DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Kevin Stefanski

We should have smoked the Steelers. Rosters aren't even comparable. They have one great player, maybe two more decent players, and a bunch of jags.

Very disheartening loss and really underscores, in my opinion, how little Stefanski has grown in four years. He just doesn't deliver results.

And while the middle part of the schedule eases up, there are very few gimmes. Colts, Rams, Cardinals, Seahawks. Those teams aren't pushovers. Is Stefanski out coaching McVay and Carroll?

It's also not a good sign that Stefanski was very defensive this week and couldn't stop talking about how hard and unpredictable the NFL is. I didn't like the tone or the message. Felt very defeatist.

If I had to guess how the remaining season will play out, it will be one good week, one bad week, on the way to 8 or 9 wins. And no playoffs. While it's early and only four games, I think they were a sign of things to come. A foreshadowing for the remainder of the season. At some point you have to grow and take the next step. I thought the first four demonstrated the Browns have not done that.

The defense could ball out and carry the team, which would actually be nice. If the defense balls out and Watson plays well, we could make the playoffs, but they have to start doing that now and stacking wins.

It doesn't just work in one direction. Everything works together. A large percentage of OL play IS tied to to QB play. However, a large percentage of QB play is tied to OL play also. The play calling DID adjust for the OL. Stefanski went 5 wide quick game so there'd be more options to get the ball out fast. Unfortunately, when the OL doesn't even touch people, there's not even time for that to work consistently. You can't allow instant pressure right up the middle while also allowing the pocket to collapse on the edges. A QB literally can't be accurate if he's hit every time as he throws.

You say we had bad QB play in 3 of 4 games. Well, we've had bad OL play in all 4.

If it is that obvious, what are the coaches doing to address that?

Are we chipping with the RB?

Are we putting a TE on that side too help?

Are we looking for a replacement?
(On roster replacement is a coaching decision,
Off roster replacement is a GM decision)

Clearly instead of being honest without giving away strategy and/or tactics, Stefanski should have gone WWE on some reporters to try to instill some fight in the team and show that he's a winner. Sadly, the league frowns upon that.

As far as your first point, the rosters aren't comparable on paper or in the minds of fans. Yet when their jags whoop your "great players" (their DL, our OL,) you're in for a long day.

Our "great players" need to actually play like great players. So far we look more like tissue paper tigers up front on O.

If they play well, we'll win a bunch of games. If they keep playing like they have, it's going to stay ugly.

This has happened time and time and time again with KS. It's pathological. He needs to give up the playcalling.

My caveat is that we have lost our best offensive threat and leader in Chubb ... and our QB is still a big mystery. I'd feel much better if we lost to the Ravens and Steelers but had Chubb and a consistent Watson moving forward

What is this team really good at?

The only teams or games that 'lighten up' after San Francisco that I see are,

not the five of next seven on the road,
at the Colts and at seattle they won't lay down for you, but there are 3, maybe,

the Cardinals... and then the bears and broncos look pretty bad,

Houston will be tough and will beat you
the jags will be tough but you will win, maybe,
the raven and pitt are what the are where the coach is or was 4 and nine before this year, maybe a split,

the bengals will want revenge and no matter how bad the jets are they've beaten you 3 or 4 of the last 4 b/c well, NY won't let a level playing field exist and by ny I mean the league offices

the nfl is maybe not as mathematical as it is momentumal.

That second quote said nothing about a winning culture. If Mayfield sucked as bad as people claimed he did, how do you build a "winning culture" around that? The way we all saw watson play after such a long layoff, how do you build a "winning culture" around that? Vague constructs such as "building a winning culture" sounds great when people just say it. But the circumstances that surround making that happen are much more complicated.

I will give you a broader perspective.

A healthy culture is maybe the right terminology and just to correct your assumption - if I understand you correctly- nobody is “building a winning culture” around certain individuals abilities, the key is to build a healthy culture that involve everyone in a organization. The goal is to make the team bigger then the sum of all players.

A winning culture isn’t about everybody doing high five to each other after a TD, in those moments everyone is feeling great, the time when a healthy culture helps is when the team is struggling because of a bad game plan, injuries, being unlucky or the form is not there on certain players. That’s when a ‘winning culture’ can make a difference. A healthy culture is also about creating an environment where everyone is feeling welcomed, appreciated and knows that their team mates and coaches are willing - so to say -go to war with their teammates in both good and bad times as long as they’re part of the organization.

A healthy culture creates friendships that last long after the career is over, it creates bonds between individuals that’s more important than winning a game on a Sunday.

A culture carrier/builder can be both a player and a coach, or both. It’s about relationship and trust. Players and coaches that like each other, care for each other and share similar goals and visions has a tendency to work harder with more determination. The joy to share good moments with people you like can’t be underestimated as a factor for motivation.

Andrew Berry and Kevin Stefanski never had a honest relationship with Baker just to highlight a situation when the culture wasn’t there. In a healthy culture Mayfield or any other player’s performances shouldn’t affect a communication between coaches and there players. Being honest and straightforward has everything to do with creating a culture where uncomfortable decisions isn’t personal. In such an environment players and coaches well being is a fundamental part of every decision that affect someone’s future. That’s important if we want the whole team to win and lose together. Stefanski didn’t give a toss about Baker being brutally sacked repeatedly against the Steelers and a leader that doesn’t care about his players well being will never being the right person to create a positive culture that could be the difference between winning and losing in a tight game.

The only time since I started to follow the Browns that I saw togetherness that made a difference was our play off game against the Steelers when Stefanski wasn’t available. Suddenly players collectively worked for each other in every moments and the team spirit was top notch all the way back to the dressing room.

What a coincidence that our biggest win under Stefanski’s tenure was when other coaches took care of the team and handled the game plan.

Regarding the Watson incidence the trust, or should I say the lack of trust, between the player and the HC must be questioned otherwise Stefanski has serious communication problems both internally and externally.

I don't see the two bolded parts as supporting each other's arguments. You say culture isn't just about the good times. Then you say you saw winning culture in a game where almost literally everything went right from the first snap. The other team literally gift wrapped us a TD when they snapped the ball over their own QB's head. We went up 28 points in the first quarter. They gave us 5 turn overs and we never trailed.

I am NOT a fan of Stefanski's playcalling. He's predictable most of the time, and when he goes with a bunch of trick plays they are overly complicated. Doesn't seem to know a middle ground.

That being said, try as I might I can't think of another single team with injured QB, RB and 3/5th of the O-line that ended up making the playoffs. Only SB team I can think of winning with a backup QB is Philly and he wasn't a rookie and came in pretty early in the season.

So not sure how we can condemn him when he's currently slogging through yet another CLE cursed season. If Watson can get and stay healthy, then we can talk about blaming Stefanski at the end of the year.

exactly ... our season was pretty much destroyed with the Conklin/Chubb/watson combo of injuries in 3 weeks total ... that's a lot to overcome while playing 3 division teams in a month

That’s a good question but what I can see is the end result. When a team is underperforming and is inconsistent under longer periods season after season then I know it’s not only about lack of talent.

Kevin Stefanski has been in charge since January 2020. His best season with the Browns was his first, with a talented roster created long before his arrival, after that it has gone slowly downhill. Not once since he took charge is it fair to say that his team has overachieved compared to all the talent he has to his disposal. In fact the opposite is closer to the truth. That’s not the results you expect if this organization was blessed with a leadership that could create a healthy “winning” culture.

Since he become the HC we have seen multiple of public disputes inside the locker room. At least two star players has left on uncomfortable conditions with no nice words to share about each other. That’s another sign of a unhealthy culture.

You can find many ways to defend Stefanski but results don’t lie. That little important detail is something that’s hard to walk around with all sorts of explanations and yada yada. Isn’t that a fair conclusion?

