Feel badly for Joe. No attractive games in my area Sunday, so I watched NFL Red Zone and caught the Cleveland lowlights as well as Baker and his bionic arm for Tampa at Bay. The question I asked was what would have happened to the Browns if they had stood by Baker. We'll never know. I also watched as Joe Flacco almost pulled off another Houdini act and wondered what made the Browns think they would have been better off with either Jameis or DTR as their back-up. Although I don't like the phrase, "You can't fix stupid" does seem to be the Browns managerial style.
Wow. Brown's winning % is abysmal. Obviously, Browns' story is a "Bleak House" reading. Ugh! Maybe the reason we keep watching is not out of hope or loyalty bur rather like a horror movie - Appalling yet appealing .... just when it looks like we've escaped... the horror returns! Possibly something out of a Tom Waits song.... And so it goes... Mustard gas and roses...
So, for something else, I was listing team's records since 2002. (The year the NFL went to 32 teams) I knew New England would be first and Cleveland last, but was interested in what other teams have done. Here are the top and bottom quartiles with winning percentages:
1) New England .682
2) Pittsburgh .632
3) Green Bay .623
4) Indy .597
5) Baltimore .596
6) Philly .593
7) KC .590
8) Seattle .575
And the bottom 8:
25) Arizona .437
26) Houston .435
27) Washington .415
28) Jets .412
29) Detroit .396
30) Jacksonville .377
31) Raiders .375
32) Cleveland .349
The top division over that time is the AFC East, with a .517 record overall. The bottom is the AFC South with a .473. The AFC is at .503 overall, the NFC at .497.
Also, for fun, currently there have been 22 Super Bowls over that time. The top 8 have 25 of 44 total appearances, and 15 of 22 wins. The bottom 8 have 2 appearances and zero wins. The middle 16 (not pictured) have 17 appearances and 7 wins. There are 5 of the top 8 in the playoffs this year, 3 of the bottom 8, and another 6 will come from the middle 16.
Joe, in debating which Browns personnel deserve the greatest blame, let’s not just focus on the front office. Browns fans themselves have the worst online presence of any I’ve ever seen. You’d think they are Alabama fans who cannot accept 9-3, but no, they have lost for so long that one little sniff of progress means they cannot accept that the road up will not be smooth.
One huge Cleveland Browns problem: there’s never any one credible, successful individual in charge. Kevin, Andrew Berry and Depodesta seem like nice guys. But no one person can lean in to stop the many madnesses this team puts me through.
John Dorsey was the closest but he made two critical errors that killed his credibility and led to his firing: 1. Using confirmation bias to choose Baker (he was pretty clear that Lamar wasn’t considered at all and that he decided on Baker very early in the process). 2. Hiring Freddie Kitchens.
Kevin, Andrew and Depodesta are allegedly humanist, intellectual professionals. They have had numerous opportunities to lead and haven’t, either through inability or lack of a decision making structure allowing one voice to lead. Someone could have sat Baker, played Case Keenum and salvaged 2021. They didn’t. They could have helped bridge the problems between Baker and veterans. They could seen the outsized risk in the trade and touted patience.
My working theory is someone in the decision making structure probably is more right than wrong and deserves a full shot to be the leader with all other collaborative voices out of the way. The problem is I can’t make a determination of who that is. Kevin refuses to believe in any one thing. Berry is only good at spending money. What does Depodesta do exactly?
The only path forward is trading Myles, Denzel and a total rebuild with a new front office and coaching staff because the prognosis is 2-3 years of pain.
Lamar has succeeded because the Ravens adapted their offense to work with his strengths. And while most Ravens fans are all in on Lamar, the football critics are still waiting for him to be elite in the playoffs.
I point this out because the problem bad teams seem to have is first buyers remorse that their high draft pick isn't as super duper as they expected and then jealous rage as they see young QBs succeeding with other teams. So these bad teams panic and flush what they have only to repeat the cycle of disappointment that their latest high draft QB isn't good enough.
The Ravens have been mostly winners the past 17 years with just two lower first round draft quarterbacks. First with a QB drafted from Delaware (Flacco) and then with a Heisman winner from Louisville who was discounted because he didn't play NFL style quarterbacking (Jackson).
And now we see Sam Darnold, a former #1 draft pick QB winning with the Vikings after he was flushed from the horrible Jets, who then drafted Zach Wilson only to flush him! And then the Jets chased down Hall of Famer Rodgers who has also flopped. Hmmm. I think we can all see the pattern.
