The Cleveland Browns Flunk Situational Football

In the 1940s and 1950s, the Cleveland Browns were one of the most dominant teams in pro football history, reaching the championship game for 10 straight years (1946-55, including four AAFC seasons and six NFL seasons) and winning seven titles. 

Since the Browns returned to the NFL in 1999, they have been one of the most inept, poorly managed, and poorly coached teams in NFL history. 

The Browns are currently coached by Kevin Stefanski. Stefanski is a young coach, and maybe he will develop into a great coach, but coaches younger than he is now (40) have won Super Bowls--including Mike Tomlin of the division rival Pittsburgh Steelers, Jon Gruden (then with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers), and, most recently, Sean McVay of the L.A. Rams.

Let's just say that right now Stefanski does not appear to be on the fast track to becoming a Super Bowl-winning coach.

A fundamental part of NFL success is understanding situational football, meaning that the coaching staff instructs the players how to make decisions and plays that maximize the opportunity for success in any given situation. 

I have been watching NFL football since the 1970s, I have been a Cleveland Browns fan for that entire time, and it pains me to say that the last time that the Cleveland Browns consistently understood the concept of situational football was when Bill Belichick coached the team in the 1990s. That era ended unceremoniously in 1995 when Browns' owner Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore and fired Belichick. You could fill a wing in the Pro Football Hall of Fame just with coaches fired by Modell: start with Paul Brown, then add Marty Schottenheimer (who had a Hall of Fame caliber career but has not yet been inducted), and finish with Belichick, who won six Super Bowls after being dumped by Modell.

Sunday's debacle versus the New York Jets is just the latest example of the Browns snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Browns led 24-17 and had the ball deep inside the Jets' territory with the fourth quarter clock winding down to the two minute mark. The Jets had no timeouts left, so the Browns were one first down and a few kneeldowns away from victory. Kareem Hunt took a handoff with 2:09 left, but instead of making sure that he stayed inbounds so that the clock would run all the way down to the two minute warning he fought for meaningless extra yards and ended up going out of bounds with 2:02 left. The goal of the next play should have been obvious: gain yardage if possible but above all don't fumble--and don't score, because the only way that the Jets could win is by getting the ball back. Instead, Nick Chubb raced around the left side of the offensive line and run into the end zone. The Browns now led 30-17 with 1:55 left. What could go wrong?

Here is the list (in addition to the miscues by Hunt and Chubb, the two plays that made all of the ensuing mayhem possible):

1) Cade York missed the extra point.

2) The Browns blew a coverage and gave up a 66 yard touchdown pass.

3) Onside kicks are rarely successful, but the Browns mishandled the ball and the Jets recovered (this is not new for the Browns; they also failed to recover an onside kick in week 14 versus the Ravens last season, but won anyway because the defense saved the day).

4) The Jets marched down the field in six plays, never needing a single third down conversion before scoring a 15 yard touchdown pass with :22 remaining.

5) The Browns still had a chance to win by reaching field goal range, and they have a kicker who made a 58 yard game-winning field goal last week (although he also had just missed an extra point)--but when the Browns were just one medium-range pass completion away from entering field goal range, quarterback Jacoby Brissett threw an interception. The Jets did not try to score a touchdown on the interception return, instead kneeling down to seal the victory.

How rare is it for an NFL team to blow a lead of at least 13 points with less than two minutes remaining? The last 2229 teams to enjoy such leads won the game. Not surprisingly, the previous team to blow such a lead was the Cleveland Browns in 2001 versus the Chicago Bears. When it mattered most versus the Jets, the Browns repeatedly failed to understand situational football and to execute fundamental plays, including kneeling down to keep the clock running, making an extra point, making sure that no defensive back is beaten deep with a two score lead with less than two minutes remaining, recovering an onside kick, getting one defensive stop, and running a two-minute drill to get into field goal range. If the Browns' special teams, defense, or offense understood situational football then the team would not have made so many plays that were not only bad but stupid. Situational football is all about what the coaches teach and how well they teach it. A well-coached team might lose but a well-coached team will not beat itself.