And just to be clear I’m not accusing any of you of being totally wrong but when the results says otherwise then what is in his defense must have some serious flaws that some of you don’t take into consideration.

Who wouldn't? Everybody would feel better.

I don't want to make it sound like I think everything is roses. I have edged to the side of Stefanski not calling all the plays. Not because I think he isn't good at calling plays. The only real play calling I dislike is the way we use Moore. He is just another version of what we wanted out of Schwartz. He seems to be our gadget guy. Moore is better than Schwartz. I just want to see him line up in a traditional receiver position and make it work from there. If he can't get open and catch the ball, then get rid of him. Quit trying to force feed things in to trying to make him this dynamic playmaker who strikes fear in to opponents from multiple angles. Sure, do that on occasion, but only once the guy has proven he gets it done in a regular manner. If not, that is when you see the player feeling pressure to make something happen and they start trying to reverse field and end up losing 16 yards. Sure, I would love to have a Percy Harvin type on my team, but you don't produce players like that, they just happen, and they don't happen very often.

Stefanski would be better suited to having an OC calling most plays so he can focus on the entire team. Just because a coach doesn't call plays doesn't mean they don't call some plays.

I also have a problem with the O design. It's like we are trying to have a hybrid of what Stefanski sees in the prefect Offense and what Watson likes to play. Watson is the QB. We need to play the way he likes to play about 95% of the time. We aren't doing that, and we are seeing the mixed results. What we see is a coach who is uncomfortable with a Gun, spread type O and a QB who is uncomfortable under center.

We need to figure it out.

Very true.

I still think the coach and quarterback need to be compatible. If the QB doesn't fit the coaches vision, or the coach doesn't fit what the QB does well, there are going to be inconsistent results.

Bingo.

It's NOT just (4) games into what looks to be another disappointing season...it's Ski's 4th season. We have a good-to-great defense...a side of the ball that doesn't require much - if any - input from Ski. The only thing we've been 'good at' is having Nick Chubb in our backfield.

We are inconsistent, underachieving, unable-to-adjust, oftentimes unprepared and unable to pull through when we get adversity / punched in the mouth. We are a soft organization and play like that as well.

If only there were 6 months between January and August where they weren't playing football and anyone could get together, anywhere on earth, and figure ^ this scat out.

I agree Peen .. the issue now is the offensive stuff and the playcalling/executing ... something just isn't working

The healthiest teams are usually the ones winning at the end of the season. Having "talent on the team" doesn't matter a whole lot if that talent isn't playing or is playing hurt.

When you lose your best players, the results won't be as good. When that player is the one touching the ball every play, your results will likely suck. (Baker trying and failing while trying to play through injury, Watson missing last week.)

Yes, there have been disputes. No one likes losing. When you're dealing with injuries, you're more likely to lose. Stefanski can't do anything on the coaching side about Chubb's knee getting torpedo'ed. Injuries happen. Teams get worse because of them. No amount of coaching can replace certain players.

Sometimes injuries can be overcome. More often than not, it's either because the rest of the team was that good, or the replacement player was good. Unfortunately, we didn't have Tom Brady waiting in the wings. Neither did the rest of the team around DTR play very well.

Dammit, Stefanski. Why'd you let your best players get hurt? This is all your fault.

In summary, At the most basic level:

Why's the running game struggling? They're missing the best RB in the NFL.

Why did the passing game struggle? They were missing the QB.

When both those happen at the same time, I'm not sure exactly what people are expecting the coach to be able to do.

It's a case of being vanilla and unwilling or unable to adjust. The Browns are stuck in the old "Kubiak Offense" instilled by Stefanski that hasn't been upgraded since he's arrived. While Stefanski shocked the world with the original conversion in 2020, he's failed to adjust as defenses have adjusted schemes to defeat the common core "Kubiak Offense." Stefanski's offense is predictable, and his vanilla formations dictate what play is coming. Offensive live game adjustments have been nonexistent usually offset by doubling down on plays that have been having little success. If you look at the offensive schemes of McVay and Shanahan, you will see teams that have upgraded their offensive schemes to combat the defensive adjustments - the Stefanski led Browns, well we're still waiting. You need look no further than the continued regression of the team since 2020. People can make up all the excuses they want, results are what actually matter, and the Browns have been on a downward spiral since 2020 with better players each year and now in 2023 it certainly appears at this point to be headed in the same direction.

