DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2023 NFL Season Looking Back: Browns 3 Ravens 28 Postgame thoughts

I agree. I am not making excuses, but when a teams starting QB is out, they are at maybe a 60-70% disadvantage.

Add it it's a rookie making his first game appearance, you have to be an idiot to think he was going to move the team up and down the field. Sometimes I think that people around here don't even watch football.

This is my thought as well.

Why not be comfortable with going 3 and out and playing the field position game? You finally have a great defense that make that a real possibility. Maybe you get lucky and the Ravens turn the ball over giving Cleveland a short field. Maybe you lose 9-6. No one on here would be griping if we lost 9-6 considering the circumstances. But the head coach called the game like DTR was Watson, a six year vet, and never, not once, adjusted. He just kept doubling down on it. He secured the loss instead of giving the Browns a chance to win. This is obvious to anyone who watched the game. I can only assume opinions that differ from this are from people who read about the game afterward.

I don't hate Stefanski. I hate losing. I hate leadership that doesn't prioritize winning. I hate losing even more with a team as talented as this one. We are headed for another 7-10 season and the pro Stefanski guys can't get enough of coming up short, being owned by the Steelers and Ravens, no division titles, etc., etc.

Stefanski is not a winner. His comments today only solidified that.

Ballpeen, help me remember. How did Joshua dobbs end up leaving us and going to Arizona. He is starting for them though I am not sure how he is doing. But I do not think he would have given us that crap show of an offense.

...how would going 3 and out every time help anything exactly? The Ravens had both 93 and 94 yard TD drives. We had them pinned inside the 10 twice and they scored anyway. Playing the field position game or "Playing not to lose" doesn't work in modern football. Rules are catered towards passing and offense. At some point you have to play to win and put up points.

You hate losing, but want the coach to give up on offense? That makes no sense.

Yes, there are times when the field position game is the prudent play during the game. It's not a winning plan for an entire game. It certainly won't work if you're already behind.

The days of 3 yards and a cloud of dust are long gone. Especially when you're regularly running for -2.

Sadly, sometimes FO's actually like their backup QBs as people and want them to be successful. When an opportunity for that guy to get a chance to a starter's gig is presented along with trade compensation, sometimes they ask that guy what he wants to do.

Ball well said and to the others who stated similar opinions.

The only chance Cleveland had was for the defense to turn turnovers into 6 points.

Even with Dobbs or Jacoby, neither is beating the Ravens not having Chubb.

Stefanski did not have a great game, but for the love of football, how do you go into a gunfight with one bullet?

unfortunately, our defense just hasn't forced (or been lucky enough) to generate TO's

He was traded to AZ. and he is playing well.

Just my opinion here..we cut josh near the end of last season, then signed him back in the off season...the opinion part is i think we brought him back with the sole intent on trading the guy.

I might not agree with some of what you say, but I do agree that the gameplan for that QB on that day needed to pivot. I don't rant about playcalling all that much, but Stefanski needed to huddle the team up and tell them the gameplan was going to be modified once it was clear that Watson was out. More base O was going to becalled and less of the razzle dazzle type plays.

We could have done more to insulate DTR

IMO, we traded him because:

(1) The FO believed the difference between the two players' talent was not that big of a gap and preferred a younger guy with potential upside over a relatively known asset in Dobbs' skill set (this could end up being a wrong assessment by the FO).
(2) We got a decent draft capital upgrade back for Dobbs as far as journeymen backup QBs are concerned (wish we could have got a 3rd rounder like Dorsey forked over for Tyrod Taylor, tho! ) #TrustTheGut
(3) If either of those guys are playing any significant time, it means Watson is most likely out for the year and the season is done for as far as playoffs are concerned.
(4) Trading Dobbs freed up more money to potentially rollover. It's a small amount as far as NFL contracts are concerned, and most likely not the main reason for the trade, but I think was weighed in to some degree.

LIke some reporters said, Terry PLuto specifically, they were not shopping Dobbs and had every intention to keep him. They liked the deal and the offseason progression of DTR. Plus, Dobbs was on a one-year deal. It's not like there was any long-term plans by the FO, or by him for that matter.

FWIW, I don't understand these types of takes. Our starting QB ruled himself out and gave our whatever-round rookie a day to prepare to start. Normally we'd lean harder on our run game, but that option was taken off the table 2 weeks ago.

What's this magical plan you all are talking about that would allow an offense without it's main running AND passing cogs to beat a very good defense?

