DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum What If?

I think your concern could be realized quickly if it happens. Wouldn't be concern about Flacco at that point. The real concern is KS. Predictable already, and Dillon assume less playbook AND fewer reps. LS is hardly noted for effective play calling and keeping things vanilla to a fault. I really hate the Bizarro World plays that appear when he tries to fool opponents in the Red Zone. Not exactly the watchword for any adjustments on offense. "Let's do less with more." Little play variety called; little variance week to week; we need points, and they probably are not at the end of three yard passes or thirty-yard attempts when behind the sticks. The real football we see is on defense. They can't carry this O which can't keep itself on the field as called. A run game spark might help. Keeping Detroit off the field would as we'll.

IMO, what happened against Green Bay was an anomaly and to expect us to beat 2 really good teams in a row especially in Detroit is unrealistic. Our D would have to play great again, good ST play and our O would have to show some new life, move the ball and keep the Lions off the field. Tall order.

I'm certainly not willing to predict a win against Detroit. But to your point I don't think the same D that held the Bengals with Burrows to 17 points and then the Packers to 10 points is an anomaly.

And if you looked at the betting line last week beating the Packers looked unrealistic as well.

The only thing I would add to your assessment as to when KS may start DG is "When the time is right".

I believe he feels DG is ready to start but one of the keys I think is being strongly considered is starting him when the odds are better of him starting out on the right foot with the best odds of him succeeding early giving him a foundation to build upon. If you think there's any possibility that DG has a chance of being the Browns starter for the long run I don't think you want to start him out behind the 8 ball.

Not all NFL teams are equal.

Hopefully they're using the telescope approach of looking at the long run rather than using a microscope and only looking at this as a week to week situation.

Pit I’m not saying our D is an anomaly I think our D is legit and very good. What I’m saying is that the events at the end of the game were. The interception, blocked FG and the improbable 55 yard FG. Those 3 things usually don’t all happen in the last minutes of the game especially for us.

True. At least for teams past. I'm not sure I would call the 55 yard field goal improbable though. He had a terrible week one but hasn't done bad since. I'm not going to base what he is doing now strictly on week one. He did fine when called upon in week two as as well.

I'm not quite ready yet to try to diminish the accomplishments of our secondary and special teams both Szmyt and the blocked FG by saying it "usually doesn't happen for us".

Those were actual plays the team made. Players make things happen. They don't just happen.

While you can look back and say that's true, with the turnover of the roster every season this isn't quite the same team as last year. That's true every new season. As the roster churns so does the play of each unit.

While opinions may vary and I'm not trying to discount your opinion, I try to remain objective.

We have weaknesses like an aging OL and a desperate need for OT's. Our QB situation is in flux and we don't know where that will lead moving forward. We certainly need a more dynamic #1 WR. I won't try to diminish those issues. I won't try to sugar coat them. At the same time when the ST's plays well, the kicker performs well and the secondary makes an excellent play, I won't write that off as something other worldly either.

They earned that win with their play.

It's very early in the season and for me I'm willing to see where it plays out from here before saying it was some extraordinary set of circumstances or simply the ST's playing well and the secondary making a great play.

I believe they are working the kinks out in the offense! New OC. New OL coach.

When the rookie QBs take over the offense, everyone else has a good understanding of what is needed.

Fans always want the next guy.. whoever that is. That's if the Starter is struggeling!

Pretty obvious it has always been that way, with any team.

I am at the point that I am good with putting Gabriel in at the half of any game. If he plays well, it smooths the way to Flacco. If he doesn't it will be easy enough to start Joe the next week. All Stefanski has to do is go in to the press conference and say that Joe is still the starting QB and explain away why he made the change at the half.

There are probably 50 ways he can do that, some real, some not so much. Once you make a clear change, you don't have any real options to make another change.

I don't like to say it, but the best case is Joe takes some sort of minor injury that "might" take a few weeks to heal giving the team a clear reason for making the change and then making it easy to go back to Joe after a few weeks if Gabe struggles.

Sort of like when Kosar took over for Danielson. It gives the team a clear path to go back and not make their future (hopeful) starter look or feel like a loser.

I think Joe did well coming off the couch because Stefanski didn't have time to teach him to be scared of throwing the ball. I think Stef preaches so much on avoiding turnovers that our QBs become to scared to throw the ball downfield and get too scared to actually make the throws.