The emotional, reactionary and overused vague term of "building a winning culture" that one would expect to see on some rambling sports editorial page is what fans do when they let their emotions cloud their brains. Your post sounds more like a "Win one for the Gipper" speech in a movie than it does actually discussing football. As has been pointed out to you already, you have no idea what's going on inside that team. watson has played atrociously since he has been here with the exception of the last game he appeared in. Hopefully that means the team is turning the corner. But if and when they do, you won't be giving Stefanski credit for building a winning culture then. You'll be giving watson credit for bailing out Stefanski.

I've seen this circus before.

exactly our offense is stuck in the past. We don't resemble any of the current high scoring teams. No dynamic plays, designs, etc.

I agree with you 100%. An injured Chubb and no watson yet somehow the results afterwords are Steganksi's fault. He's got some kid that's never seen the field in an NFL game playing at QB and some back up talent at RB and he's supposed to "build a winning culture" with that is beyond absurdity.

It wreaks with nothing more than pure frustration and emotion.

Do we have the players to run those plays? Miami's offense works because of extreme speed everywhere. Which "high scoring" offense do you think we have the players to run? Which do you think we have the players to run w/o Chubb and Watson?

Double bingo.

With so much losses I bet you seen it all with the Browns but the Barnum & Bailey Circus will unfortunately continue to travel around your neighborhood as long as we have an incompetent HC presenting the clowns, sorry, off course I mean him calling the plays. (I couldn’t resist)

Meanwhile teams with progressing leaderships is working with intangibles like team spirit and to creating a healthy culture because at the top everything matters. Thankfully the Browns doesn’t have to worry about such petty things with our results, we have other worries to deal with…

The thing is, I think bringing in Schwartz was in part to address that second paragraph. It looks like we could use another "Jim Schwartz" on offense, or perhaps his impact will spread. We'll see what happens.

In his first year here, it seemed as if Stefanski and Mayfield clicked. I wonder, had they just left that alone, would we be better off.. I know,, Hindsight is 20/20

It's not about high scoring especially when it pertains to the Browns. The post point was that Stefanski's offense and play calling has failed horribly in adjusting to what the defenses do now to stifle the "Kubiak Offense." Second, having the specific types of players is totally on the HC and Berry. You have 2 choices when acquiring or searching for players to run your offense. You either get a player(s) and build your offensive scheme to their skill set(s), aka the Miami speed. Or you get players to play your scheme regardless of their skill set(s) like the Browns do with Stefanski's offensive scheme.

In its simplest terms, let's take Watson as an example. Here's a guy (though scummy IMHO) that was a top 5 elite QB that has spent his entire NFL and college career 90 plus percent playing in the gun. Fast forward to 2023 and now Watson is playing in an offense based on play action (even without their star RB). The article listed below covers this is detail but I'll post a short version of it here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-nick-chubb-kevin-stefanski/70924750007/

"Chubb frequently lined up deep in the backfield, particularly on early downs – an alignment essentially at odds with Deshaun Watson, who’s always been far more comfortable in shotgun or pistol formations that don’t afford Chubb the running starts he utilizes to such great effect when taking handoffs from a quarterback who’s under center.

It’s an oil-and-vinegar conundrum that’s been apparent in Watson’s brief, controversial and disappointing tenure in Cleveland. And, for the sake of this argument, let’s put the three-time Pro Bowler's off-field transgressions to the side (just for now). On the field? His passer rating (76.2) with the Browns is nearly 30 points shy of his sterling 104.5 standard with the Houston Texans. With Cleveland, Watson – he led the league with 4,823 passing yards in 2020, his final season with Houston – has thrown for 186.4 yards per game, more than 80 yards shy of his average with the Texans. The accuracy hasn’t been there, either, his 57.3% completion rate with the Browns an order of magnitude removed from his 67.8% in Houston.