The Browns have had some awful teams since 1999 that simply did not have enough good players to be competitive no matter who coached them (though the coaches were generally awful, too), but even when the Browns have had reasonably talented teams (like they have now) they are done in by their own ineptitude.

After the loss to the Jets, Stefanski said that it is his responsibility to tell Chubb to kneel down before the play--but that comment just shows that even in the postgame press conference Stefanski still missed the point; this is not something to figure out or discuss in the heat of the moment: this is what you are supposed to be practicing and thinking about repeatedly, so that when situations arise the whole team understands what the correct play is.

ESPN's NFL Rewind show contrasted the Browns' meltdown with the end of the Patriots-Steelers game. The Patriots knew to kneel down, run out the clock, and win 17-14. As a Browns fan, it is great to see the Steelers lose, but every time Belichick's Patriots execute sound situational football I think about how many Super Bowls the Browns might have won if there had been a way to get rid of Modell, keep Belichick, and keep the team in Cleveland.

In his postgame press conference, Stefanski mentioned that the Browns are a young team. I cannot recall Belichick ever using that excuse--or any other excuse--after a loss. Steelers' coach Mike Tomlin often says, "The standard is the standard." In Pittsburgh, the standard has been three coaches in the Super Bowl era (Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher, and Mike Tomlin), each of whom has won at least one Super Bowl. It does not take 20 years--or even five years--to build a Super Bowl contender if you know what you are doing. The great Bill Walsh took over an inept San Francisco team and won a Super Bowl three years later, which he considered to be the standard: "I am often asked how long it should take to turn an NFL franchise around. My short answer is: three years. Not every team will win the Super Bowl in its third season under a new coach (as we did in San Francisco in 1981) but it is reasonable to expect at least some signs of improvement by that time...There are reasons why some teams are able to remain competitive year after year while others never seem to get over the hump...My point is that it takes a concerted commitment from ownership, the front office, the coaching staff and the players for a team to succeed. It's the old 'a-chain-is-only-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link-theory' theory. If one of the four areas is weak, it's extremely difficult to overcome that flaw." Notice that Walsh's blueprint does not include tanking, which has been proven to not work in the NBA, and is not effective (or necessary) in the NFL.

The Browns are approaching a quarter century of historic ineptitude (including a three season run of 3-13, 1-15, and 0-16) briefly interrupted by just two playoff appearances and a single playoff win. In a league designed with parity as the goal, this is disgraceful and inexcusable.

The Browns Need a New Coach and a New Quarterback

On the cusp of making (or, to be precise, matching) NFL history by going 0-16, the Cleveland Browns fired top football executive Sashi Brown and replaced him with John Dorsey, who did not hesitate to offer a very honest public statement about Sashi Brown's performance: "I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players."

"That system" is a not so veiled dig at the analytics-driven decisions made by Brown and his cohorts. Dorsey has a valid point about the overall player evaluation process conducted by the previous regime but--to the extent that Dorsey is providing cover for Coach Hue Jackson, who currently sports a 1-30 record with the Browns--it is important to make it very clear that while the Browns do not have a playoff caliber roster they also most emphatically do not have an 0-15 caliber roster, either.

Sports llustrated's Andy Benoit makes a detailed and compelling argument that with proper coaching the Browns would be a lot better than 0-15:

The Browns have one of the NFL’s better offensive lines. They have a quality thunder and lightning backfield with Isaiah Crowell and Duke Johnson. They have an athletic first-round rookie tight end, David Njoku. Their receiving corps needs help, but with second-year man Corey Coleman healthy and Josh Gordon back, it's no longer in dire straits. Defensively, the linebacking trio of Christian Kirksey, Joe Schobert and (when healthy) Jamie Collins is one of football's fastest. The defensive line is adequate and getting better, given the flashes from 2017 No. 1 overall pick Myles Garrett. The secondary, a sieve in 2016 because of poor safety play, has improved after the arrivals of first-round rookie Jabrill Peppers and veteran corner Jason McCourty, as well as the progress made by 27-year-old CB Jamar Taylor. This is a roster that, frankly, should be somewhere between 4-12 and 6-10, not on the cusp of joining the winless 2008 Lions in infamy.