IMO, if we're going to hold Stefanski's feet to the fire, it's going to be over the apparent lack of accountability on the offensive side of the ball. How many times did we shoot ourselves in the foot with penalties negating the few gains we had out there? We have the opposite of a "do your job" mentality. The only way we were going to hang in that game was to play clean football and we did the opposite. I believe that if our D had seen anything even resembling signs of life from our offense, we would've seen even more from them.

I do agree we would have kept him, but obviously we were happy when we got the trade offer. I just think we were kind of banking on that offer to trade. We are still down picks next draft, so every pick counts. If we have learned anything about this FO is that draft capital is important.

I also think the 1 year deal plays in to that.

I also agree that if a team with high expectations ends up having to ply the back-up QB, the season is doomed. Poor teams can get away with playing the back-up because the starter is marginal at best.

In my lifetime of being a fan, I can't think of many back-ups who came in a saved a season. Maybe Fitzpatrick...he won some games as a back-up. Earl Morrall saved a Dolphins season when Griese went down, but earl had been a good QB for many years before that. I am also not talking about the few times a team had a QB in wait, like Favre/Rodgers or Montana/Young.

I am sure there are a few others that escape my recall at the moment, but it's pretty slim picking. Heck, Bernie came in and won some important games when Aikman was laid up, but again, he wasn't your typical back-up.

I both cursed and laughed at that video....

What you do is give DTR half the field to read.
He has as 1st read the na 2nd read
If nothing open then he either runs or throws the ball away.

That is what the steelers did the 1st season roethlisberger took the field
That is what the patriots did when brady took the field.

Obviously the game was deeply disappointing for any browns fan. I think peoples opinion on how much to criticize KS might depend mostly on their opinions before the game, ive long been concerned about his play calling, lack of adjustments in game and the way he consistently gets too cute. Watching him put DTR in a position to consistently fail and potentially lose us the game through turnovers is a big negative for me .... ive seen folks talk about the run game not working. Well that might be true, but i'd rather see two series of three and outs on 6 run plays and then play field position battle than watch plays call that simply made DTR look like the worst QB we've had in the last 23 years. As Jester just said, id rather see a roll out and have DTR on the move and looking at 1\2 the field ALA early Baker years... give him clear and simple reads. 1, 2 if neither is open run if theres any crease or throw it away if a defender is within 2 or 3 yards of you. I' d rather see 19 runs for 2 yards than 19 incompletions/sacks and interceptions. Belichick had his QB throw the ball 3 times in a game once, i could live with that if it gave you a better chance of winning / keeping the game within 7-10 points going into Q4.

All water under the bridge but one more game KS looked like an inept play caller. I will continue to hope he turns over the responsibility.

I agree. That is what i was talking about with running more RPO's a rollouts. Take the easy throws, toss it away since you are out of pocket, or run and get what you can safely get.

Hard to completely change your offense in a week. Especially when players are still messing up base plays.

True, but it is also hard to run your O when the QB can't run it. DTR is limited, thus the plan needs to be somewhat limited if he has to play. Those plays are already a part of the playbook.

Even if you don't do any of that, the OC has to just cross off a few plays and not call them. DTR was trying to sit there like peyton manning in the pocket. Coach needed to tell him 1 read, 2 read, run.

Is DTR incapable of running it? Or did it just not work out this day? Bad days happen, this was quite the bad one, but only a sample of one all the same.

DTR was a 5 year starter in Chip Kelly's offense at UCLA. A lot of that offense allegedly translated to the Browns' offense. link

There was a combination of him trying to do too much and a lot of different things going wrong around him. He admitted after the game that he was pressing. Unfortunately, we lacked the leadership on the field for someone to calm him (and everybody else) down in the huddle. Supposedly Chubb had a thing for keeping guys loose in the huddle IIRC (Remember being a bit surprised when I came across that nugget.)

I think DTR can do what we need(ed) him to do. Getting him to do it consistently is the challenge. I.e, he knows to hit the checkdowns (and can), but for whatever reason he was looking to get it all back at once on Sunday. Stuck on things longer than he should or does in practice.

Sometimes what you see on the practice field doesn't show up on game day. Hopefully this ends up being an aberration. (And Watson gets and stays healthy.)

Copium? Could be.

j/c...

Gus Edwards saved Lamar Jackson's life....

Can he run it? I think he can. Just not now. You have to bring a QB along in stages. Once he can do this, you move on the the next.