It's only been a year since Stefanski had to switch gears on the fly after customizing his offense to fill-in Jacoby Brissett during Watson's 2022 suspension. Now, after an offseason of trying to fully assimilate Watson into the scheme, Stefanski needs to recalibrate his playbook again to his quarterback's preferences – especially since the coach is far more expendable than the player as they arrive at this crossroads. So, let’s spread it out. Let’s use that shotgun. Let’s integrate more downfield options rather than allowing wideouts Amari Cooper and Elijah Moore to suck up nearly half the target share. Give Watson more control, and – just maybe – he distributes the ball more effectively and the turnovers diminish. And, given the presence of what’s shaping up as a dominant defense, that might be enough to propel a Chubb-less squad to relevance. Maybe more."

There's more to the article but the numbers don't lie. I've raised this concern about Stefanski before and it can't be even more true today. Stefanski does not and has not shown that he will gear his offensive scheme to the skill set of his players. We have 230M QB that is playing in a scheme that is not conducive to his proven skill set. I mean really, does Stefanski think running play action with Watson is going to improve his play from what he has already proven in the NFL? To double down, the vast majority of NFL defenses now can easily read play action and very seldom get fooled by play action. We have a 9-game picture of how Watson will perform in a Stefanski offense and the difference in production has been staggering. People on this forum keep make excuses for Stefanski. Stefanski is the problem, and he has been the problem for the last 2 seasons. The numbers do not lie!

You're being kind of ridiculous. Stefanski geared the offense to the skillets of his players. Unfortunately, his best player was Chubb, and Chubb got hurt. He tried to be multiple to make it work for Watson, too. He tried to mix what Chubb did best with what Watson did best. He was able to beat the Titans without the player he had designed a large chunk of his offense around. Unfortunately, when he lost the other player he had largely designed the offense around, there wasn't the other guy to lean on.

Teams still use play action. It still works. The Lions have made Jared Goff look good by using it.


Unfortunately, it works a lot better when you have Nick Chubb, or at least an effective running game.

Edit: Numbers may not lie, but they definitely don't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I guess it's a matter of opinion but it's equally ridiculous to pay 230M for a QB that has a QB Rating of 104.5, top 5 elite, and tell him he has to adjust his game to include something that he has done less than 10% of the time so that we can include what another player has done for us even though we are coming off of 2 consecutive losing seasons.
That making those adjustments to conform to Stefanski's scheme will result in the sliding of his passer rating (76.2) with the Browns nearly 30 points shy of his sterling 104.5 standard with the Houston Texans. With Cleveland, Watson – he led the league with 4,823 passing yards in 2020, his final season with Houston – has thrown for 186.4 yards per game, more than 80 yards shy of his average with the Texans. The accuracy hasn’t been there either, his 57.3% completion rate with the Browns an order of magnitude removed from his 67.8% in Houston.

If you want to say that Stefanski has adjusted his offensive scheme to Watson's skill set then go ahead but the numbers, production, rating, and record contradicts that opinion. What justification can the Browns have for acquiring an elite QB and paying him 230M guaranteed only to have the HC expect the player to change his normal tendencies to play the designed scheme? The Browns could have certainly found a much cheaper QB to be a system QB than Watson. Really, what is ridiculous is to pay 230M for an elite top 5 QB and then expect him to be a system QB. Nine games into his time with the Browns and we're still waiting to see something that resembles 230M QB play. Most likely never will in a Stefanski offense.

Definitely don't want players to grow and get better. Nope, they should only do the same things they've always done.

Who cares if the team around him is different? Who cares if he was playing in shootouts? Who cares if he was playing in an underwhelming division? Not Steve! The numbers don't lie! The scheme was garbage and he balled out anyways. Not because of what BOB had him doing but because he was a playmaker.