Bad organizations are bad because they fail and instead of blaming the organization they blame the talent, blindly ignorant that no talent will succeed in their dysfunctional organization.
Slight correction - the Jets recent signing, as Mike Schur can attest, is "Roberts."
Seriously, though, this take reminds me of a conversation I've had with a friend about why I believe Pat Riley to be the greatest basketball coach of all-time. Showtime Lakers? Punch-your-lights-out-Knicks? Peak D-Wade and old Shaq? This dude won with three VASTLY different teams. Yes, they all had star players... I'm not claiming you can win without stars. But what Pat Riley did was to take the team he had, the STARS he had, and then mold a team around them that maximized their ability.
I believe the NFL equivalent is Marty Schottenheimer, but the problem with him is that he never won "the big one," so not everyone sees it. But that's the best football mind I can think of in that way. (The antithesis is, in my opinion, Mike Martz - who didn't care about personnel and ONLY about scheme, only to realize that the reason the scheme worked in St. Louis is because they happened to have HAD the right personnel, not because the scheme was, in and of itself, so perfect.)
Scotty Bowman is absolutely the NHL equivalent. Habs, Penguins, Red Wings. Even took the expansion Blues to 3 straight finals. Also advisor to Blackhawks when they won theirs.
Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Josh Rosen, Lamar Jackson; which of these guys actually succeeds in Cleveland bringing them the long-term franchise QB everyone is chasing... Allen and Jackson should buy John Dorsey a Christmas present, along with their offensive lines, for him not drafting them first overall. Darnold and Rosen have pretty much had the Cleveland Browns experience IMO
PFF had J Allen ranked 25/32 (last) among starting qb's in 18/19. I think everyone gets fired in Cleveland if they drafted Josh Allen so no playoffs in 2020. Mayfield was 9/10 those years so solid QB play. I don't think Cleveland would have gave him the time to get accurate and make better choices. That's depressing to consider when watching J Allen play today.
Whew. The CLE QB win-loss record since 1999 is brutal. And so demoralizing! Probably the most revealing thing about and since"1999" in Browns-land is not the year, but the tune. Ironically, Prince forecast what many Browns fans -- and probably many players -- have been feeling ever since: "... when I woke up this morning/ could uv sworn it was judgment day/ the sky was all purple/ there were people running everywhere/ trying to run from the destruction/ you know I didn't even care."
I read the Browns Diaries religiously because they're awesome, but I need you to know, the ongoing count of Browns QBs since 1999 won me an argument in a bar a couple weeks ago.
The Thursday before Christmas, I was at a bar in Chicago with coworkers, and I started talking sports with a friend of a coworker. He found out I grew up in Cleveland, needled me for 2016 (😭) then we started playing "My NFL Team Is Worse Than Yours". At one point he goes, "Yeah, well have you had 88 quarterbacks in the past 5 years," clearly trying to exaggerate for effect. I tried to remember the most recent Browns QB count, did a little math, and said, completely seriously, "No, we've had 38 since 1999." (I was one off, I was trying to remember an older column, adding to the count, in a bar on the Thursday before Christmas.) His face lost all expression and he just gave this flat, "What."
So thank you for your continued Browns QB count. I always love reminding Bears fans when they complain that their lives could be SO MUCH WORSE.
Everyone here at the beginning of the season was like, "We have a rookie QB that we drafted #1, he's coach-proof, this is gonna be great, we're gonna go to the playoffs!" And I'm like, "My dudes. My guys. I've been here before. I've been here before a lot. Maybe lower your expectations."
We stuck with Brett Favre through some pretty rough years (1999 and 2000). And then he miraculously became great again! (He was second team All-Pro in '01 and '02.)
Then we had a couple of more rough years - '05 the worst of them, but '06 was no picnic, either. And still we stuck with him. And he was MVP runner-up to Brady in '07. Good as Brady was that year, if you had traded Favre straight up for Brady before that year started, I think the Patriots maybe don't go 16-0... but I don't think the Packers are as good as 13-3, either. Favre would lose some games for you that NO ONE else would lose... but he'd win some that no one else could win, too.