What if we simply had more QBs and WRs to utilize...oh wait...we have (3) QBs and that number will be (4) when Watson is cleared to play...plus (1) on the PS.

We have (5) WRs on the (53) and (4) on the practice squad. (13) players - soon to be (14) - and we would miss exactly (0) if they were no longer on the team.

What do every one of those ^ guys have in common? None of them would be on the roster of our ACFN opponents. How'd we get to that?

Oh I know I know.

Our offensive tackles might get them killed.

Yeah, it would be better if QB's were told and taught not to avoid turnovers.

The simple answer is, only one pick in the first two rounds of the previous three drafts to 2025, and making a conscious decision to solidify the defense in this year's draft based on players available.

For the record, ALL of the other ACFN teams would take Jerry Jeudy in a heartbeat to be in their starting lineup. Obviously he would be #3 receiver for the Bengals, he would be #2 for the Steelers, but he would be #1 on the Ravens.

The Browns need a QB... as for the answer to that question and who would make what roster, we should start to be able to answer that question this week. I can tell you the backup QB for the Bengals is TERRIBLE, they might wish they had Gabriel on their roster.. We are going to get to see what Cooper Rush can do, the same week we get to see our own backup perform. Let's hold off a couple of weeks to determine whether Gabriel could make one of the other rosters.

We are also going to see what we have in Isaiah Bond... stay tuned

You take what you can at the time you pick.. Don't over pick a player based on need.

At #5, the only player that might have been better for this team on offense was Ashton Jeanty... it will have to play out to see if he is THAT much better than Judkins that we made a bad decision.
At #33 Schwesinger is turning in a first round grade at the pro level. I don't know of any names that would improve the offense more than Carson has improved the defense. The only name that could have made an impact based on what they have done so far is Luther Burden III, who looks like he could be the real deal.
At #36 Quinson Judkins... already improving the offense. He needs to get his stamina up to touch the ball more. I can't think of any player outside of QB that would benefit more from an O-line upgrade. He is breaking tackles early on, but is getting hit way too close to the line of scrimmage.
At #67 Harold Fannin, as a rookie after 4 games, he is in the top 50 in Targets, Catches and Yards... That's ALL receivers, WR, TE and RB. He hasn't had his breakout game yet, but it might be coming.

Looking at this exchange, and KS play calling, lousy offensive performance, can we honestly say we took BPA in these drafts. Referendum on judgment. Our starters seem like PS players who lack production. Some folks should sit.

BPA is a somewhat tricky subject. Every year you can look at the charts as it pertains to the rankings of players in the draft. Often times QB's that are ranked as seventh to tenth overall get drafted #1. QB's ranked in the teenss get draft top 5. Sometimes QB's ranked as being in the 20's in terms of BPA get drafted top 10.

Sometimes teams only need a couple of key players to have a fairly well rounded team. Those teams will place position as high priority in their BPA evaluations which makes some players lower on the pure best players available list to rise on their list.

Some teams have needs at several positions. They are more prone to pick the actual best players available over considering position.

Yet another factor to consider is what round you're drafting in. Once you get into the third round the actual percentage of players who make it in the NFL fall to around 17%. At that juncture trying to meet a need allows you to go outside the bounds of BPA because the odds of success are quite low anyway.

That's pretty much what happened with the Browns. Everyone knows we need a franchise QB. A third round QB has even lower odds of success with less than a 12% success rate. But is it really that much lower than any other third round position selection? Not really.

So at that juncture why not take a stab at it? If you succeed you just saved yourself a huge investment in valuable assets during next years draft. If not maybe you find your backup QB for the next four years at 3rd round rookie pay.

In the first two rounds thus far it looks as if they did go BPA. Once they got to the third where the odds are low any selection will pan out they took somewhat of a gamble with the future in mind. Every draft pick is a gamble no matter where they are drafted and the results of this years draft look pretty good thus far.

Newbies look good so far overall Posters expecting SB out of this roster just want to see themselves gripe. Poor performance seems to indicate underperformance or over-rating. That goes to judgment. Flacco had issues, but he also had a number of passes that his team dropped and were very catchable. Not to excuse failure, but Ski helped, line helped receivers helped. I do not think KS should get a pass on this lousy start.

I would tend to agree with you if posters thought we would be winning at this point before the season started. Almost everyone said that we would be lucky to win these first six games on the schedule because even most of us knew the roster wasn't ready to compete against good teams. People were saying we shouldn't even think of staring Gabriel until we got past those first five or six games for that very reason.

