team, now they have a shot at making the playoffs. Strength of schedule is a snapshot in time that gets spread over the season like hot butter on toast. We started a backup for (11) games, the Steelers bounced between QBs most of the year, LJ has been out for several weeks, Russ has looked like an old man, Brady has been both great and not-very-good. Context is lost when hanging on to strength of schedule.

Season-long PFF grades don't take into account that ^, who you played against, where they were in their season-long progression. injuries, weather, coaching-changes, etc.

DVOA is probably the best marker of defensive-production, but it misses all of that ^.

They are stats...a thing that gets more side-action than Bill Clinton.

Just a note:

The Bengals had won 4 out of their last 5 and their last two coming into their game against the Browns on Halloween night. They had scored 30 and 35 points in their two previous games. Burrow threw 300 and 481 yards w/3 TDs in each of those two games. He did not have an interception in either game.

The Browns beat the Bengals in that game by a score of 32-13 in a game we completely out-coached the Bengal staff. Burrow was held to 232 yards w/2 TDs and an interception.

Just a reminder:

"The Bengals were quite good when we whipped them...but they did not look like the best team in the AFC at that time"

Context AND comprehension matter.

Deleted. Wrong thread. I will post it in the correct thread.

No, you're making a wild assumption. I would ask you though, where was Stefanski when Garrett, Delpit, and Johnson III went public with their feelings? I don't pretend to know what's going on behind the scenes, but it does strike me as appearing totally unfair for some to be able to make negative comments, yet others are penalized. I mean, even Garrett's Dad has made negative comments about the benching of Garrett, so I ask you, what do you call Stefanski's use of accountability without fairness or equal application? Inquiring minds just want to know.

I don’t care about keeping Clowney or not but I think it’s time to look for a new HC.

It’s obvious to everyone with some sorts of experience about leadership that Stefanski has communication problems. Maybe a small mans syndrome? Maybe not alpha enough? Maybe to woke or something else but it’s clear as daylight that something is wrong. Players leave right left and center on bad conditions and most of them are critical. This is how it works in a dysfunctional environment with a weak leadership.

Right now it’s just a matter of time. From my perspective the sooner the better.

I agree with your candid comments.

That sounds great if you only describe them as "playoff teams". The reality is the Dolphins are an average team with an 8-8 record. The Patriots too are an 8-8 team. Once you show their actual record it's plain to see they aren't great teams. 8-8 is the very definition of average.

Another point of clarification.

The Dolphins have 8 wins this year. Tua started in each of those games. They are 0 and 3 w/out him starting and have another loss when he was concussed early in the game against Cinci. Thus, Miami is actually 8 and 4 w/Tua, including wins over Buffalo, New England, Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh..........and yes, the Browns. Anyone who is trying to compare Miami with and without Tua is not painting an accurate picture and are most likely trying to deceive others.

And what about the Patriots who were also mentioned?

I can understand why you have a problem w/what I posted.

You addessed half of what was posted. You made an argument for one of the teams listed while ignoring the other. Sorry you were offended by being called out on that. But it's not unusual.

Just pointing out that it was a tough stretch of games, Pit. lol That was the flow of the conversation. Since you take argument to an artform, I'll bite. The Dolphins with Tua were playing as well as anyone in the NFL and Bill is Bill. Does anyone ever look at the Patriots on the schedule and think "that's a gimme!"? Nope, pretty much never.

Tough stretch of games, that's all.

Overall I think that's accurate. Using the Patriots as an example of that I don't think fits that description.

Yeah, not really a team to be feared this season. But if you're looking for a soft spot and see "Patriots" your reaction is more FML than exuberance and joy, regardless of their record lol.

Oh I certainly wasn't trying to say they were a soft spot in the schedule. I just felt that when you describe an 8-8 team as a playoff team without any context it can easily give off a false appearance of that teams strength. I mean if you look over their schedule for 2022 the only team they beat I even consider to be a strong team, and that depends on which week you play them, is the Lions.

As a leader, you need to do both.

I think he's saying that the approach isn't to send a message, the approach is dealing directly with the individual.

And again, I’m saying it needs to be both.

j/c:

I think sending Clowney home sent a message. I think sending Winfrey home and making him inactive sent a message. I think benching Myles for the start of the game was sending a message. I'm sure there are a ton of things going on behind the scenes that we do not know about. Not everyone thinks blabbing to the media is a good idea. I say the less you tell the media, the better. Feed the media w/cliches, meaningless comments that are bland as can be, The less the media knows about the inner workings of the locker room.....the better.