Point is, the Packers only moved on from him when there was no denying that Rodgers had to be used. As good as Favre was after '07, they needed to move on to Rodgers. There was a plan, there was a method to the madness, hard as it was for many Packers' fans to take (though the year-after-year dance of will-he-won't-he-retire was grating on our nerves, too).
Then we did the same with Aaron Roberts. It was Jordan Love's time. There's a plan; there's development. You don't just throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks.
It strikes me that, through Joe's description, the Browns just think the best thing to do is NOT to have a plan; to just put SOMETHING out there. I realize that, when it comes to quarterbacks and the Packers, this is literally the greatest three-straight-QBs situation in league history, pretty much regardless of whether or not Love works himself into the Hall of Fame. (As it stands right now, the only HOF quarterback who was followed immediately by ANOTHER Hall of Famer is Joe Montana to Steve Young. I could imagine Drew Bledsoe getting in, and I know there are Jim Plunkett stans out there, so MAYBE one day there's another.) But it's been a blessing watching a team that really seems to think about this carefully and to plan appropriately. And I think Green Bay has been as consistent as anyone in the league, in large part due to this exact issue.
[For the record, since 1992, which marks Bill Cowher's arrival in Pittsburgh and Brett Favre's in Green Bay, here are the two teams head-to-head:
Super Bowl wins - Green Bay (2), Pittsburgh (2)
Super Bowl losses - Green Bay (1), Pittsburgh (2)
Conference championship losses - Green Bay (6), Pittsburgh (5)
Playoff Appearances - Green Bay (24/33), Pittsburgh (22/33); includes the current season
>=.500 seasons - Green Bay (27/33), Pittsburgh (30/33)
Did the plan make the quarterbacks successful or did the quarterbacks make the plan seem smart? Would the Packers have been better with Rodgers in 2006 and 2007 instead of Favre? It’s certainly possible.
I’m a Vikings fan and this narrative about plans and sitting qbs drives me batty. I would argue that the two most important factors are good infrastructure (ownership, coaches, lines, WRs) and having the right player. I’m entirely unconvinced that the plans implemented have materially benefited the Packers. Plenty of QBs sit and are still bad. Plenty play right away and are still good. I think the success the Packers have had should not be largely attributed to sitting their QBs for an unnecessarily long time.
I agree 100% that you need the right guy. The problem is, a lot of teams intentionally avoid drafting the "right guy" when they already have someone. What makes Green Bay different is that they drafted successors while the incumbent was still a top-flight (or relatively top-flight) NFL QB, because they were willing to sit on a good player for a few seasons. I think that's just different than most other teams, who seem to look at the quarterback position as either "set" or "not set," and draft accordingly. Drafting the right player means that you, necessarily, have a succession plan. You don't hang onto Favre until he's done, and only THEN try to figure out your next QB. I hope that makes more sense.
You could always do what Dave Wannestadt did for the Dolphins and decide that the Hall of fame quarterback shouldn't be part of the picture anymore and replace him with some free agent no one has ever heard of. That worked well.....oh wait.
Scott Patsko of the PD asked for fan opinions on keeping Mayfield in April of 2022. Here’s what I wrote. I stand by every bit of it today:
Without Mayfield there are no playoffs in 2020-21. He is flawed, but at his best he’s the perfect metaphor for Cleveland itself. Scrappy, undervalued, a place no one goes unless they have to. The Browns had to... he lifted the entire organization on his shoulders and carried them to their first playoff win in the digital age. So many people owe that guy. Stefanski - coach of the year - not without Mayfield. Jimmy and Dee - no longer a laughing stock - not without Mayfield. They rode him hard and put him away wet all last year and when it was over - off to the glue factory. I hope he succeeds wherever he goes.
I remember every one of those QB'S, unfortunately, but "Johnny Football?"
Feel badly for Joe. No attractive games in my area Sunday, so I watched NFL Red Zone and caught the Cleveland lowlights as well as Baker and his bionic arm for Tampa at Bay. The question I asked was what would have happened to the Browns if they had stood by Baker. We'll never know. I also watched as Joe Flacco almost pulled off another Houdini act and wondered what made the Browns think they would have been better off with either Jameis or DTR as their back-up. Although I don't like the phrase, "You can't fix stupid" does seem to be the Browns managerial style.
Wow. Brown's winning % is abysmal. Obviously, Browns' story is a "Bleak House" reading. Ugh! Maybe the reason we keep watching is not out of hope or loyalty bur rather like a horror movie - Appalling yet appealing .... just when it looks like we've escaped... the horror returns! Possibly something out of a Tom Waits song.... And so it goes... Mustard gas and roses...
