In the unforgiving landscape of the NFL, it is easy to look at a box score, see a loss, and blame the rookie quarterback. It fits the narrative. It generates clicks. But for the Cleveland Browns, the story of their recent defeat to the San Francisco 49ers is not one of a rookie failing to perform—it is a story of a coaching staff failing to trust him.

According to a scathing new breakdown by Simply Ball Droppin, head coach Kevin Stefanski and offensive coordinator Tommy Rees didn’t just lose this game; they actively took the ball out of Shedeur Sanders’ hands, opting for a conservative, fear-based game plan that “handcuffed” their most dynamic playmaker.

The Tale of Two Halves

To understand the frustration boiling over in Cleveland, one must look at the first half. Shedeur Sanders was, by all accounts, efficient and effective. He started the game 11-for-13, throwing for 96 yards and a touchdown to Harold Fannin Jr. The offense had rhythm. The mix of run and pass was keeping the 49ers’ defense honest. Sanders looked poised, delivering the ball on time and putting the Browns in a position to compete with one of the league’s best teams.

“Shador Sanders played perfect football in the first half,” the analysis notes. “He played the game that was dealt to him.”

But then came halftime, and with it, a baffling shift in philosophy. Despite having a quarterback who was completing nearly 85% of his passes, the Browns’ coaching staff decided to stop throwing.

The statistics from the second half are damning. Leading up to the final ten minutes of the fourth quarter—when the game was already out of hand and the score was 26-8—the Browns had attempted only three passes.

Three.

In a game where you are trailing or fighting to keep momentum, abandoning the passing game is a death sentence. The podcast host, K Sap, didn’t mince words: “They took the ball out of Shedeur Sanders’ hands… They solely relied on the run.”

The “Diabolical” 4th Down Gamble

If the lack of passing attempts was frustrating, the decision-making on critical downs was infuriating. The turning point of the game arguably came on a 4th-and-1 situation deep in Browns territory.

Conventional wisdom suggests that with a 6’2″ quarterback like Sanders, a simple QB sneak is the most effective play. It’s quick, it’s hard to stop, and it minimizes risk. Instead, Stefanski and Rees dialed up a “Wildcat” play, snapping the ball to a non-quarterback (Harold Fannin Jr.) in a jumbo package.

The result? A failure to convert, a turnover on downs, and a short field for the 49ers.

“That is diabolical,” K Sap argued. “You got a quarterback that’s 6’2″… why don’t you just go with the quarterback sneak? Why do you got to do this exotic stuff?”

This decision wasn’t just a bad call; it was a signal that the coaching staff didn’t trust their quarterback to get one yard. It was a gimmick play in a serious moment, and it cost them dearly.

No Play-Action?

Perhaps the most confusing aspect of the game plan was the complete absence of play-action passing. The Browns ran the ball effectively in the first half, with running back Quinshon Judkins carrying a heavy load (23 carries). A successful run game is the perfect setup for play-action, freezing linebackers and opening up throwing lanes downfield.

Yet, according to the breakdown, the Browns never utilized it. They lined Sanders up under center, handed the ball off, and became predictable. “We didn’t see no play action… doing the same stuff the Baltimore Ravens do,” the host noted, criticizing the lack of creativity. By the second half, the 49ers knew exactly what was coming. They stacked the box, stuffed the run, and because the Browns refused to let Sanders throw on early downs, the offense stalled completely.

Special Teams Meltdown

While the offensive game plan was conservative, the special teams unit was chaotic. The Browns were plagued by blunders that flipped field position and handed points to San Francisco. From muffed punts to fielding a kickoff at the five-yard line instead of letting it go out of bounds, the “third phase” of the game was a disaster.

These errors forced the offense to start deep in their own territory repeatedly, further encouraging Stefanski’s conservative shell. But as the analysis points out, you cannot blame the quarterback for special teams fumbles. “If anybody wants to blame Shedeur Sanders, that’s just hate right there,” K Sap stated.

The Media Narrative and The “Week-to-Week” Question

Despite the loss, there was one piece of breaking news: Kevin Stefanski confirmed that Shedeur Sanders would start the next game against Tennessee. However, the interaction with the media immediately following this announcement raised eyebrows.

Reporter Mary Kay Cabot, who has been a subject of criticism from the podcast before, followed up Stefanski’s confirmation by asking if the situation was still “week-to-week.”

The host blasted this line of questioning as disrespectful and indicative of a media bias against Sanders. “We done already called you out… you got to stop that,” K Sap said, suggesting that the local media is eager to create a quarterback controversy where there shouldn’t be one.

Conclusion: Let Him Cook

The overwhelming sentiment from the breakdown is that the Browns are wasting their rookie quarterback’s potential by trying to protect him—or perhaps, by trying to hide him. The “empty calories” stats at the end of the game, where Sanders was forced to throw in desperation mode, don’t tell the real story. The real story is the vast middle of the game where he wasn’t allowed to do anything at all.

“If you got Shador Sanders in there as quarterback, just let him cook,” the host concluded.

The Browns don’t need to draft a new quarterback next year. They don’t need a new roster. They simply need a coaching staff willing to take the “handcuffs” off the player they already have. Until Stefanski and Rees trust Sanders to win the game with his arm, the Browns will continue to lose games with their fear.