Cleveland's biggest problem is the players have not been put in position to succeed--most notably on offense, and specifically at quarterback. Second-round rookie DeShone Kizer has the tools to become a quality starter. He's physically capable of making 500-level throws at the deep-intermediate levels. He's tough in the pocket. He's athletic and mobile. Yes, he's raw, and his inconsistent precision accuracy is troubling (that issue rarely corrects itself). But quarterbacks with greater flaws have had successful NFL careers.

I made a similar point about Jackson's ineptitude last season:

A well coached team is disciplined and the players are always in the right position, even if the players lack the size, strength and/or speed to complete the play; the 2016 Browns are not just a bad team but they are a team that demonstrably lacks discipline and does not execute properly. CBS color commentator Solomon Wilcots repeatedly pointed out that the Browns should be double-teaming (San Diego tight end Antonio) Gates. The coach is responsible for the product on the field; if Jackson is giving the right instructions but the players are not executing then he needs to put different players on the field: the bottom line is that whatever happens on the field has either been taught by the coach or is being permitted to happen by the coach.

Hall of Fame Coach Bill Walsh, who built the San Francisco 49ers from also-rans into three-time Super Bowl champions, once explained how long it should take to build a good NFL team and how that process should work: "I am often asked how long it should take to turn an NFL franchise around. My short answer is: three years. Not every team will win the Super Bowl in its third season under a new coach (as we did in San Francisco in 1981) but it is reasonable to expect at least some signs of improvement by that time...There are reasons why some teams are able to remain competitive year after year while others never seem to get over the hump...My point is that it takes a concerted commitment from ownership, the front office, the coaching staff and the players for a team to succeed. It's the old 'a-chain-is-only-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link-theory' theory. If one of the four areas is weak, it's extremely difficult to overcome that flaw."

The Browns have been an awful team for the better part of two decades because the front office has been clueless, most of the coaches have been mediocre at best/incompetent at worst and the franchise has never prioritized the acquisition--and nurturing--of a top notch quarterback.

The Browns will likely go 0-16 this season but, with the right decision making process, they could be a playoff team in three years, provided that Dorsey (1) fires Coach Jackson and replaces him with a real NFL head coach, (2) acquires a very good/great quarterback and puts the proper structure/playmakers around that quarterback and (3) transforms the culture of the franchise from a culture that expects/accepts losing to one that demands winning results. Jackson may be a nice guy and a decent assistant coach but he has proven that he is not a championship-level coach--and the Browns should replace him with a coach who can ultimately win a championship. Likewise, as Benoit noted it is possible that Kizer could be molded into an adequate quarterback but it is unlikely that Kizer will ever be an elite quarterback. The coach-quarterback duo is essential to long-term NFL success, as proven by perennial contenders such as New England and Pittsburgh.

When Mike Ditka was hired to be the Chicago Bears' head coach, he met with the players and told them that he had some good news and some bad news: the good news was that the Bears would win a Super Bowl but the bad news was that most of the people in the room would not be with the team when they won. That is the attitude that Dorsey, his next head coach and their next starting quarterback must personify in order for the Browns to become a competitive NFL team instead of being a laughingstock.

Perfection Versus Perspective

"What makes a man wanna rule the world? (A double a double arrogance)."--Prince, "Arrogance"

A complex combination of conflicting character traits comprise the strange witches' brew that fuels a champion; a champion must "chase perfection" in order to "catch excellence" (as Vince Lombardi once put it) but a champion must also have the resiliency to accept failure. How can one simultaneously have perfection as a goal and yet deal with the reality that nothing in this world--particularly one's ability to perform under pressure--is perfect? Seth Wickersham's recent article about Bill Walsh analyzes the potent mixture of perfectionism, arrogance and insecurity that drove Walsh to greatness (including three Super Bowl championships in 10 seasons as San Francisco's head coach)--and then drove him to leave the game at the height of his career.

Wickersham writes of Walsh, "He always coached through existential torture, with alternating bouts of believing that he was brilliant and that he was incapable of fulfilling his own idea of greatness." Despite his tremendous success, Walsh felt torment both during and after his coaching career. Wickersham explains, "What haunted Walsh went deeper than pink slips and long nights. It was his drive to be great at something he couldn't control. His colleagues recall him as the most intelligent coach they'd ever seen, which Walsh not so discreetly agreed with. But he could be sensitive to the point of devastation, crushed by failures large and small."

Wickersham says that the so-called 49ers Way "was really the Walsh Way, a system flowing from one man's ingenuity and insecurity. By the late '80s, as Walsh's definition of success became so narrow as to be unattainable, the Walsh Way started to cripple the coach. He would sit dazed in his hot tub even after wins, despondent that he had miscalculated a play or two. 'I was a tortured person,' Walsh later told biographer [David] Harris. 'I felt the failure so personally...eventually I couldn't get out from under it all. You can't live that way long. You can only attack that part of your nervous system so many times."

Almost immediately after he retired following San Francisco's January 1989 Super Bowl victory, Walsh decided that he had left the game too soon--a feeling that only intensified when his successor George Seifert led the 49ers to a dominant season capped off by a Super Bowl triumph in January 1990. Wickersham declares, "Walsh hated that Seifert won a championship that year with his team, his West Coast offense, his philosophy; he so hated the ring that the team awarded him that he gave it away." Walsh's son Craig confirms Wickersham's account: "He didn't want them to win. He couldn't hand over the team he had created to someone else, because he wasn't capable of it."

Walsh wanted to define his legacy on his terms and explain to the world the exact reasons for his success, so he decided to assemble a comprehensive blueprint for putting together a championship organization from top to bottom. The result, after years of painstaking work--and the help of several collaborators, including his one-time assistant coach (and future Super Bowl champion coach in his own right) Brian Billick--was Finding the Winning Edge, a massive book that has become a bible for both aspiring and established football coaches. Wickersham writes, "For those who coached under Walsh, Finding the Winning Edge was a study of the genius beyond his playbook. For those who coached against him, it was a window into the mind of their nemesis. For [Bill] Belichick, it was validation. It was published during the crossroads of his career, while he was working as a Jets assistant. The book reinforced Belichick's own belief in detailed planning, which is why he calls it and Jack Welch and the GE Way the two most influential books of his career."

Walsh's book explores in detail a subject that has long fascinated me: The Difference Between Winners and Champions. Here is my explanation of that difference:

All pro athletes are winners. They are better at what they do best than 99% of people are at doing anything and they've been winning games or matches for most of their lives. Only a select few athletes are champions, though. They are the ones who make you watch, who are compelling figures to even casual fans--guys like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods...

Champions project a message to their opponents that induces fear and resignation. Opponents of former world chess champion Bobby Fischer used to call it "Fischer Fear." They used to say that they could feel his manic energy, his fierce will to win, across the chessboard. Michael Jordan's opponents used to feel a similar thing, as did Kasparov's and as do Woods' and Federer's.

The flip side of this kind of ferocious, single-minded drive and determination is that, as Kobe Bryant candidly admitted recently, "Winning takes precedence over all. There's no gray area. No almosts. It's a very unbalanced way to live and I know that. It's not healthy. And I can't justify it, but someone has to win and why not me and the Lakers organization." My personality is naturally wired in that fashion and while this can lead to great success there is the constant danger that without the right perspective it can also turn life into a joyless all or nothing proposition.

How can one chase perfection without losing a balanced perspective? Is it even possible to do so? More than a decade ago, ESPN's "SportsCentury" series profiled dozens of the 20th century's greatest athletes; this may be a slight exaggeration but my recollection is that Jack Nicklaus was about the only champion who appeared to be well-balanced: most champions seem to be tormented like Walsh and/or unable to completely integrate their perfectionism into their post-competition lives, often resulting in some combination of drug addiction, infidelity and/or reckless business moves leading to financial ruin. Perfectionism may be an asset during a 60 minute NFL game or a 48 minute NBA game but, as Walsh ruefully noted, "You can only attack that part of your nervous system so many times." Jerry West, the all-time great player who later drafted Kobe Bryant, is a classic example of someone who achieved greatness because of his perfectionism and yet still feels tormented.

