Browns - Stefanski | Page 4 | Barking Hard

Browns Stefanski

When you should go for it based on historical data and game win probabilities... probably.
There are situations you should go for it on 4th down, and sometimes you shouldnt.
This measured how often HCs made the 'correct' decision.
Of course, Mike Tomlin is a moron. What else is new. And the Cardinals, Lions, Eagles, Packers, Stefanski and the Skins understand when to go for it the most.
 
Stylepoints said:
I think most of it is score and time left on the clock. And some field position.
Click to expand...
I suspect similar. Which doesn't account for momentum, the quality of your O or D, etc. These are all real things. How some of these types of analytics are presented I think is partially why some "old school" thinkers despise analytics (even though analytics have been used for almost as long as the game has been around). This presentation implies human elements have no say in the matter. In reality this is probably used as just one data point in making a decision. Kind of like playing blackjack and not 100% following the guide for playing
 
If we don't make the playoffs,hell maybe even win a game in the playoffs, Stefanski will be gone; I really think it is that simple. Him and Watson both have a lot on their shoulders, hope they can deal with that and lead us to a very good season.
 
Masters said:
I suspect similar. Which doesn't account for momentum, the quality of your O or D, etc. These are all real things. How some of these types of analytics are presented I think is partially why some "old school" thinkers despise analytics (even though analytics have been used for almost as long as the game has been around). This presentation implies human elements have no say in the matter. In reality this is probably used as just one data point in making a decision. Kind of like playing blackjack and not 100% following the guide for playing
Click to expand...
That is why I disagree with them, too.
90% of the time, you shouldnt punt.
Giving the ball to the opponent, in a zero-sum game... insanity.

However, the choice between puntung and not punting hangs mostly on time left, score and somewhat field position.
Far too often do you see coaches punt on 4th and 3 when they are two scores down in the 4thQ.

Coaches are notoriously conservative because they make decisions out of fear. Punting and losing, and well, "they played better".
Going for it and losing, and "this dumbass coach went for it and gave the ball away at midfield! Why didnt he TRuSt HiS DEfEnSe?!"
 
Last edited:
Stephan Kefanski, as Greg Olson called him, called a VERY good game today vs an elite defense. He overcame two INT's by Walker, a pile of penalties (thanks Teller and Jed ... you know better). Walker also made some boneheaded plays that didn't hurt us, like the near INT at the end of the game, and the fumble-not-a-fumble deep in our own territory. Kevin just kept his nose down.

He involved Hunt more, gave Dawand some help, and didn't ask Walker to do everything. And I'm pretty sure he's not telling Ford and Moore to run fucking backwards on plays btw.

Anywho, a good job today.
 
Masters said:
I suspect similar. Which doesn't account for momentum, the quality of your O or D, etc. These are all real things. How some of these types of analytics are presented I think is partially why some "old school" thinkers despise analytics (even though analytics have been used for almost as long as the game has been around). This presentation implies human elements have no say in the matter. In reality this is probably used as just one data point in making a decision. Kind of like playing blackjack and not 100% following the guide for playing
Click to expand...
I'd hope they account for being in the red zone separately too since a FG is definitely in play, and the score of the game as well as time left in that half.

This type of information, without the whole formula given with it, is a general indicator. I'd hope Depodesta creates his own formulas and programs himself.
 
I thought so too. That KS needed a signature win and he got it. He should be under pressure too. Everyone else is.

Now is not the time to relax either. This all goes to shit with a bad performance on Sunday in Indy.
 
jaydog said:
This all goes to shit with a bad performance on Sunday in Indy.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. This team just went through 2 weeks of fan doubt and radio/media hate. They put all they had into this game with a 5'9" back-up XFL QB, and won.

I'm not really worried about the offense being motivated, and I trust Schwartz to keep the D motivated, but that doesn't change a let-down game is a human-nature thing we have to guard against.
 
jaydog said:
I thought so too. That KS needed a signature win and he got it. He should be under pressure too. Everyone else is.

Now is not the time to relax either. This all goes to shit with a bad performance on Sunday in Indy.
Click to expand...

Indy is a capable football team and can absolutely beat Cleveland Sunday if the offense sputters like it did vs Baltimore. If Watson can't go, I feel good about Walker getting a game under his belt and going to Indy with some recent experience.

FTR - Cleveland opened at -3 and it's already fallen to -2.
 
Also, I'm still a little surprised how many call for Stefanski's head after a loss. It's like they've forgotten the last 25 years, in addition to having no viable replacement, with the only argument being something like "I don't know who, but just not KS" or "Anybody but KS" type of lines.

Stefanski isn't above criticism by any means, but I for one am a long way away from a "fire Stefanski" post-loss thought, and that includes that hellish 2-week bye week we all just endured.

To me, he just showed he has the chops. He just bought a long long leash. Beating the undefeated Niners, down 4 probowl starters on offense including 4 time probowler RB1 and 3 time probowler QB1 with an XFL QB, who turned the ball over twice ... well, you catch my drift. It was a hell of a job.

Stafanski called a better offensive game than Shannahan, and Schwartz simply finds Shannahan's offensive schemes predictable.

It was THE coaching win of the season. Maybe of this decade.

 
Yah I think Stefanski had some horrific coaching blunders during the game. Some head scratchers. I don't think he is an instinctual coach at all. He designs some good plays though, if it is him who is fact designing them. He deserves the season to see what he accomplishes with Watson, that's for sure.

That being said, we would be a winless team with Joe Woods as DC. This offense isn't carrying anybody.

The continued force fed use of Ford, who is horrific ...just speaks of foolish pride. He was abysmal 95% of the game, Strong is superior.

That being said, credit where due ...he started Hunt, who also looked good but came up gimpy ....which is unfortunately the problem with Hunt. His violent running style gets him injured.

Also the jet sweeps with Moore ...such trash. Why are we not using Moore as a vertical threat or in the slot more? He excels at separation. 🤦

That toss to Hunt for the TD was a great job I think we discussed this last week that he has been setting up that play all year with the prior QB sneaks. Good stuff.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom