Why Dillon Gabriel was set up for failure by the Browns from the start

Nothing has stirred up a hotter debate around NFL circles in recent weeks than the Cleveland Browns quarterback situation.

What else is new?

Head coach Kevin Stefanski raised more than a few eyebrows some days ago when he committed to third-round rookie Dillon Gabriel for the Browns’ Week 10 matchup against the Jets after the team’s bye, literally moments after the Oregon product put up one of the most putrid performances we’ve seen by any passer all year long.

That comment came on the heels of a statement made previously, where Stefanski admitted that fellow rookie Shedeur Sanders, Gabriel’s backup, hadn’t taken any first-team reps in practice, and before the Browns deactivated Sanders due to a back problem, promoting Bailey Zappe as the backup for the Pats tilt.

Let’s be perfectly clear here: Gabriel has been one of the worst quarterbacks, if not the worst, during the 2025 campaign. There’s no way around that. He should absolutely be benched, under normal circumstances. Nevertheless, Cleveland refuses to operate under normal circumstances.

Remember, the Browns acquired quarterback Kenny Pickett from the Eagles in March, roughly a month before signing Joe Flacco after his disastrous year in Indianapolis.

Those two vets ate up a huge chunk of first-team reps during the offseason and training camp, leaving Gabriel and Sanders a few leftovers and a workload consisting mainly of second and third-team reps, sharing those with Zappe, as well. Even outsider Tyler Huntley was brought onboard for a few weeks during camp, when most of Cleveland’s passers were suffering physical limitations.

There seemed to be a plan: start Flacco or Pickett -- or both -- during the season, let the rookies grow and develop over time. No rush.

Well, that didn’t last long. Pickett -- promised a chance to compete for the starting gig -- was shipped out to the Raiders in August, Flacco was named starter, and Gabriel began getting first-team reps as the backup.

Then, Flacco proceeded to play some of the worst football of his career and ended up being benched for one game in favor of Gabriel before being sent away too, to Cincinnati. The rookie has been starting since, and while his no interception approach was welcomed during his first couple of outings after Flacco’s turnover-fest at the beginning of the year, it’s fairly obvious now that Gabriel just can’t threaten the intermediate or deep zones consistently, something any quarterback at the NFL level would be asked to do.

Meanwhile, Stefanski surprised folks when he didn’t commit to Sanders as the backup initially, after Flacco was dealt. And now his refusal to not only let him start, but at least give him some first-team reps, has ignited all sorts of conspiracy theories among observers.

Considering all the events of the last few months, and the way the Browns are playing as a team, it’s fair to wonder if Gabriel was set up for failure from the beginning. The “Supercomputer” has revealed a myriad of glitches on the playing field, but was he ever properly groomed to start at any point of the season during the summer? If the Browns do make a change to Sanders, what will his chances be, after getting virtually no first-reps throughout this whole process?

Therefore, it might be hard to argue against keeping Gabriel in the lineup, no matter how unpopular this take might be. If you want to pinpoint a waste of time, look no further than all the first-team reps Flacco and Pickett split during the offseason, when they’re no longer on the roster.

So maybe Sanders is better off staying put, developing behind the scenes while Gabriel gets punished on and off the field on a weekly basis. Because really, at this point, one has to wonder if the Browns still have a plan at the quarterback position, or if there ever was a plan to begin with. Inserting Sanders in the lineup now could just be putting him in an impossible position, like Gabriel.

What’s the alternative, then? Well, if Stefanski is confident in his job security, then the plan going forward might be clear: let Gabriel start the rest of the way and invest the inevitable resulting high first-round draft pick on a blue-chip prospect. Keep Gabriel and Sanders onboard, in hopes of trading them in the future once the position is settled for 2026.

Would this strategy guarantee future success? Not even remotely. But it still sounds like a better plan than betting on Flacco/Pickett, doesn’t it?