So, for something else, I was listing team's records since 2002. (The year the NFL went to 32 teams) I knew New England would be first and Cleveland last, but was interested in what other teams have done. Here are the top and bottom quartiles with winning percentages:
1) New England .682
2) Pittsburgh .632
3) Green Bay .623
4) Indy .597
5) Baltimore .596
6) Philly .593
7) KC .590
8) Seattle .575
And the bottom 8:
25) Arizona .437
26) Houston .435
27) Washington .415
28) Jets .412
29) Detroit .396
30) Jacksonville .377
31) Raiders .375
32) Cleveland .349
The top division over that time is the AFC East, with a .517 record overall. The bottom is the AFC South with a .473. The AFC is at .503 overall, the NFC at .497.
Also, for fun, currently there have been 22 Super Bowls over that time. The top 8 have 25 of 44 total appearances, and 15 of 22 wins. The bottom 8 have 2 appearances and zero wins. The middle 16 (not pictured) have 17 appearances and 7 wins. There are 5 of the top 8 in the playoffs this year, 3 of the bottom 8, and another 6 will come from the middle 16.
Joe, in debating which Browns personnel deserve the greatest blame, let’s not just focus on the front office. Browns fans themselves have the worst online presence of any I’ve ever seen. You’d think they are Alabama fans who cannot accept 9-3, but no, they have lost for so long that one little sniff of progress means they cannot accept that the road up will not be smooth.
Can't wait to see Aaron Rodgers in a Browns uniform next season.
That feels like the desperate next step, yes?
OMG please do NOT speak that into existence. brrrrhhhhh....
the continuing downs, downs, downs of the Cleveland Browns (yup, never any ups, only oops...)
This story is so sad, it makes me wonder if Dee Bagwell Haslam had a crush on "He you will not be named" ?
Very small correction: Mayfield was not released by the Rams - he left as a free agent.
One huge Cleveland Browns problem: there’s never any one credible, successful individual in charge. Kevin, Andrew Berry and Depodesta seem like nice guys. But no one person can lean in to stop the many madnesses this team puts me through.
John Dorsey was the closest but he made two critical errors that killed his credibility and led to his firing: 1. Using confirmation bias to choose Baker (he was pretty clear that Lamar wasn’t considered at all and that he decided on Baker very early in the process). 2. Hiring Freddie Kitchens.
Kevin, Andrew and Depodesta are allegedly humanist, intellectual professionals. They have had numerous opportunities to lead and haven’t, either through inability or lack of a decision making structure allowing one voice to lead. Someone could have sat Baker, played Case Keenum and salvaged 2021. They didn’t. They could have helped bridge the problems between Baker and veterans. They could seen the outsized risk in the trade and touted patience.
My working theory is someone in the decision making structure probably is more right than wrong and deserves a full shot to be the leader with all other collaborative voices out of the way. The problem is I can’t make a determination of who that is. Kevin refuses to believe in any one thing. Berry is only good at spending money. What does Depodesta do exactly?
The only path forward is trading Myles, Denzel and a total rebuild with a new front office and coaching staff because the prognosis is 2-3 years of pain.
Why would an NFL team hire a humanist?
Not sitting Baker when his arm was clearly hanging off him was mistake #1 of subsection #97 of mistakes made by the new Browns.
Lamar has succeeded because the Ravens adapted their offense to work with his strengths. And while most Ravens fans are all in on Lamar, the football critics are still waiting for him to be elite in the playoffs.
I point this out because the problem bad teams seem to have is first buyers remorse that their high draft pick isn't as super duper as they expected and then jealous rage as they see young QBs succeeding with other teams. So these bad teams panic and flush what they have only to repeat the cycle of disappointment that their latest high draft QB isn't good enough.
The Ravens have been mostly winners the past 17 years with just two lower first round draft quarterbacks. First with a QB drafted from Delaware (Flacco) and then with a Heisman winner from Louisville who was discounted because he didn't play NFL style quarterbacking (Jackson).
And now we see Sam Darnold, a former #1 draft pick QB winning with the Vikings after he was flushed from the horrible Jets, who then drafted Zach Wilson only to flush him! And then the Jets chased down Hall of Famer Rodgers who has also flopped. Hmmm. I think we can all see the pattern.
