Larry Coyer's Parting Statement [Archive] - The Orange Mane

Taco John

01-10-2007, 04:36 AM

Statement from Larry Coyer

January 9, 2007
"The Broncos have decided to make a change at my position of defensive coordinator. I’ve held this position for various teams and was well aware that when accepting the change from linebacker coach to the coordinator position I could always be the first to be replaced. Nevertheless, I wanted to do what I know best and I wanted the opportunity to do it what I consider one of the best.

"Make no mistake, I was very aware that some hard changes had to be made in several areas and as the season worked its way to the end, and then after it ended, I made my concerns known as it pertained to the defense.

"Prior to the season’s end I opted to put all my efforts into game planning. At least we were able to win two of the last three games. Did (we) always coach and play to our best ability? No! No one does. There is always room to do better. However, I am not the person judging my decision to put all of game-planning efforts into the last three games while I was laying plans for changes I would like to see at season’s end or the decision to replace me. I have the highest regard for (Mike Shanahan) and have no choice but to accept his decision and do so with as much dignity and grace as I can muster.

"Any time season goes as this season has gone somebody had to pay the price. Sadly, with broken hearts for both (wife) Jan and myself, regretfully, that day has fallen on my shoulders. I said ‘and sadly and with broken hearts’ because we have truly loved being part of this outstanding organization.

"I sincerely appreciate the opportunity I have had to coach some fine young men. And I am truly grateful for all their efforts. This year they have spent a good part of the season defending the red zone and a short field and for a while were on pace to set an NFL record. Most often they did it with all they were capable of doing. For those who gave all they were capable of giving I can ask no more. As the season wore down they were injured and when some could not play others came in to try and fill the gaps. To them I say ‘thank you’ and to those who gave their best. This defense may or may not know it, but I truly loved them and will miss them.

"I’m grateful to those on my staff who gave their all and they know who they are. There are not enough words to express I appreciate the outstanding people who make up the Broncos staff, including the video, media, equipment, security and support staff, including my buddy (Broncos’ custodian) Simn.

"My thanks as well to all of the supportive fans who were there time after time and with encouraging and insightful words.

"Again my sweet and constant supportive wife, Jan, who’s stood shoulder to shoulder with me to support this team and I appreciate the opportunity to be here and wish only the best for the Denver Broncos, their fans and this community.

"Thank you."

Taco John

01-10-2007, 04:37 AM

Thank you, coach.

I wish you'd have gotten the guys you needed up front to complete your scheme. It worked great at the beginning of the season when the guys were fresh.

Kaylore

01-10-2007, 04:39 AM

Classy. Coyer is a really great guy. Sorry it didn't work out. He's a good man.

TheReverend

01-10-2007, 04:41 AM

Thank you, coach.

I wish you'd have gotten the guys you needed up front to complete your scheme. It worked great at the beginning of the season when the guys were fresh.

Sigh... you'll see.

I wish Coyer, his wife, his knowledgeable son, and the rest of his family luck. I also, thank him for all the effort he put into the organization.

But it wasn't a fit at this level.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 04:43 AM

Sigh... you'll see.

I wish Coyer, his wife, his knowledgeable son, and the rest of his family luck. I also, thank him for all the effort he put into the organization.

But it wasn't a fit at this level.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about it in this thread. I'm just trying to show my support for a coach that I'm a fan of.

Odysseus

01-10-2007, 04:47 AM

I wish Coyer all the best. He is nothing if not classy. I was hoping he'd get one more year to fill in the gaps.

The Broncos are doing the right thing in a "Win first league" even if in my opinion it was one year too early.

I am surprised this came so quickly. This must have been in the works for quite some time.

TheReverend

01-10-2007, 04:47 AM

I'm not trying to get into a debate about it in this thread. I'm just trying to show my support for a coach that I'm a fan of.

Glad to hear it. I hope he enjoys success with another ballclub for the rest of his career.

Breck Bronc

01-10-2007, 04:51 AM

This year they have spent a good part of the season defending the red zone and a short field and for a while were on pace to set an NFL record. Nice little dig at the offense.