Yep. That's how it works. We as fans, take great liberty in assuming the worst when we aren't spoon-fed every detail through the media.

Strong leaders realize messages are sent as a result of your actions on an individual basis... but you don't use the tail to wag the dawg. Coaches that make examples of players, for the sake of sending a message, usually experience dissent amongst the ranks. There is a time and a place, today's events are a good example.

And I'm not arguing with Jules... both are necessary, it's just best when one is the product of the other because you dealt with an individual or situation swiftly and fairly.

This comments is from a HC that doesn’t understand that most of his players pay more attention to what he actually do then to what he says.

I will take an example.

Manchester United’s new manager Eric ten Hag simply blocked soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo from the clubs training facility the day after he was leaving the players bench before the game was over. Not one word to Ronaldo and not one single explanation to Cristiano’s team mates. For context. RR7 is probably the most famous football player in the world with over 500 million followers on Instagram and the next day it was headlines all over and the media spoke of it for almost a week.

United’s manager only had one comment a few days later in his press conference before the next game and that was that all his players has to follow the same rules. No exceptions. (And btw Erik ten Hag never address anyone from the media with their name if they ask stupid questions. Forget it. If Mary Kay would ask one of her genius question he would simply refuse to answer and make sure she was banned from the media room next time. No way he would tolerate any nonsense conversation between him and a reporter looking for gossips.)

A couple of months later Marcus Rashford was a few minutes late to a game meeting. The same thing happened again. Ten Hag let him sat on the bench the first 45 minutes before he was allowed to play after halftime. Not a word to the other players, to Rashford or anyone else about why he didn’t let him play in the first half.

Marcus scored the winner in the second half, he was MotM and was asked afterwards by national television about the incident. He smiled a little bit and simply told that his manager has rules and those rules apply to everyone inside the locker room including himself so he had no complaints.

From that moment the whole club knew who was the new boss. No more explanations to the media. No long team talks about rules.

Eric ten Hag knew that his actions speaks louder than his words.

I don't know if that's a good example - or more precisely a relevant example or not ? I think all of us are speculating on Stefanski's management ability and style - either good or bad - based on anecdotal evidence that we see/hear in the media. I tend to be concerned by the team/locker room have reacted and been perceived this year, and it appears to be lacking in someone within the organization having outright leadership... for example/comparison Pittsburgh have struggled this year albeit with lower expectations, but I haven't read a peep out of their locker room. But whether you look at the Clowney incident and think it's a good sign of leadership or bad sign of leadership - we ae still speculating because we have no clue what's being said and going on behind closed doors.

I will say Stefanski hasn't had an easy job of it this year ... and so it's easy for the press to contrive and insinuate controversy where maybe there is none. But to your comp to Manchester United and Eric ten HAg - I doubt there was a higher profile more pressure pot situation than the one he walked into ... and the British tabloids and press are worse than any on the planet for salacious gossip mongering and creating contrived controversy. Personally I dislike CR7 and his over inflated ego - have always been a Messi guy and loved him winning the WC - and Hag handled that situation brilliantly. I suppose putting that example together with the story about Clowney only going in on 3rd downs ? I think it's fair to think Hag would have sent Clowney to the locker room and to me THAT would have been a clear message and shown, in my perspective, better leadership than allow him to play on the 3rd downs as Clowney wanted. And then to release this story AFTER this little spat with Clowney this week also seems a little weak sauce to me. Reality is makes zero difference - this year is flushed down the toilet. If we start hot next year and have a winning record through the season no-one is going to be talking or remember this.

Browns expected to bring back Kevin Stefanski, but things must change – Terry Pluto
Published: Jan. 07, 2023, 6:04 a.m.

Cleveland Browns head coach Kevin Stefanski is heading for his second consecutive losing season. Joshua Gunter, cleveland.com


By Terry Pluto, cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Jadeveon Clowney mess underlined several points for next season:

1. Kevin Stefanski has to act more like a CEO head coach.

2. They need a new defensive coordinator.

3. The Browns front office brought back Clowney for a second season, and it was a mistake. Did they know he’d publicly go off on the coaches as he did in an interview with cleveland.com’s Mary Kay Cabot? No. But did the Andrew Berry front office know there could be a problem with Clowney’s attitude? Yes.

Clowney charged the Browns with favoritism toward fellow defensive end Myles Garrett. He implied the Browns want to make Garrett look good with easier matchups when it came to rushing the passer.