Striving for greatness is important and meaningful but there can be a high price to pay for such striving and few people who attain greatness avoid paying for it in some fashion; that does not mean that anyone should settle for mediocrity but rather that those who strive for greatness must have tremendous self-awareness and must concentrate on maintaining proper balance mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically. 

The Cleveland Browns Must Use Bill Walsh's Three Year Plan

In an October 5, 1998 Sporting News article, Bill Walsh insisted that it should only take three years to build a championship caliber team--provided that ownership, management and the coaching staff are all on the same page. The Pittsburgh Steelers have been one of the NFL's model franchises since the 1970 NFL-AFL merger and it is not a coincidence that they have been rock solid in all three areas identified by Walsh; they have been owned by the Rooney family since 1933, the team's management has done a great job of finding (and keeping) talented players and the franchise has a proven track record of hiring the right coach: since 1970, the Steelers have employed just three head coaches--Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher and Mike Tomlin--while winning six Super Bowls in eight Super Bowl appearances. Each of those three coaches led the Steelers to at least two Super Bowls and at least one Super Bowl title.

Since the Cleveland Browns returned to the NFL in 1999, they have been the opposite of a model franchise; their owners have thrown around money but not spent those funds wisely, management has consistently failed to bring in quality players despite having numerous high draft picks and the team's six head coaches are distinguished only by the fact that none of them had notable head coaching success before, during or after taking the helm in Cleveland. Based on Walsh's formula, the Browns should have been able to build a contender by the early 2000s and even rebuild a second contender a few years later if some of the players from the first contender declined due to age. Instead, the inept Browns have posted just two winning records and made just one playoff appearance since 1999; they won five games or less in nine of the last 13 seasons. In year 14, the Browns are currently 5-8 but the current three game winning streak has raised some hope that perhaps the franchise is finally, belatedly heading in the right direction (though it must be noted that two of the wins were against sorry Oakland and Kansas City squads while the third win came against a Pittsburgh team starting a third string quarterback).

New Cleveland Browns majority owner Jimmy Haslam used to be a Pittsburgh Steelers minority owner, so he is very familiar with the inner workings of that organization. He must not allow himself to be swayed by a small winning streak; he must look at a larger body of evidence in order to decide whether or not General Manager Tom Heckert can build a championship roster and then Heckert (or the new General Manager) must decide if Pat Shurmur is a championship caliber head coach. Even with the three game winning streak, Shurmur's career record with the Browns is just 9-20--and Shurmur's game plans/game management skills do not indicate that he is an elite head coach. Once the Browns have the right General Manager and head coach in place, they must determine if 29 year old rookie Brandon Weeden can lead a team to a Super Bowl; if it takes three years for the new Browns brain trust to put together a championship caliber roster then Weeden will already be 32 and might be within five seasons of retiring. If it is not reasonable to expect Weeden to develop into an excellent quarterback then the Browns need to draft or sign such a quarterback during the offseason. I think that the Browns should keep Heckert and Weeden but replace Shurmur with a top shelf coach--either a proven NFL winner or else a young, promising assistant (much like Bill Belichick and Mike Tomlin were before they became Super Bowl-winning head coaches).

If Haslam makes wise choices then the Cleveland Browns should be a contender--not just a playoff team but a legitimate Super Bowl contender--in three years; if he does not put the right General Manager and head coach in place (and if those two guys do not groom Weeden or someone else into an excellent quarterback) then the Browns will continue to frustrate their loyal fans by missing the playoffs. 

Cleveland Browns Enter Year 10 of the Three Year Rebuilding Plan

Rebuilding a downtrodden football team is not easy but there is a proven formula and timetable for success; I have frequently quoted Bill Walsh's words of wisdom on this subject and they bear repeating here (the following passage is from an October 5, 1998 Sporting News article by Walsh titled "Coaches Should Show Results in Year Three"): "I am often asked how long it should take to turn an NFL franchise around. My short answer is: three years. Not every team will win the Super Bowl in its third season under a new coach (as we did in San Francisco in 1981) but it is reasonable to expect at least some signs of improvement by that time...There are reasons why some teams are able to remain competitive year after year while others never seem to get over the hump...My point is that it takes a concerted commitment from ownership, the front office, the coaching staff and the players for a team to succeed. It's the old 'a-chain-is-only-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link-theory' theory. If one of the four areas is weak, it's extremely difficult to overcome that flaw."