I hope Coyer find success in his future pursuits. Between Darrent's tragic death and himself getting fired, it hasn't been a very good two weeks for Coyer.

watermock

01-10-2007, 04:58 AM

We just needed an additional 20,000 troops.

Odysseus

01-10-2007, 05:12 AM

Nice little dig at the offense.

I hope Coyer find success in his future pursuits. Between Darrent's tragic death and himself getting fired, it hasn't been a very good two weeks for Coyer.

Special teams didn't do Coyer any favors.

Pezman

01-10-2007, 05:19 AM

So long coach. Sorry it didnt work out for you here in Denver.

Kaylore

01-10-2007, 05:22 AM

Special teams didn't do Coyer any favors.

I'm kind of upset that Coyer got fired and Ronnie Bradford is still collecting his paycheck. That's pretty wretched if you ask me. Our D at least played lights out half the season. Our special teams have been terrible ALL YEAR!

TheReverend

01-10-2007, 05:28 AM

watermock

01-10-2007, 05:29 AM

It's been a prety rough couple weeks for our defense.

eddie mac

01-10-2007, 05:58 AM

fontaine

01-10-2007, 05:59 AM

Thanks for improving our defense to a standard where we EXPECT plenty of turnovers, have a great red zone D and run defense.

Coyer set the bar high. Good luck to him and his family.

elsid13

01-10-2007, 06:03 AM

I wonder what changes he was going to make?

Northman

01-10-2007, 06:03 AM

He definitely deserves props for what he was able to accomplish with what little he had up front. Without him we would have been a lot worse this year.

eddie mac

01-10-2007, 06:05 AM

I wonder what changes he was going to make?

Maybe just maybe Shanahan would've given him what he always wanted via the 2007 NFL draft. A decent pass rusher.

OrangeShadow

01-10-2007, 07:21 AM

I wish him all the luck in the world. I would of loved to see what he could do with a defensive line but thats neither here nor there.

crazyhorse

01-10-2007, 07:34 AM

Rebuilding the offense and gutting the defensive coaching staff. Strange moves for such a "great" team.

I'll bet Shanny has revised "The Plan".

fontaine

01-10-2007, 07:39 AM

Rebuilding the offense and gutting the defensive coaching staff. Strange moves for such a "great" team.

I'll bet Shanny has revised "The Plan".

You should know. Herm revises his week to week:

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/default.htm?mode=afcwest

Some sources are left to wonder whether head coach Herm Edwards lost a bit of respect in the locker room with the way he handled the QB situation in last week’s playoff loss at Indianapolis. Not only did Edwards come out in a press conference and announce that Trent Green would be his starter in 2007 a few weeks ago, but then he suggested that he wouldn’t hesitate to pull Green in favor of productive backup Damon Huard if things weren’t going well offensively vs. the Colts. Problem is, despite the need for a spark when the Chiefs failed to earn a first down in nearly three quarters of play, no move was made, which left more than a few players frustrated. Green struggled upon returning to the lineup in Week 11 following a severe concussion, and there was a sentiment in Kansas City that Huard had done enough (with a 5-3 record as a starter) to keep the job. Not only are the Chiefs left to wonder if Green can return to his old self, but they’re also considered unlikely to keep Huard, an unrestricted free agent who may have earned a shot at a starting job elsewhere. They view rookie Brodie Croyle as a project.

rbackfactory80

01-10-2007, 07:42 AM

Gotta give a shout out to the custodian.

plummershelper

01-10-2007, 07:44 AM

Class act Coyer, an exit like this can only improve your outlook for your next job. Thanks for your 7 years here.

crazyhorse

01-10-2007, 07:47 AM

You should know. Herm revises his week to week:

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/default.htm?mode=afcwest

Some sources are left to wonder whether head coach Herm Edwards lost a bit of respect in the locker room with the way he handled the QB situation in last week’s playoff loss at Indianapolis. Not only did Edwards come out in a press conference and announce that Trent Green would be his starter in 2007 a few weeks ago, but then he suggested that he wouldn’t hesitate to pull Green in favor of productive backup Damon Huard if things weren’t going well offensively vs. the Colts. Problem is, despite the need for a spark when the Chiefs failed to earn a first down in nearly three quarters of play, no move was made, which left more than a few players frustrated. Green struggled upon returning to the lineup in Week 11 following a severe concussion, and there was a sentiment in Kansas City that Huard had done enough (with a 5-3 record as a starter) to keep the job. Not only are the Chiefs left to wonder if Green can return to his old self, but they’re also considered unlikely to keep Huard, an unrestricted free agent who may have earned a shot at a starting job elsewhere. They view rookie Brodie Croyle as a project.

The "I know you are but what am I" retort? Nice.

What's your point? Are you saying that you agree with my original statement?

Barry Ramey

01-10-2007, 07:47 AM

Good luck to him, but I'm happy, I think he needed to be replaced.

-Slap-

01-10-2007, 08:37 AM

Gotta give a shout out to the custodian.

I think that speaks volumes about Larry Coyer as a person. It wouldn't surprise me if the person he was referencing was a handicapped person who was hired by the organization in a custodial capacity. The custodian in my office building is such an individual. Most people walk past him like he's a potted plant.

I feel bad for Larry. Robinson had run his course and the Rhodes/Shanahan partnership seemed doomed from the start, but Larry Coyer was a Bronco through and through.

I might have had some philosophical differences, but I think Larry's hands were tied in a lot of ways, too. Nobody constructs a bend-but-don't-break defense voluntarily. You have to have the horses to attack and when you play that style without them, you get absolutely destroyed.

Once Shanahan decided to slow down the offense two years ago, it only made sense to install a safety first defense. If you know your offense has almost no ability for quick strikes, its stupid to put your defense in a position where they can give up a lot of big plays.

The performance of the defense in the first six weeks of this season is one of the few things, besides the rookie class, that I'll remember with pride about this season. Those guys had their backs against the wall every week, with practically no margin for error, and they stood tall.

Good luck to Larry and his family. He's a class man and its been our great fortune to have him in Denver.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/5511/coyerlarry041104nx0.jpg

rbackfactory80

01-10-2007, 09:08 AM

[QUOTE=-Slap-;1437656]
I might have had some philosophical differences, but I think Larry's hands were tied in a lot of ways, too. Nobody constructs a bend-but-don't-break defense voluntarily. You have to have the horses to attack and when you play that style without them, you get absolutely destroyed.

I agree, he had high character and a warm heart, but unfortunately that does not mean much in todays NFL. I do however wish him all the best in finding a new position with a different organization. When you have the athletes we have on our defense, you want to simplify things because you dont think you have to have brilliant playcalling to stop the opposing offense. No matter what we tried it really did not work well. I think our best success came from blitzing and we slowed that down this year.

fontaine

01-10-2007, 09:10 AM

The "I know you are but what am I" retort? Nice.

Yes, and it's still more credible than your tired old "let me take a shot at Shanahan" post in an unrelated thread.

Good to see you're still as consistent, and dull as dishwater though.

-Slap-

01-10-2007, 09:14 AM

Man-Goblin

01-10-2007, 09:21 AM

crazyhorse

01-10-2007, 09:23 AM

Yes, and it's still more credible than your tired old "let me take a shot at Shanahan" post in an unrelated thread.

Good to see you're still as consistent, and dull as dishwater though.

Not only was my post related, it was accurate.

As for your credibility, I'll take your word for it.

BroncoInferno

01-10-2007, 09:24 AM

Some people have specualted about how much pull Coyer had on personel decisions. Several comments in his statement lead me to believe that there may have been a difference of opinion on personel.

crazyhorse

01-10-2007, 09:26 AM

I'm still trying to figure out what this means from paragraph three...

Coyer: "However, I am not the person judging my decision to put all of game-planning efforts into the last three games while I was laying plans for changes I would like to see at season’s end or the decision to replace me."???

It's almost like a parting shot at Shanny but then he goes on to praise him in the next sentence. Weird.

It's his way of showing "leadership" while still showing Shanny the finger as he walks out the door. In short, he's saying it wasn't his fault but someone had to get the blame.

Rock Chalk

01-10-2007, 09:36 AM

I'm actually a bit pissed that he got fired whilst others retain their jobs or maybe it's early yet.

His Unit was No1 in the NFL until it lost Ferguson and Brandon never mind losing the best run defender we had in pre-season (C Brown). The Unit had to defend short fields all year because of one of the worst offenses in the League led by a player Mike Shanahan put his faith in for how many years???, and what about that super Special Teams Unit??? One of the worst punters/kick-off specialists in the league never mind the KR and PR teams who were terrible all season.

That defense didnt do the offense any favors forcing them to start inside our own 10 yard line more than twice as much as the next closest team. Why? Because of the bend but dont break and certainly dont allow them to go three and out, that makes it too easy on the offense that was already struggling.

Coyer was pretty quick to get the blame for nearly everything that happened with this Unit but in reality how much control did he have over it. Did he have any say whatsoever in incoming players via the draft and free-agency??? Maybe that's something people should consider before blaming him for the defense's decline in the latter part of 2006.
Coyer got the axe because once teams adjusted to a brilliant plan in the beginning, he just kept doing the same things and never made any noticeable changes. Whether he had any say or not doesnt change the fact that the defense WAS good, then got worse. Why? Teams figured HIM out and he didnt have any answers for their adjustments.

That will get you fired on almost every team in the NFL.

AtlantaBronco

01-10-2007, 09:37 AM

Coyer is right about the defense being put into short fields.

Anyone know what the opponet's average starting field position was during 2006? I'm willing to bet that thanks to special teams breakdowns, Plummer's INT's, and Bell's fumbles it was near the bottom of the league.

The big thing that I think got him fired was the defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd down.

Florida_Bronco

01-10-2007, 09:38 AM

Thank you, coach.

I wish you'd have gotten the guys you needed up front to complete your scheme. It worked great at the beginning of the season when the guys were fresh.

My sentiments exactly.

I have no doubt that Larry did everything he possibly could to make our defense the best it could be, and for that I salute him.

Billy Clyde Puckett

01-10-2007, 10:30 AM

Thanks to a classy coach who has been a credit to the Bronco organization.

Heard this morning that Patterson is also gone. Suspect several more changes to come.

Old Dude

01-10-2007, 10:34 AM

...
Coyer got the axe because once teams adjusted to a brilliant plan in the beginning, he just kept doing the same things and never made any noticeable changes. Whether he had any say or not doesnt change the fact that the defense WAS good, then got worse. Why? Teams figured HIM out and he didnt have any answers for their adjustments.

That will get you fired on almost every team in the NFL.

Alec makes a good point.

Before I get to that, I want to thank Coyer for all the hard work and for being a class guy in general. Best wishes to him.

I agree with some of the other points people have made. The defense was often put in tough situations by an inconsistent offense and horrible ST play. The odd thing is that the ST performances seemed to improve late in the season, as did the offense. So why the defensive troubles?

Injuries were a factor, no doubt, but the offense had to deal with as many or more. We lost both of our starting OTs for goodness sake.

You can look at particular positions on the D - LBs, or Safety, or whatever - and say there were some talent and development issues, but Coyer certainly had some say in the drafting & free agency decisions, and as well as in the development of younger players.

The main thing that stands out, especially from the second half of the season (but in seasons past, as well) is that the defense started with a certain scheme, and when offenses adjusted, our own adjustments were ineffective. Four times this year we lost at home while holding the lead at some point in the second half. And you can see the same thing happening on the season as a whole.

I don't think it was all just a matter of Coyer being unimaginative, too "old school" or rigid. It might have also had something to do with the way in which the defensive personnel have become so specialized. It seems like we tend to look for guys who do one or two things very well and focus on developing those particular skills to an even higher level, but when we have to adjust the style a bit, they really struggle. And I think that situation gets even worse when players start getting worn down in games, or by injuries as the season progresses.

