I feel like you are reading my post as me disliking Kitchens. That's not what I am saying at all. I like Kitchens.
I get that. I quoted a specific question you asked in your original post, and tried to address that particular question:
But, what I am asking is what has Kitchens done, specifically, that other coordinators won't do?
So that's why I gave the "that's not something we are in a position to know" answer, because I thought you were asking a more technical question, and focusing on the knowledge/skill set of Kitchens as an offensive coordinator rather than the results. In your follow-up, you've asked what I understand (perhaps wrongly) to be a different question, which arguable is more results-oriented:
But I am more asking the question about Kitchens resume as HC. What has Kitchens done to convince people he is clearly more valuable than Gregg, Arians, Riley, Gase, Taub, Bieniemy, etc.?
Anyway, I'll assume we agree that the nuts and bolts aren't really something we are capable of discussing intelligently, and so I'll skip to the parts of your post that talk about the results. First, you said this:
And the Hue/Haley point is crap - and I know you know it - because you have made the same argument, correctly, regarding Gregg. Hue and Haley were historically bad coordinators.
First, I'd say that they achieved historically bad results -- not that their skill sets as coordinators were historically bad. So my comment about Hue/Haley was in the context of the initial question you asked "what has Kitchens done, specifically, that other coordinators won't do?" Hue and Haley both have track records as successful coordinators prior to coming here, even if the results they achieved here were horrible. And I'd say that is indicative of the risk you take whenever you bring in someone new, regardless of their resume/pedigree. Anyway, moving on....
But the results are not vastly superior! We are playing significantly worse defenses, scoring slightly more, allowing slightly fewer pressures per game, and playing more talent. Are they superior? Absolutely. Is it noticeable? Absolutely. But it seems like what a modern NFL offense should look like with a star QB.
So we'd agree that we look "superior", just not "vastly superior"? Maybe the difference is the different stats upon which we are relying. So here are the numbers that relative to actual
production of the passing offense as a whole:
With Jackson and Haley running the offense, Mayfield completed 58.3 percent of his passes, averaged 6.6 yards per pass, had eight touchdowns and six interceptions, had a 78.9 passer rating and was sacked 20 times. Since Jackson and Haley were fired, Mayfield has completed 73.2 percent of his passes, averaged 9.2 yards per pass, thrown 11 touchdown passes and four interceptions, has a 114.5 passer rating, and has been sacked three times.
Anyway, I think the next point may be why we appear to disagree so significantly here:
But, even with that said, Baker's PFF grade under Hue/Haley was 71.83, and it is 75.5 under Gregg/Kitchens. Point being, Baker is not playing significantly better under Gregg/Kitchens.
Okay,
I think that PFF is the exact wrong stat to be using in this discussion. At least, for your purposes. PFF is supposed to be a purely individualized assessment, and control for things that are out of the control of the player. So for Baker, they look at the available passing windows, how much time he has to throw, etc., how accurate his throws were given the available windows, etc.. If the offensive scheme is crummy or great, the player's rating should not change all that much. He's not going to get downgraded by PFF for throwing the ball away if nobody's open, or if he has almost no time to throw. In a sense, a PFF grade is a stat that measures a quarterback's raw ability
independent of the scheme/play calling. Independent of the value added by an offensive coordinator.
But in a discussion about the offensive scheme itself, whether or not he has time to throw or his receivers are actually getting open is hugely important. So in looking at the scheme -- what the OC has contributed -- it is far better to look at all the stats that discussion actual production -- yards per pass, completion percentage, TD/Interception ratio. And if you look at
those stats, I think "vastly superior" fits.
Baker is just legitimately amazing. But, I think people are jumping to a conclusion that Kitchens is the reason, and I honestly do not know if he is that unique. It seems like Kitchens is absolutely calling the right plays, and that is helping Baker, but I am not sure Kitchens is even close to the only guy who can call those plays and design that scheme.
Okay, this is a very valid point. And I'd agree -- it is very unlikely that Kitchens is the only guy in the world who could get this kind of production out of Baker. Out there somewhere, there very likely is someone who could do as well as Kitchens has.
But, Freddie Kitchens is the only specific guy we
know would get this kind of production (league-leading QB rating) out of Baker because he is the only one who has actually done it
. And I think that's what all of this really boils down to -- Kitchens represents the certainty of having a particular offensive coordinator who we know is going to get extremely high production out of Baker, and out of the offense as a whole. Every other candidate represents a risk that something won't click.
To put it differently, I think people want to keep Kitchens because he's basically two birds in the hand...so why take the risk of going for two birds in the bush? There is also the added value of continuity -- giving Baker a full year to work with a guy with whom there clearly is already a synergy, as opposed to having his third offensive coordinator in just two years.
We've always said that the Browns lacked continuity, and the explanation/excuse (which I made myself more than once) was that continuity is of no value if you have the wrong people. Once you have good people, that's when you push for continuity. I think we're at that point with Freddie, at least.
