The Cleveland Browns’ tumultuous start to the 2025 NFL season has plunged the franchise into a deep crisis, with their 0-2 record sparking widespread alarm and frustration. As discussed in previous contexts, the team’s offensive woes and defensive lapses have put Head Coach Kevin Stefanski under immense pressure. However, the narrative has taken a dramatic turn with NFL legend Tom Brady dropping a bombshell, accusing the Browns’ coaching staff and the wider NFL of a systemic failure in developing young quarterbacks, specifically highlighting the alleged “sabotage” of rookie sensation Shedeur Sanders. This explosive critique, backed by prominent analysts Stephen A. Smith and Lewis Riddick, reveals a deeply concerning issue of accountability and opportunity within the league’s coaching ranks.

Brady’s Blistering Critique: Unaccountable Coaches and Unequal Opportunities

Tom Brady, arguably the greatest quarterback of all time, delivered a scathing assessment of how the NFL and, specifically, the Cleveland Browns, handle quarterback development. He pointed out a glaring double standard: while players like Shedeur Sanders are meticulously graded and scrutinized every week, coaches who wield immense influence over their performance remain largely unaccountable and unranked.

Brady questioned the assumption that every coaching staff inherently knows how to develop a quarterback. “There’s a lot of people who have no idea what they’re doing when they’re tasked with coaching a quarterback or calling an offense,” he asserted. He metaphorically asked why offensive coordinators and quarterback coaches aren’t ranked from 1 to 32, just like quarterbacks. “What if you had the 32nd ranked coordinator?” he posed, suggesting that players could be unknowingly placed under incompetent guidance.

His criticism intensified as he highlighted the unjust claims that Shedeur Sanders isn’t on the same level as quarterbacks like Dylan Gabriel or Joe Flacco. Brady directly challenged these coaches, asking if they had ever truly given Shedeur a fair opportunity to prove himself in training or supported him in understanding the playbook. The implication was clear: if they hadn’t, which seemed to be the case, then they had no right to question his abilities or performance. Brady’s powerful argument underscores a critical flaw in the system: how can a player be expected to succeed when the very individuals responsible for their growth fail to provide the necessary resources and opportunities?

Stephen A. Smith and Lewis Riddick: Exposing the “Setup for Failure”

Brady’s concerns resonated deeply with the observations of prominent ESPN analysts Stephen A. Smith and Lewis Riddick, who had previously exposed these inconsistencies within the Browns’ organization.

Stephen A. Smith fired powerful shots at the situation surrounding Shedeur Sanders during his first preseason start. Smith declared that Sanders was “being framed for failure”. He highlighted the egregious fact that Shedeur hadn’t received a single first-team rep until that moment, having been relegated to the sidelines, working with the third unit. To then suddenly thrust him into a starting role without adequate preparation or opportunity to gel with the starters was, in Smith’s view, a deliberate “setup for failure,” not a genuine chance. This deliberate withholding of resources, followed by an unrealistic expectation of performance, clearly demonstrated a lack of commitment to his development.

Lewis Riddick, a former NFL player and respected analyst, echoed Smith’s sentiments, emphasizing the “severe lack of reps” Shedeur had received with the team. Riddick pointed out that even with an opportunity, Sanders would have to perform at an extraordinary level under extremely limited chances, simply because he hadn’t been given the time or resources to build chemistry with his teammates. The odds were stacked against him, and the coaching staff’s approach was clearly a major contributing factor to his struggles.

Riddick’s frustration boiled over when he questioned who was even advocating for Shedeur Sanders within the organization. He stressed that lower-round draft picks rarely make it to the first team unless someone is actively fighting for them. The uncertainty surrounding who championed Shedeur’s signing in the first place put him at a significant disadvantage, battling unseen forces not aligned in his favor.

The Front Office and Owner: A Disturbing Lack of Alignment

The concerns raised by Brady, Smith, and Riddick were further exacerbated by alarming comments from Browns owner Jimmy Haslam. Haslam admitted that he had “no idea about signing Shedeur Sanders,” leaving the decision entirely up to the coaching staff. This revelation immediately raised a huge red flag: how could such a significant decision regarding a promising quarterback be made without the owner’s knowledge or explicit support?

This indicated a disturbing lack of foresight and top-down support for Shedeur’s development within the organization. Stephen A. Smith didn’t mince words, interpreting Haslam’s statement not as a casual remark, but as part of a larger strategy to ensure Shedeur didn’t get the chance he deserved. Smith boldly asserted that certain individuals in power were “actively working against Shedeur,” ensuring he was never fully embraced or given a fair shot. Haslam’s comments only confirmed what many suspected: the situation was less about football potential and more about power, influence, and control within the organization.

The Consequences of Systemic Failure: A Broken Development Path

The situation surrounding Shedeur Sanders has become a stark illustration of a deeply concerning issue within NFL coaching staffs and organizational structures. Despite his undeniable talent, Shedeur’s journey has been plagued by inconsistent support, severely limited opportunities, and a glaring lack of proper development. As Brady, Smith, and Riddick collectively emphasized, success in the NFL is not solely about a player’s ability; it’s profoundly influenced by the environment and resources provided to help them thrive.

The coaching staff’s failure to give Shedeur meaningful reps with the first team, coupled with the ambiguity surrounding his internal advocacy, placed him in an incredibly precarious position. When top executives like Jimmy Haslam admit they had no involvement in bringing a player aboard, it unequivocally signals a lack of foundational planning or a clear development pathway. The subsequent efforts by the coaching staff to seemingly marginalize and push him out only intensify the growing frustration and reinforce the narrative of “sabotage.”

If NFL organizations are genuinely committed to building successful, long-term talent, they must fundamentally commit to providing the right support and genuine opportunities. Setting players up for failure through a lack of alignment, accountability, and clear development plans is not only unfair to the athletes but ultimately detrimental to the organization’s success. As this high-stakes drama continues to unfold, the spotlight remains firmly on the Cleveland Browns, whose handling of Shedeur Sanders could become a pivotal moment in their season—and a cautionary tale for the entire league about the true cost of unaccountable coaching and neglected potential.