People were calling for long pass plays to be called and blaming Stefanski because he was not. But anyone bothering to watch could see that the OL could barely protect Flacco for quick, short passing plays. The fact that both of our starting OT's are out with injuries certainly didn't help with any of that.

I'm certainly not trying to say everyone should get a pass on these results. But Stefanski didn't sign these players. He didn't draft this roster. He is working with what the FO has given him to work with. And even us as non experts knew going into this season that this roster wasn't going to cut it.

I understand that fans are frustrated but Stefanksi didn't assemble this roster. I think if we wish to assign blame we start there.

A reality due to a self-inflicted malady.

Regarding that 1st pick - a player I really like - solidifying the defense: We were already stacked at DT. Consequently, we gave away Briggs and he was our best run-stopper this pre-season...a guy we actually developed from a 7th Rd pick into a complimentary player...he was cheap. He's continuing to be that guy for the Jets. When Hall finally gets back, we will likely give away S Harris as the room will be too crowded again.

An OT or WR at #5 would have had much more impact overall to this team. Again, this isn't me complaining about Graham the player...it's the roster-construct.


We will have to agree to disagree. The Broncos were happy to get rid of him for a reason. He wouldn't see the field for the Bengals...he'd be benched by now for the Steelers or Ravens because they demand that their WRs catch the ball. He's not even a #1 for us and we don't have a #1. Being the best we've got does not equal to being a #1 WR. He might be THE #1...but he isn't A #1.


The Browns needed a QB last year too...and they 'went after' Pickett (since traded) and Flacco in response to that need. Then drafted a guy in the 3rd and 5th rounds completely ignoring OL and WR in what looks to otherwise be a very good draft...finally. My 'make the roster' comment was aimed at the (9) WRs we have at our disposal...not any QB. I should have been more clear about that.


I think he has a shot to be pretty decent. Crazy that a UDFA just might be the best WR on out team right now. Crazy as in... How'd we get to that? If we didn't have a guy better than the UDFA on the pre-draft roster, how did we not draft a single WR?


No argument on that...but it's not that cut-and-dried. That statement is derived from teams in the past who take QBs too early because they need one. In most ANY draft...the top OT trumps the top DT...I would also say that the top WR trumps the top DT. When not contemplating the drafting of a QB...a team is foolish to not consider the position (positional need) that they ultimately choose to draft.

The Chief's won't draft a QB early even if he is the best player on the board...the Browns weren't going to draft a LT while Thomas was here even if he were the best player on the board. BPA is an excuse for GMs to do what they want to do anyway.


These guys are all showing to be excellent picks. Yet drafting the best LT instead of Graham would have made a much better overall improvement to this team. Both QB picks are very questionable - again given the roster-construct at the time for one guy and the circus of the other guy.

The Browns spoke with Daniel Jones. He reportedly wanted an assurance that we wouldn't draft a QB. We wouldn't do that. He signed with the Colts and is playing quite well.

Had we not signed Shedeur, Pickett likely starts for us this week. Not that that would be a good/better thing...but Picket > Shedeur. We read all off-season how high the FO/KS was on Pickett.

Mac Jones is showing just how much difference a Head Coach can make.

Next year, Flacco will surely be gone...Watson will surely be here eating up a roster spot along with the Cap...Gabriel will surely still be under 6' tall...and Sanders will still be whatever he is today. And we will likely draft ANOTHER QB hoping he can be the guy.

How much better of a player was Graham rated over "the best LT on the board"? You do realize that if that LT you promote they should have drafted drafted had been sub par it really wouldn't have been an improvement, right? You're basing your opinion on an assumption. I get it. If you're a player or two away from having a complete team you set your board more favorably to those positions of need. That isn't the case here. We had nobody on the interior of the DL that could apply pressure.

In regards to Pickett. The Browns traded him for DTR and a fifth round pick. Between 4-5% of fifth round picks are successful. His salary was a guaranteed 2.6 million. That's no indication you think he's a quality QB. So "go after" might be an overstatement depending on what you think that term means.

Bone I think it would be a mistake for us to NOT draft a QB next year. Most of the top QBs in next year's draft have a lot more potential talent and upside than any QB we have on our roster now.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about that one way or the other with so much of the season left to play. Yet at the current time I tend to agree with you. However for me the price tag will play a part in that. IF, and that's a BIG IF Gabrielle shows he is a quality QB I'm not sure I would package both first rounders to draft a QB. If however what they consider a franchise QB falls into their lap and they only need to use one first round pick to draft him I'm leaning towards believing they should.