We were 11-5 and 8-9 the seasons before we signed him, so get your facts straight on your "2 consecutive losing seasons" and take your Chubb slander elsewhere. If Baker hadn't played like hot garbage, we wouldn't have had a losing record either season and even considered looking for a QB.

Watson's time away from football and media lambasting/legal issues/mental health had nothing to do with his decline. The facts that Cooper and Moore were banged up for a lot of camp, Chubb and Conklin got hurt, and we had a bad weather game had nothing to do with his slow start this season. It's clearly all Stefanski's fault.

All this complaining about scheme with regards to Watson and what he ran in Houston seems kind of superfluous when you consider that a big chunk of his best plays came out of structure. Watson's not a scheme QB. He's a transcend the scheme QB. Look at that great scheme Watson was in in NE now. Isn't it great? Shouldn't Stefanski do that? Come on Kevin, be like BOB.

We need to settle in, block better, and avoid turnovers. We don't need to try to reinvent the wheel.

Winning is what builds a winning culture. We haven't been winning. It's not like the coach or owner, or whoever walks in to a meeting room and proclaims we will from this day forward will have a winning culture.

There's a lot of back and forth here - but really? The scheme is fine we just need to block better and not turn the ball over and all will be fine? And when you say it'll all be fine, since we have a pretty stacked roster in my opinion and the opinion of many fans - that would mean at the least pushing for a play off spot - with Chubb healthy I'd say winning the division but Chubb us hurt. . . . You really think it's that simple and assuming it is that simple how bad is Stefanski not to be able to acheive that? Your statement is a double edged sword - if it's so simple and KS fails what then?

I think the reality is a combination of LOTS of factors: From injury, from Watson's off the field issues and time away from the game, to (previously) the FO keeping players like Schwartz who had no business being on the roster, to keeping DTR as the backup with eyes on the future but the result being a lack of ability to offset DW missing games. . . . . The two most significant issues for me, today:

- Watson is not the same QB he was in HOU. Or his ability while he wa in HOU was over-exaggerated. I mean you wax lyrical about Watson transcending scheme ... I think I disagree with that. I think he made (and can still make) magic happen when things broke down - but another way of phrasing this based on his time in CLE - in all but 1 game for the Browns he seems incapable of being a scheme QB and has to improvise because he struggles to read the D, go through progressions and get the Ball to the receiver on time based on the play design. When it all breaks down he has absolutely shown elite elusiveness and the ability to escape, keep his eyes downfield and throw the ball. But I don' think that "transcends" scheme, I think that's a talented athlete making plays despite not playing to the scheme. Maybe the last game he played where we beat the Titans is who he really is??? He played really, really well in that game and I'd say the play was within the design of the scheme (or however you want to phrase it). But the Titans just lost to Minshew (back up QB) and the Colts so let's wait and see how significant our win vs Titans was. We can hope that DW got his mojo back and if we see more of the same, week in and week out, versus other good and bad teams in the NFL we'll be happy and win a lot. But let's see that consistently and for a sustained period before we assume that's who he is and will be.

- As for Stefanski, you claimed he tailored his offense to his players: ergo Chubb and running and play action. On the one hand I don't disagree that play action features heavily in his scheme and I have no issue with it. On the other hand - one of the most consistent criticisms of Stefanski is how often he gets away from the run game and goes pass happy, even in a game where your stud RB was rushing for 8 yards per carry.... If the offense was based on what we do well and what the players do well, it wou;dn't take a successful running game, have a lead and suddenly get pass happy. That together with the lack of in game adjustment and some of the other specific play calls in specific games has me feeling KS is very MEH as an OC and play caller. Based on how flat we come out for many of our prime time games and must win games, I also question his ability to be a HC. Based on his W/L record and the way it has trended I also feel the same.

Just me and my 2C but there is plenty of game history with DW as a Brown and KS as HC / Play caller to support everything I said.