This is a shot at the coaches, and Stefanski had to be angry about that as his team prepared to face Pittsburgh Sunday.

Instead, the coach said, “I just think my focus is so Pittsburgh Steeler-centric and that is where my mind is right now so that is kind of where I am going to stay.”

Stefanski refused to say Clowney will sit out the Pittsburgh game. That’s expected to happen. If not, it’s outrageous after Clowney was sent home from the facility Friday.

One NFL source told me, “That’s what Clowney wants, to end his season on his own terms.”

Fine with me.

I’m with Myles Garrett on this topic. The Browns defensive end quoted Pittsburgh coach Mike Tomlin: “We want volunteers, not hostages.”

WHAT’S THE DEAL ON THIRD DOWNS?

Cabot reported Clowney didn’t like the matchup on the line before the Browns played in Baltimore on Oct. 23. He claimed the Browns switched his spot with Garrett on the defensive line, giving Garrett a more favorable matchup against a weaker blocker.

Clowney said he’d only play on third downs in that game, according to Cabot. Clowney said he didn’t want to play a lot because he said he was injured.

What about that, coach Stefanski?

“I’m not going to get into specifics,” Stefanski said.

But Browns defensive line coach Chris Kiffin missed the “We’re not talking about it” memo. He explained how the Browns moved Garrett to the left side of the defensive line – instead of his usual spot on the right side. Clowney was to take Garrett’s normal spot.

“That is where (Clowney) obviously voiced his frustration after the game,” said Kiffin. “For his two years here ... we have always tried to match up Myles on their weaker links and JD (Clowney) on their weaker links. We move both of those guys around. We have always done that ... We do it every week.”

This is nothing unique to the Browns. Football is a game of matchups, looking for an advantage. Every team should put their prime pass rushers in different spots on the line.

“You’re all trying to get somebody into the Hall of Fame when all that matters is winning,” Clowney said of moving Garrett around. “Everybody got here for a reason, and we can all make plays. I know I am.”

No, putting Garrett in the best spot to pressure the passer is a good way to win. But that’s not how Clowney thinks. He simply worries about how it impacts him, and the front office had to know that mindset when he was re-signed.

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

Where were Stefanski and defensive coordinator Joe Woods during the Baltimore game when Clowney seemed to dictate how he’d be used?

Someone above Kiffin should have said, “You play when we tell you to play, or you don’t play at all.”

The Clowney incident revealed that the defensive unit under Woods seemed to lack discipline and focus at times. It also showed Stefanski needed to intervene more often on defense.

“There’s got to be better communication across the board,” Garrett said. “There’s got to be a steady dose of leadership from the top down. We’ve got to squash all this before it comes to a head like this. There shouldn’t be a lot of instances where stuff like this happens ... “

Garrett is right.

It’s why I’d like the see the Browns bring in a new defensive coordinator. Despite better stats in the recent games, something is wrong on that side of the ball.

THE BIG PICTURE

We are coming to the end of another Browns season where Stefanski seemed to break his own personal record for sighing and using the word “frustrating.”

Yes, it’s frustrating.

The Browns have to beat Pittsburgh Sunday to finish the season at 8-9. That would be a disappointment, duplicating last season’s underachieving 8-9 record.

The Browns simply can’t say everything is fine – or blame it primarily on one thing, as they did with Baker Mayfield after the 2021 season.

Yes, player changes need to happen. But also on the coaching staff, which has been together for three years.

There is the never-ending debate about Stefanski calling plays and being the head coach, too. Some do both jobs well, such as Kyle Shanahan, Andy Reid and Sean McVay.

If Stefanski is to call plays on offense, then he also has to find a way to be more engaged with the entire team. The way it’s set up right now is not working, even though the offense has had a good year with Stefanski running it. He’s also the head coach where the bottom line is the team’s record – and that screams for changes to be made.



https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...-but-things-must-change-terry-pluto.html

I wonder if Pluto can give us a quote from the Browns where they said anything about putting the primary blame on Baker Mayfield? I never heard that.

Not following. I didn't read the article like I do my work stuff but I don't remember any mention of Baker by Pluto.
To what are you referring?

I don't recall the Browns saying that.

Ha, I re-looked at the article 3 times after you highlighted it before I found it.

Now that I see it, I think he made that comment to address the fans who like to imply that.
I don't think he was insinuating that the Browns were saying that.
Just my interpretation.