I've never heard of a team complaining, "We have too many good QB'S!" Once everything gets sorted out you have a valuable trade asset as your worse case scenario.

I agree with your post Say we draft in the top 3 next year. We probably won't have to use any more than 1 of our 1st rounders for a QB. As a Browns fan it's a quandary. We want to see us win every week however the more we win the farther we fall in the draft order. What to want. On the other hand, if we're winning that much maybe we've found our QB. We'll know a lot more at the end of the season.

M Collins was signed specifically to provide inside pass rush...Mike Hall is a pass rusher...Shelby Harris is old and is/was still very effective. We doubled-down on a position of strength while ignoring - in all rounds - two of our biggest weaknesses.


My point was that the Browns knew they were deficient at QB. A guy they TRADED-FOR (aka went-after) to compete at QB was traded away at the end of training camp. It's not really even about what was given-up to get him...it's about the thought to even 'go after' THAT guy in the first place. Then with two veteran backups already on the team, they drafted a 3rd and 5th Rd QB. Did they need MORE backup QBs? Or did they think one of the 3rd or 5th Rd guys would be a starter at some point?

Do you think Pickett could have played any better than Gabriele did yesterday? It seems that somehow you feel you are better qualified to make the call on who to keep on the team at the QB position than the Browns coaching staff who were working with these players in training camp every day. I somehow doubt that.

Pickett was signed well over a month before the draft. They didn't know who would be available in the draft, who they might be able to draft at QB or how they would look in training camp compared to what they felt they had in Pickett. There are more variables to how this all unfolded than you have been willing to mention.

No I don't...that's my point. Pickett is who he is...yet we just HAD to get the guy so badly that we traded for him. Picked up the phone and called Philly to acquire him. THEN signed Flacco and drafted TWO QBs. That might be the NFL definition of throwing shizz against the wall and hoping it sticks.


Well... I was right about Baker Mayfield AND Watson...and I didn't even attend a practice.


Me thinking Pickett was a ridiculous acquisition has nothing to do with me "missing" any variables. With just DTR on the roster, this FO+ traded for Pickett...signed Flacco and drafted QBs in the 3rd & 5th...all the while knowing they would likely draft a QB in the 1st next year...with guys like Daniel Jones and Mac Jones out there in free agency. Oh I am missing one variable there...when Watson is 'healthy' he's on the 53. Super.

Every QB-related decision this FO+ has made has been 'questionable' at best.

I don't really disagree with you. There was so much money tied up in watson their choices were limited. They didn't see an answer at the QB position after Cam Ward in this draft, so yes, they were pretty much throwing darts seeing what else they could find to get by with. Hoping to possibly find a diamond in the rough but knowing that the likelihood of doing so wasn't good.

They may have found a solid back up for the next four years in the third round with Gabriel with the slight chance of more. I was right about Baker and watson too but as with you it was based on very little information. All that really proves is that sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. I'm sure we've both been wrong about players many times as well.

So you don't think Pickett being hurt and unable to practice during training camp is a variable? I think the question is considering all of the money they have tied uo in watson, what were they supposed to do to address the QB situation this year?

If you're trying to say you believe that Berry, the scouting department and the analytics department combined have clearly made mistakes at the QB position we are in total agreement.

Most of our draft picks from 2025 have been excellent so far but to do a fair and accurate evaluation we need to look at the whole picture before the draft started.

Some stats from 2024 delivered by my new companion Chat GPT
1) Last season our QBs were sacked 66 times because of a very weak OL. Pass protection worst in the NFL
2) Our running game was one of the worst in the league.
3) We averaged 15,2 points/game. Again last in the league.
4) Our turnovers ratio was also among the worst, especially near the red zone or close to our own goal line.
5) The receivers dropped passes on a regular basis and our receivers couldn’t create enough separation to offer the QB some passing options.

In 2025 (I’m not sure if these stats include the game against the Packers) we have so far produced 890 offensive yards on 226 plays, an average of 3,9 yards/play. Still among the worst in the league.

We still can’t protect our QB despite knowing that was our biggest weakness in 2024.

Our conversation rate on third down is 37,7%, another area that expose our inability to win games.

Our defense is as a whole very good except near the red zone. The opponents score a TD in 75% of all their attempts. Ranked 28 in the league.