Bad organizations are bad because they fail and instead of blaming the organization they blame the talent, blindly ignorant that no talent will succeed in their dysfunctional organization.
Slight correction - the Jets recent signing, as Mike Schur can attest, is "Roberts."
Seriously, though, this take reminds me of a conversation I've had with a friend about why I believe Pat Riley to be the greatest basketball coach of all-time. Showtime Lakers? Punch-your-lights-out-Knicks? Peak D-Wade and old Shaq? This dude won with three VASTLY different teams. Yes, they all had star players... I'm not claiming you can win without stars. But what Pat Riley did was to take the team he had, the STARS he had, and then mold a team around them that maximized their ability.
I believe the NFL equivalent is Marty Schottenheimer, but the problem with him is that he never won "the big one," so not everyone sees it. But that's the best football mind I can think of in that way. (The antithesis is, in my opinion, Mike Martz - who didn't care about personnel and ONLY about scheme, only to realize that the reason the scheme worked in St. Louis is because they happened to have HAD the right personnel, not because the scheme was, in and of itself, so perfect.)
Red Auerbach would like a word. I know, he had Russell, but still no one has had that kind of continued success.
Scotty Bowman is absolutely the NHL equivalent. Habs, Penguins, Red Wings. Even took the expansion Blues to 3 straight finals. Also advisor to Blackhawks when they won theirs.
I'm a Jets fan, and I can tell a similar story about them giving up on Sam Darnold.
I watched Darnold yesterday. Whoever pays him after the year he's had is going to regret it.
Maybe, but he's only 27 and even PFF ranks his year as very good.
Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Josh Rosen, Lamar Jackson; which of these guys actually succeeds in Cleveland bringing them the long-term franchise QB everyone is chasing... Allen and Jackson should buy John Dorsey a Christmas present, along with their offensive lines, for him not drafting them first overall. Darnold and Rosen have pretty much had the Cleveland Browns experience IMO
I think Josh Allen would succeed anywhere, the others yeah Cleveland not ideal to say the least
PFF had J Allen ranked 25/32 (last) among starting qb's in 18/19. I think everyone gets fired in Cleveland if they drafted Josh Allen so no playoffs in 2020. Mayfield was 9/10 those years so solid QB play. I don't think Cleveland would have gave him the time to get accurate and make better choices. That's depressing to consider when watching J Allen play today.
Whew. The CLE QB win-loss record since 1999 is brutal. And so demoralizing! Probably the most revealing thing about and since"1999" in Browns-land is not the year, but the tune. Ironically, Prince forecast what many Browns fans -- and probably many players -- have been feeling ever since: "... when I woke up this morning/ could uv sworn it was judgment day/ the sky was all purple/ there were people running everywhere/ trying to run from the destruction/ you know I didn't even care."
If only the last line were true!
The "purple," of course, was a prescient reference to the success the Ravens wound up taking with them to Baltimore.
Ouch! You are so right! The curse of Art Modell lives on.
I read the Browns Diaries religiously because they're awesome, but I need you to know, the ongoing count of Browns QBs since 1999 won me an argument in a bar a couple weeks ago.
The Thursday before Christmas, I was at a bar in Chicago with coworkers, and I started talking sports with a friend of a coworker. He found out I grew up in Cleveland, needled me for 2016 (😭) then we started playing "My NFL Team Is Worse Than Yours". At one point he goes, "Yeah, well have you had 88 quarterbacks in the past 5 years," clearly trying to exaggerate for effect. I tried to remember the most recent Browns QB count, did a little math, and said, completely seriously, "No, we've had 38 since 1999." (I was one off, I was trying to remember an older column, adding to the count, in a bar on the Thursday before Christmas.) His face lost all expression and he just gave this flat, "What."
So thank you for your continued Browns QB count. I always love reminding Bears fans when they complain that their lives could be SO MUCH WORSE.
The Bears are so bad, they don't even suck properly.
Everyone here at the beginning of the season was like, "We have a rookie QB that we drafted #1, he's coach-proof, this is gonna be great, we're gonna go to the playoffs!" And I'm like, "My dudes. My guys. I've been here before. I've been here before a lot. Maybe lower your expectations."
Packers fan storytime:
We stuck with Brett Favre through some pretty rough years (1999 and 2000). And then he miraculously became great again! (He was second team All-Pro in '01 and '02.)
