Vikings 21, Browns 17

Some years ago, the Washington Generals — remember them? — played the Harlem Globetrotters in a game on ice. The Generals’ legendary coach, player, and owner, Red Klotz, believed that this could be the thing that finally gave the Generals the edge in their rather one-sided rivalry with the Globies.

“We excel on ice,” he insisted before the game.

The remains one of my five favorite ever quotes, and I thought about it on Sunday when the Browns played Minnesota at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London. I thought: “Maybe playing in London will make the difference.” True, they had played one time in London before — losing the Vikings 33-17 back in 2017 — but that was in Southwest London. This is North London. Totally different.

“We excel in North London,” I was hoping our guy Kevin Stefanski would say.

He did not say that. And the Browns do not excel in London.

This was a weird one — not so weird that the Browns actually won, but weird in that it isn’t exactly clear how they lost. The Browns usually lose because they get outplayed and make stupid mistakes, etc. That’s why after every game you can count on Stefanski to say something like “You can’t turn the ball over and win against good football teams,” or “We have to play better and coach better; we just can’t make those kinds of mistakes.”

But Sunday in London, it was the Vikings making those kinds of mistakes. Twice, the Vikings fumbled. They also missed a 51-yard field goal. They committed a holding penalty to nullify a huge play late in the fourth quarter. They seemed pretty determined to lose this game.*

But the Browns just wouldn’t let them.

*Sorry for the interruption, but while I’m writing this, the Tampa Bay-Seattle game in on television, and I’m watching Baker Mayfield tear up this Seattle defense, and it just breaks my heart. The Browns, for the first time in like 40 years, had a charismatic, tough, driven quarterback, and he led them to the playoffs, and then they couldn’t figure out how to get the best out of him, and they gave up on him, and they threw him away like he was nothing, and now he’s a superstar 

Rookie Dillon Gabriel started his first game at quarterback — the 17th quarterback making his NFL debut as a starter for the new Browns.

Here’s how the last 16 Browns did in their first NFL start!

So, um, that feels like a trend. 

How did Gabriel play? Pretty well, you know, in context. You can see why Stefanski wanted him — he seems composed, he has a quick release, he probably won’t take many risks, and you can move him around in the pocket. He threw a couple of nice touchdown passes. He didn’t turn the ball over. He feels like the sort of quarterback KevStef dreams about. 

He’s also small, doesn’t seem to be much of a downfield thrower*, and isn’t someone likely to bail you out on third and long. This ended up being the 10th consecutive game that the Browns scored 17 points or fewer. I want to be wrong, but I kind of get the sense that Gabriel is the sort of quarterback who will do some nice things, avoid doing dumb things, and everyone will feel like, “Hey, he did a solid job.” And then you’ll look up at the scoreboard and, yeah, the Browns will have scored 17 or fewer points.

*I just watched Baker drop back, dance around in the pocket, roll away from pressure, and, off balance, fire the game-tying touchdown pass against Seattle with one minute left. I realize that he might have had to go through the trials and tribulations to become this quarterback, but still … the Browns had this guy. They took him No. 1 overall. They had success with him. And they dumped him for He Who Shall Not Be Named. Unforgivable.

Two more thoughts:

Specifically with Stef, though, I don’t know that I even get what he’s doing anymore other than just coaching game by game. By that I mean: What’s his plan for winning? What’s his vision? What kind of team does he want the Browns to be?

Give you an example: Late in the fourth quarter, the Browns got the ball back with a three-point lead. There were less than four minutes left. The Vikings had three timeouts, which they would obviously use. So what was the Browns’ goal? To make the Vikings use all three timeouts and rely on the defense to win it? OK, sensible if you believe in your defense. 

Or was it to take a chance, pick up a first down or two, put the game on ice with their offense? Again, sensible enough if you believe in your offense.

Stef split the difference. The Browns ran the ball on first and second down, losing a yard. Not ideal, no, but so it goes. So now, on third and 11, obviously, you run the ball, make the Vikings burn their final timeout, and count on the defense.

No. On third down, the Browns threw the ball — an incompletion, obviously, that never even came close. So the Browns punted the ball away, having taken exactly 11 seconds off the clock and leaving the Vikings with a timeout.

This is the mark of a coach who doesn’t seem fully committed to a lane. What’s the Mr. Miyagi line about how you’re okay walking on either side of the road, but if you walk in the middle, you get squished like a bug? The Browns play in Pittsburgh this week. It’s a good time to pick a side of the road because NFL coaches regularly get squished like bugs.

📓 This is Joe’s Notebook.
Half-formed thoughts, instant reactions, and nonsense in real time.
→ Like this? Sign up for the JoeBlogs newsletter — it’s totally free.
→ Already subscribed? Share this post with a friend.
→ Or just come back now and again — I post stuff all the time.