I also think that this is one of the reasons why we had such a hard time vs. no huddle attacks. Highly specialized D's always struggle against those, and we were no exception.

At the end of the day, you have to have players who can stand out whatever the situation. Bailey is obviously one of those. Maybe Wilson and Lynch. But I just don't see too many "all-purpose" monsters back there. Instead, it seems like we have a bunch of situational guys - - which makes sense from a salary cap standpoint - but you eventually pay a price in terms of over-specialization.

Traveler

01-10-2007, 10:43 AM

Alec makes a good point.

Before I get to that, I want to thank Coyer for all the hard work and for being a class guy in general. Best wishes to him.

I agree with some of the other points people have made. The defense was often put in tough situations by an inconsistent offense and horrible ST play. The odd thing is that the ST performances seemed to improve late in the season, as did the offense. So why the defensive troubles?

Injuries were a factor, no doubt, but the offense had to deal with as many or more. We lost both of our starting OTs for goodness sake.

You can look at particular positions on the D - LBs, or Safety, or whatever - and say there were some talent and development issues, but Coyer certainly had some say in the drafting & free agency decisions, and as well as in the development of younger players.

The main thing that stands out, especially from the second half of the season (but in seasons past, as well) is that the defense started with a certain scheme, and when offenses adjusted, our own adjustments were ineffective. Four times this year we lost at home while holding the lead at some point in the second half. And you can see the same thing happening on the season as a whole.

I don't think it was all just a matter of Coyer being unimaginative, too "old school" or rigid. It might have also had something to do with the way in which the defensive personnel have become so specialized. It seems like we tend to look for guys who do one or two things very well and focus on developing those particular skills to an even higher level, but when we have to adjust the style a bit, they really struggle. And I think that situation gets even worse when players start getting worn down in games, or by injuries as the season progresses.

I also think that this is one of the reasons why we had such a hard time vs. no huddle attacks. Highly specialized D's always struggle against those, and we were no exception.

At the end of the day, you have to have players who can stand out whatever the situation. Bailey is obviously one of those. Maybe Wilson and Lynch. But I just don't see too many "all-purpose" monsters back there. Instead, it seems like we have a bunch of situational guys - - which makes sense from a salary cap standpoint - but you eventually pay a price in terms of over-specialization.

Great Post...rep!

Meck77

01-10-2007, 10:49 AM

Mile High Salute Mr. Coyer.... I agree with Taco on this one. I think had he had a chance to draft or get some REAL talent upfront instead of a "patch" job year after year things would have been different. Expectations are high in Denver and I believe someone had to take the fall.

Crazy to think there were Orange Crush comparisons early in the season for it to end up like this.

I guess someone had to take the fall. I tend to think this was more a talent issue than a coaching one myself.

fontaine

01-10-2007, 10:54 AM

At the end of the day, you have to have players who can stand out whatever the situation. Bailey is obviously one of those. Maybe Wilson and Lynch. But I just don't see too many "all-purpose" monsters back there. Instead, it seems like we have a bunch of situational guys - - which makes sense from a salary cap standpoint - but you eventually pay a price in terms of over-specialization.

I don't think it was intended to work out that way. When we signed Myers/Warren we got what we wanted. Two good DTs that could hold up against the run and Warren could collapse the pocket. Warren never really got up to game shape because he missed time in camp and when he did come back hurt his other foot which caused his conditioning to suffer.

In a three DT rotation where he was expected to play most if not all of the snaps it was inevitable he would wear down like he did. We did sign situational pass rushers like Dumervil/Lang but only as afterthoughts when we couldn't get Carter/Abraham.

The team is reaping exactly what it had sown. No real draft picks invested at DL or FAs or trades. And as a result we probably have one of the oldest starting DLs in the league so it's no wonder when we had an injury to our best DL in Warren the entire DL toppled like a house of cards and faded down the stretch when the depth is even worse.