Then we had a couple of more rough years - '05 the worst of them, but '06 was no picnic, either. And still we stuck with him. And he was MVP runner-up to Brady in '07. Good as Brady was that year, if you had traded Favre straight up for Brady before that year started, I think the Patriots maybe don't go 16-0... but I don't think the Packers are as good as 13-3, either. Favre would lose some games for you that NO ONE else would lose... but he'd win some that no one else could win, too.
Point is, the Packers only moved on from him when there was no denying that Rodgers had to be used. As good as Favre was after '07, they needed to move on to Rodgers. There was a plan, there was a method to the madness, hard as it was for many Packers' fans to take (though the year-after-year dance of will-he-won't-he-retire was grating on our nerves, too).
Then we did the same with Aaron Roberts. It was Jordan Love's time. There's a plan; there's development. You don't just throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks.
It strikes me that, through Joe's description, the Browns just think the best thing to do is NOT to have a plan; to just put SOMETHING out there. I realize that, when it comes to quarterbacks and the Packers, this is literally the greatest three-straight-QBs situation in league history, pretty much regardless of whether or not Love works himself into the Hall of Fame. (As it stands right now, the only HOF quarterback who was followed immediately by ANOTHER Hall of Famer is Joe Montana to Steve Young. I could imagine Drew Bledsoe getting in, and I know there are Jim Plunkett stans out there, so MAYBE one day there's another.) But it's been a blessing watching a team that really seems to think about this carefully and to plan appropriately. And I think Green Bay has been as consistent as anyone in the league, in large part due to this exact issue.
[For the record, since 1992, which marks Bill Cowher's arrival in Pittsburgh and Brett Favre's in Green Bay, here are the two teams head-to-head:
Super Bowl wins - Green Bay (2), Pittsburgh (2)
Super Bowl losses - Green Bay (1), Pittsburgh (2)
Conference championship losses - Green Bay (6), Pittsburgh (5)
Playoff Appearances - Green Bay (24/33), Pittsburgh (22/33); includes the current season
>=.500 seasons - Green Bay (27/33), Pittsburgh (30/33)
These are the best organizations in football.]
Did the plan make the quarterbacks successful or did the quarterbacks make the plan seem smart? Would the Packers have been better with Rodgers in 2006 and 2007 instead of Favre? It’s certainly possible.
I’m a Vikings fan and this narrative about plans and sitting qbs drives me batty. I would argue that the two most important factors are good infrastructure (ownership, coaches, lines, WRs) and having the right player. I’m entirely unconvinced that the plans implemented have materially benefited the Packers. Plenty of QBs sit and are still bad. Plenty play right away and are still good. I think the success the Packers have had should not be largely attributed to sitting their QBs for an unnecessarily long time.
I agree 100% that you need the right guy. The problem is, a lot of teams intentionally avoid drafting the "right guy" when they already have someone. What makes Green Bay different is that they drafted successors while the incumbent was still a top-flight (or relatively top-flight) NFL QB, because they were willing to sit on a good player for a few seasons. I think that's just different than most other teams, who seem to look at the quarterback position as either "set" or "not set," and draft accordingly. Drafting the right player means that you, necessarily, have a succession plan. You don't hang onto Favre until he's done, and only THEN try to figure out your next QB. I hope that makes more sense.
Atlanta did this also, and look what happened, needed the young guy sooner than expected
You could always do what Dave Wannestadt did for the Dolphins and decide that the Hall of fame quarterback shouldn't be part of the picture anymore and replace him with some free agent no one has ever heard of. That worked well.....oh wait.
Poor Don Majkowski. Not even a footnote.
Scott Patsko of the PD asked for fan opinions on keeping Mayfield in April of 2022. Here’s what I wrote. I stand by every bit of it today:
Without Mayfield there are no playoffs in 2020-21. He is flawed, but at his best he’s the perfect metaphor for Cleveland itself. Scrappy, undervalued, a place no one goes unless they have to. The Browns had to... he lifted the entire organization on his shoulders and carried them to their first playoff win in the digital age. So many people owe that guy. Stefanski - coach of the year - not without Mayfield. Jimmy and Dee - no longer a laughing stock - not without Mayfield. They rode him hard and put him away wet all last year and when it was over - off to the glue factory. I hope he succeeds wherever he goes.