The Cleveland Browns returned to the NFL in 1999, after a three year hiatus due to Art Modell moving his franchise to Baltimore. The "new" Browns have made the playoffs once in nine seasons (earning a Wild Card berth with a 9-7 record in 2002) and their 10-6 record last year raised hopes tremendously even though it was not good enough to qualify for postseason play; in their seven other seasons they have posted records ranging from 2-14 to 7-9, winning four or fewer games four different times. By any reasonable measure the franchise has completely flunked the Walsh test, vastly exceeding the timetable it should take to build a competitive team.

Last year, the Browns ranked in the top ten in scoring (eighth) for the first time since 1987 and they sent six players to the Pro Bowl but their defense was poor (ranking 21st in points allowed) and they fattened their record by beating sub-.500 teams. This season, the Browns face a tough schedule that includes several prime time matchups against strong playoff contenders--and the Browns certainly did not look ready for prime time last week when the Dallas Cowboys pounded them 28-10. The Cowboys accumulated 487 yards of offense and totaled 30 first downs. This Sunday night, a national television audience will tune in to see the Browns face the Pittsburgh Steelers, their long-time division rivals who have beaten them more times in a row than Lucy pulled the football away from Charlie Brown. Remember when the San Francisco 49ers beat the L.A. Rams so many times in the 1980s and 1990s that NFL Films captured some footage of San Francisco players on the sidelines laughingly mocking the "same old, sorry ass Rams"? There is absolutely no objective reason to believe that by 11 p.m. on Sunday the Steelers won't at least be thinking the same thing about the Browns, whether or not they actually say it.

As a lifelong Browns fan, I certainly wish that I could write a more cheerful pregame post but I am not delusional: the Browns' defense is still bad and due to injuries the offense has yet to hit its stride the way it did last season. The best case scenario for the Browns is that quarterback Derek Anderson and wide receiver Braylon Edwards quickly rediscover the 2007 end zone chemistry that enabled them to hook up for 16 touchdowns; the Browns are not going to stop too many teams this season but if their offense can crank out 30 ppg maybe--maybe--they can be competitive.

I still don't quite know what to make of the current Browns' regime of General Manager Phil Savage and Coach Romeo Crennel. After last season's 34-7 week one debacle versus Pittsburgh, I was convinced that Savage and Crennel should be shown the exit door. The unprecedented decision to trade week one starter Charlie Frye for a sixth round draft pick further convinced me that the Browns should be called "The Cleveland Titanic"--but then Anderson emerged as a Pro Bowler, the Browns went 10-5 the rest of the way and near the end of the season Cleveland had become "Believeland." Now, though, I wonder if that was just a mirage as opposed to real proof of tangible progress. There is no doubt that Savage has upgraded the overall talent level on the team but will he ever put together a legitimate playoff contender that is not fatally weak in one phase of the game? As for Crennel, I was very skeptical of him early last season but felt that I had to give credit where credit was due when the Browns turned things around. However, the Browns have consistently shown an alarming lack of discipline during his regime, as indicated by their conditioning level, blown assignments and silly illegal procedure penalties. I really hope that 2008 turns out to be a storybook season like 2007 did and that this time the Browns seal the deal and make it to the playoffs but that just does not seem likely.

The bottom line is that the Browns are in year 10 and counting of what should have been a three year plan. Savage and Crennel cannot be blamed for the first six years of failure but they have run the show now for more than three years with not one playoff berth to show for their efforts. Savage deserves credit for some of his excellent personnel moves but the job is not complete, nor is it clear that Crennel is the right coach to lead the Browns to a championship. I hope the Browns make me eat these words Sunday night and the rest of the season--but I'm afraid that they won't.