It wasn’t just a loss; it was a meltdown. For the Cleveland Browns and their long-suffering fanbase, the Week 10 game was a horror show that seemed to confirm their worst fears, igniting a firestorm of controversy that now centers on one man: Head Coach Kevin Stefanski. As rookie quarterback Dillon Gabriel fumbled, stumbled, and threw his way through a disastrous performance, the cries from the stands and on social media weren’t just for a substitution. They were for an investigation.

The outrage has a name: “sabotage.” In the digital courts of public opinion, fans and commentators are openly accusing Stefanski of “collusion” and deliberately torpedoing his own team to prove a point. The reason? His inexplicable loyalty to the struggling Gabriel and his apparent, and allegedly personal, refusal to play backup quarterback Shedeur Sanders.

The game itself was a case study in dysfunction. Clips circulating online show Gabriel looking utterly lost, launching passes that had no business being thrown by an NFL quarterback. “He’s just not ready,” one analyst concluded, a sentiment echoed by a furious fanbase. “He can’t even throw to a receiver that’s right in front of his face,” one fan exclaimed. Another, more heated, reaction captured the sentiment: “How the *** did they draft this… man in the third round? … He sucks.”

This wasn’t just a few bad plays. This was a systematic breakdown. Gabriel took “multiple awful sacks” and looked “lost out there,” leading to a flood of social media posts demanding accountability. “Cleveland sports fans are calling for an investigation into Browns rookie quarterback Dillon Gabriel after somehow missed wide open receivers throughout today’s game,” one viral tweet summarized.

But the anger at Gabriel, a rookie who is clearly struggling, was quickly redirected to the man who kept him in the game. The true villain of this saga, in the eyes of the fans, is Kevin Stefanski.

The coach, facing the media after the game, did nothing to quell the flames. When asked directly if he would “stick with Dillon Gabriel” or “think about making a change,” Stefanski’s answer was immediate and decisive. “Yeah, we’re going to stick with Dylan,” he stated flatly. He acknowledged the need to “play better as an offense” and “coach better,” but the core message was clear: the lineup would not change.

To his critics, this was all the proof they needed. “Kevin Stefanski is never going to give Shadur Sanders an opportunity,” one commentator declared, framing the coach as a stubborn captain on a sinking ship. “He’s going down with the ship. His way, nobody else’s way.”

This brings us to the emotional and symbolic heart of the Browns’ crisis: Miles Garrett. While the offense was imploding, the defensive superstar was having a historically great day. Garrett set a franchise record with five sacks in the game. It was a performance for the ages, a heroic effort from one of the league’s best. And it meant nothing. The Browns still lost, 32-13.

After the game, Garrett was seen visibly upset on the sideline, throwing his helmet. But analysts were quick to point out this wasn’t the frustration of a player who missed a stat. It was the anger of a leader who saw his monumental effort completely wasted. “Miles Garrett was upset that his five sacks didn’t matter,” one analyst explained. “That is a massive problem in the locker room.”

This single moment—a star player’s historic day being rendered meaningless by the team’s offensive ineptitude—crystallized the entire controversy. Stefanski’s stubbornness, his critics allege, is not just costing the team games; it’s demoralizing its leaders and breaking the locker room.

And then there is the “collusion” tweet: “Shadur and Coach Prime need to use this tape when they take the NFL and the Browns to court for collusion and sabotage.” While the legal basis of such a claim is questionable, the sentiment is powerful. It speaks to a belief that the situation is no longer about football strategy but about a personal vendetta.

Why the intense loyalty to Gabriel and the alleged animosity toward Sanders? Sanders, by all accounts, was “effective in the preseason game” and has a good, established relationship with key players like Miles Garrett. Fans are baffled why he can’t even get a chance when the team is being “blown out” and is desperate for an “energy spark.”

According to analysis from RG3, Stefanski’s “snub” of Sanders is blatant and personal. He argued that the coach “owes it to the locker room” to give Sanders a fair “opportunity to compete.” Instead, RG3 claims, Stefanski has made it clear that “he will never start Shadur Sanders” unless Gabriel is physically unable to play. The analyst then rattled off a list of other quarterbacks Stefanski would likely play before Sanders, including Bailey Zappy, Snoop Huntley, Joe Flacco, and Kenny Pickett, to illustrate the perceived absurdity of the situation.

The conclusion drawn by this and other commentators is stark: “The only way this Cleveland Browns team gets better… is if Kevin Stefanski is not there.” And, more to the point, “The only way Shadir Sanders gets an opportunity in Cleveland to be the guy is if Kevin Stfansky gets fired.”

The Browns are now in a full-blown crisis. The fans are in open revolt, calling for investigations. The team’s star player is visibly frustrated as his historic efforts are wasted. And the head coach is being openly accused of sabotage, of deliberately sinking his own team rather than put his pride aside and play a quarterback he, for reasons unknown, refuses to support.

It’s a toxic brew of bad plays, baffling decisions, and explosive accusations. The team is no longer just battling opponents on the field; it’s battling a civil war within its own franchise, and the coach is at the center of the inferno. As the Browns look ahead, the question is no longer just about who will be quarterback, but whether the team can survive its own leadership.