DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum What Now

This’s a great question Pit and I will give you a direct answer. No.
But if you read my post carefully you will realize that it’s the combination of both or all three that I’m against.

I know you defend Stefanski and I like that even if I disagree with you. At least you’re consistent.
You can say that he has been giving a bad hand, and I partly agree with that but at the same time they both state publicly that they take most big decisions together, or at least with each other’s understanding. That makes it complicated to absolve him from our bad results.

After six seasons it’s hard to blame bad luck, at least in my opinion.

Let’s wait another week then we will know the future of both. If he gets fired I don’t see this as a win, absolutely not. It’s just sad that we have spent a couple of seasons with underwhelming results and almost no accountability. All of us who support the Browns suffers from our bad results.

And somehow you think that means they all agree on these decisions? Just because they all go into a room and share their opinions in no way means their opinions all align with one another. When push comes to shove there is a pecking order to the chain of command. Halsam as at the top, Berry is next and Stefanski is at the bottom. None of that is complicated.

I'll give you a couple of examples. Do you think Stefanksi helped green light giving three first round draft picks for watson? Do you think he had any say in the dollar amount of the contract? Do you think he had a say in going back a second time and making watson "an offer he couldn't refuse"?

You see, I'm sure Stefanski was asked his opinion of watson and if watson is a QB he could work with. Based on past film breakdowns could easily say most all NFL HC's would say yes at that point. But beyond that does Stanfanski have anything to do with the handling of the salary cap? Does he oversee the scouting department? How about the analytics department? How about the draft compensation?

What you seem to be saying is that somehow Stefanski has a say in final decisions that are in no way withing his wheelhouse. I'm sure he has some say within his field of expertise but what you are suggesting goes far beyond that. That doesn't make any sense.

As it pertains to "defending Stefanski" that's a matter of perception. I have said more than once that I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if both he and Berry stay or go. I do think there are legitimate reasons to question Stefanski to some degree. Some of his play calling leaves a lot to question.

But what I will do is try to keep things in perspective. To not just let some BS excuses pass by without question just as I've done above.

We both know that both times he was given a decent roster to work with he has made the playoffs. We both know he has been given little talent to work with. Those aren't excuses or in "defense" of anyone. Those are simply the facts of the matter.

The worst possible scenario I could see in all of this is if Berry stays and Stenfanski gets fired. IMO there would be no excuse to keep the man responsible for building the crappy rosters Stefanski has been burdened with trying to produce wins with and Stefanksi shouldering all of the blame. If one goes they should both go.

Haha, no worries. We all are amateurs. You said about being basic/maybe necessity. I don't know the answer. Regarding our rookie playmakers, I know I have said earlier this season they've all had some issues (i.e. spacing in routes, *assuming* at times running the wrong routes, their run blocking). I can see that possibly playing a role into the calls.

I can't speak for years past, as I rarely watched breakdown of games. Stef's play calling this year just seemed all over the place. Play calls didn't seem to have a rhythm and play calls at times weren't building off a look (formation). Maybe it was because of the inexperience of his rookies. Maybe it was just bad calling. I don't know the reason. I do know there were games we ran a certain play/formation that was different than others. The first rep of it...positive play. We tried running one or two other times and both were negative plays. The issue was there wasn't any deception. You have to make the LBs think instead of just instant reaction. That split second of diagnosing or wrong step by the LB can be the difference in a 4 yard gain or a 20 yard gain.

As for Rees, in my opinion I am seeing what the offense is trying to do. They've ran quite a few plays in different formations and have ran, passed, play actioned off of them. As the games have went by, we are seeing that Corley jet sweep/end around...now we are seeing Corley go in motion to show the possibility of a end around only to run other plays off of it. They've also added plays. The Fannin touchdown in the first quarter where he went in motion and looped back under the DE for a TD? The 49ers ran that play against us a few weeks earlier.

No playcaller is perfect.I will just say I've been pleasantly surprised by how Rees has done. Sometimes you just don't see the results due to human error (missed blocks, bad pass, missed targets, etc).

I actually agree with a lot of it but maybe we have some disagreements about the decision making.
The part I think you’re totally spot on is that if you fire one you fire both, otherwise it doesn’t make sense.

The whole Watson experience was a disaster from the start to the end. Whoever said what doesn’t matter. Amateurs the whole bunch.