As a coach you have to try to slow the game down for a young QB. You can't go out there and throw the ball around 40 times with a wide open playbook.
No doubt Stefanski was trying to win the game, but you also have to stick to a play set the QB can perform.

This isn't completely changing the offense. It is simplifying it.

Instead of making a 5th round rookie Qb look over the whole field, you run the same play but cut the field in half for the Qb
Instead of having him try to read a complicated disguised defense, you have him read 1-2 players
Instead of having him stand in the pocket and look at the 4th to 5th read in a play, you get him into the open and after 1-2 reads he runs or throws it away.

This is not completely changing the offense.
This is a simple easy change.

Not a week. A day.

Unfortunately, you can't just change to half field reads without throwing off the timing of all the route progressions. He still could (should?) have run or thrown it away within the system he'd been practicing since being drafted.

Another issue is DTR might already have more game reps throwing than Ford does running. He probably doesn't, but Ford isn't exactly a savvy veteran either. He doesn't have many live game carries and was hurt a lot of camp. Hunt is still getting into football shape. Those things make it harder to lean on the run game.

Of course you can. You might not be able to call all the same plays. You can't call plays that require a clear out and somebody running some drag route in to the clear zone.

You have to remember, we are talking about a guy who played against 3rd stringers and no stringers in the preseason. You are expecting as big ask my man, and so was coach...and the results prove my point.

He wasn't ready to do that.

I don't think you can say DTR did a good job of things, so what are we talking about here?? The evidence is on my side, so I don't know what else to tell you.

He's also a guy that likely was practicing against our 1st stringers. We don't really know what he has been looking like in practice.

I'm still not understanding why more of the focus is on Stefanski for the situation he found himself in rather than the people who put him in that situation.

That is true too. Practice reps and games reps are a bit different.

I am not saying DTR shouldn't have played. I am just saying that Stefanski should have altered the script a bit to get the guy in to the game.

Nobody put him in that situation. The situation happened. If you are talking about if he needed a better back-up, I am not going down that rabbit hole.
What if's aren't the discussion here.

I haven't been a big Stefanski detractor, or one at all, nor do I want him fired, but the plan last week wasn't the right plan for the QB he had to play.

Was the problem the plan or the execution of the plan? Probably some of both. I lean towards execution. It's hard for a plan to account for OL immediately whiffing on blocks or blocking the wrong people, or a receiver running 20 yards the wrong direction, or your veteran receiver randomly tugging on a DBs arm like he's trying to ask him a question instead of blocking him and getting called for holding. It was a weird game. It's like they used spray paint to change the white helmets back to orange and everyone was high from the fumes (I know not literally.)

Stefanski and Co.. choked. Were the Browns going to beat the Ravens with DTR? Unlikely. Did Stefanski fail at his job by not having an alternative gameplan for DTR? Yes.

It was an egregious miscalculation assuming Watson was going to play.

Stefanski screwed up.... he's a young coach. Let it be a learning opportunity not to be repeated.

Jake Burns podcast discusses this at length. It's worth a listen..

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...drew-spayde/id1434698084?i=1000630139446

Definition of a boat: "a hole in the water that one pours money into."


Your buddy's Dad needs to re-examine his hobbies.

I follow the Browns. I cheer for the Browns. I routinely curse at the Browns.
I don't often spend money on the Browns.

I may be a fool, but I'm not one of the sort that will easily part with his money.

This is stefanski's 4th season.
When does he stop being a young coach?


"Let it be a learning opportunity not to be repeated"
When has he demonstrated the ability to learn from his mistakes?

I never thought of it like this before, but the Cleveland Browns ARE a boat.

Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

While it didn't look like it last week, he's an improvement over the other coaches we've had since the return. You can't simply look at the results of one week. Losing Chubb was sure to lead to a drop off. Not having Watson was sure to lead to a drop off.

If he keeps dropping off, without losing his best players, that's a problem. Let's see if the team can improve over the course of the season and peak at the right time.

I am a little worried about Watson's injury lingering. If so, Stefanski will likely end up getting the blame.

Good teams can struggle early in seasons. Look at the Chiefs, Eagles, Bengals, and Jaguars. They have had some struggles early. They didn't lose their top RBs and QBs and OTs.

First it's not a rabbit hole and secondly it's certainly not a what if. It's a what happened. Decisions were made that created this situation and those decisions weren't Stefanski's. An obvious attempt to sidestep this which you made to address that is obvious. That isn't a what if. This is a situation that was manufactured and created by the powers that be.

Right, I'm just inferring that we could end up being one. It's too soon to tell.