It’s clear that Berry opted to strengthen the defense. If that’s part of a strategic long term plan I like that decision. Better to build block by block than to be all over the place.
The weakness is of course that our offensive production will continue to be low and it put pressure on the defense to a) not allow an average of more than 15points/game b)win back the possession as often as possible in our opponents half.

That’s a risky strategy because the DC can’t rotate his players as much as needed to keep them fresh and as a consequence the probability of injuries increases.

Another part that’s questionable is the Browns quarterback strategy.
The selection of both Kenny Pickett AND Joe Flacco seems shortsighted to me. One is 40+ and already on decline and the other is a failed wild card.
The stats told us that the probability of Flacco ending more than 8 games was very low. So that draft in a best car scenario only solved 50% of our problems.
There was no indication from previous history that Pickett could be a reliable starter for a team who wanted to reach the playoffs. So what was the point with signing him?

Dillon Gabriel is a talent with decent stats but he’s stil undersized compared to the NFL average. It’s a gamble and with the knowledge of Flacco’s and Pickett’s past, our already weak OL it’s not ideal to go for a short QB when the chances are high that his time inside the pocket will be limited whenever he get a chance to start.

As we saw against the Packers his hight limited his passing options and that shortened the playbook for Stefanski.

We drafted some very good players but as a whole that roster is still weak, probably one of the worst in the league.
Six drafts. More than five seasons. That’s on Andrew Berry.

Stefanski has already lost a couple of winnable games this season. He had now lost 20 of his last 24 games.
The defense is the only area that looks good. Our HC is calling the offense.

What does it tell us?

Here's a couple of questions about the 'What Ifs"

There are several different ways to list a player who is injured. The team's designation has pluses and minuses as to the future of that player:

1) Reserve/PUP: This is the designation the Browns assigned to Watson. Players who are put on the active/physically unable to perform list (or PUP) at the start of training camp because of a football-related injury. The difference is these players still count against the active roster limit. Players on the active/PUP list can be moved to the reserve/PUP list during the preseason roster cutdown period. So, the difference between PUP and Reserve/PUP is the player won't count against the active roster limit if they're placed on the reserve/PUP list and they must miss the first four games of the season. A player can't be placed on either PUP list after they have practiced or played in a preseason game. After Week 4, a team has a five-week window to allow the player to return to practice and must contain at least a three-week practice window. If the player isn't activated to the 53-man roster within this timeframe or doesn't meet the practice requirements, they must remain on the PUP list for the rest of the season.

When an NFL player complains about not being medically cleared, they have several avenues to challenge the team's medical assessment through the processes outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This can lead to a formal grievance, an independent medical evaluation, or even a lawsuit, as players have the right to challenge their team's medical staff.

2) IR Injured Reserve: Officially, the term is reserve/injured list, but it's commonly referred to as injured reserve or IR. Players are put on IR when they have a football-related injury that requires them to miss at least a few weeks. Players on IR don't count against the 53-man active roster limit, but their salaries count against the salary cap.

Players on IR must miss a minimum of four games. Teams may designate up to eight players to return from IR during the regular season (and up to 10 if a team makes the postseason). An individual player can be designated twice.

Once a player on IR is cleared to practice, they have 21 days to either be activated to the active roster or be placed on season-ending IR. They can also be released or traded.

Players who are placed on IR before the start of the regular season can miss the entire season, unless they are designated to return when the roster is trimmed to 53 players prior to the start of the season.

The "what if"

What if Watson questions the Browns medical staff? The way he's been posting on social media, it sure appears that he has every intention of playing this year and soon. That would surely affect the insurance claim which would appear to be the Browns intention to collect. Why didn't the Browns not designate Watson on season ending IR during the preseason?

I'm not sure that the Browns have always intended Watson to play this season. We'll certainly find out soon since next week will be week 3 and must start practicing if cleared. If not cleared, I would be surprised to not see a grievance to the CBA by Watson based on his social media posts.

What if Watson starts and actually starts winning games

What if Stefanski got fired last year and Vrabel was head coach

What if Schwartz was head coach

What if A left tackle could be one

What if WR's could catch

What if ST's knew what to do

What if the offense could score points

What if the defense could cover receivers in a final drive

What if time outs in favor for an opposing team weren't called

What if Cleveland would stop trying to stop a really nice domed stadium

What if Cleveland Browns win a game

What if's sucks

Since 1999

FIXED IT!