Like I said in the offseason when this team invests in bargain basement defenders it doesn't deserve a good pass rush/DL.

We can all laugh at the chefs giving up two firsts for a huge bust like Sims but at least they kept at it and continued spending picks on DL until they found guys like Allen/Hali. In Dove valley it's almost taboo to spend a first day pick on DL and the FO routinely turns up their noses and maintain a holier than thou attitude of "well we didn't want to overpay for a DE" or "we didn't feel there was value in drafting" such and such DL in day one. Idiots.

Meanwhile we're expected to be ok with drafting a lazy Tackle with a handful of college games worth of experience who's now a bust, and reaching for some unkown WR in the 2nd round with nerve damage in one hand in a WR rich draft class who's out of the league now.

FantomForce

01-10-2007, 10:59 AM

Good luck coach

Cito Pelon

01-10-2007, 11:00 AM

Best of luck to Mr. Coyer & family.

I'd like to know what plans Coyer had, what hard changes he wanted. Apparently, Shanny didn't want to make those changes.

Dead Head

01-10-2007, 11:03 AM

Two things:

1) Special teams is terrible. What's so special about them? Nothing unless you have a the worst starting field position in the league counts as special. We need to hire someone that actually knows how to setup a blocking scheme that someone can run behind not against!

2) Offense just left too many 3 and outs on the field and it took 11 games before the change to Cutler happened.

Good luck Coach, you're a class act!

Sassy

01-10-2007, 11:04 AM

Best of Luck, Coach Coyer!

-Slap-

01-10-2007, 11:05 AM

We did sign situational pass rushers like Dumervil/Lang but only as afterthoughts when we couldn't get Carter/Abraham.

It should be noted, Dumervil/Lang totally outproduced Carter/Abraham this season.

bpc

01-10-2007, 11:07 AM

I respect the way he approached his job. He carried himself well as a Bronco.

We need a young fresh mind who can take advantage of the talent that we have. We have no identity as a defense now besides the fact that Champ Bailey plays for us. That needs to change.

spdirty

01-10-2007, 11:08 AM

Thanks Coyer. I always liked you personally, but have questioned your schemes at times.

Hopefully you get another job in the NFC and have success. If your in the AFC or AFC West, I wish you nothing but doom and gloom.

But I'll always like and appreciate you personally.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 11:10 AM

[QUOTE=rbackfactory80;1437684]

Well, it was tough. The linebackers are laughable as blitzers and we can't send Lynch all the time.

I know that Larry really wanted Takeo Spikes when he was available. Can you imagine this defense with DJ, Al, and Spikes?

BroncoInferno

01-10-2007, 11:12 AM

[QUOTE=-Slap-;1437688]

I know that Larry really wanted Takeo Spikes when he was available. Can you imagine this defense with Gold, Al, and Spikes?

Fixed it for you. ;D

jonny1

01-10-2007, 11:14 AM

"For those who gave all they were capable of giving I can ask no more. As the season wore down they were injured and when some could not play others came in to try and fill the gaps. To them I say ‘thank you’ and to those who gave their best."

""I’m grateful to those on my staff who gave their all and they know who they are."

Interesting that he infers that there were players and coaches who maybe didn't give their all . . . .

fontaine

01-10-2007, 11:15 AM

It should be noted, Dumervil/Lang totally outproduced Carter/Abraham this season.

Sure, I'm glad they did. But it's a syndrome rather than a once off approach.

And after numerous wasted project picks like Hunt, Eason, Mitchell, Davis, it was only a matter of time before we drafted a decent one in Dumervil who only started playing because someone at DL got hurt. If that doesn't happen then Dumervil wouldn't have played given that he's not on ST and they tried everything in their power to screw up his development by putting him at DT!

Same with Lang. After years of Luther Ellis, Kavika Pittman, Keith Washington, Marco Coleman, Elis Johnson, etc etc a bargain basement old timer finally pans out.

For what it's worth though, Lang will be 32 next season while Abraham/Carter still might produce for the next 4/5 years barring injury.

I have no problem with signing guys like Lang/Dumervil. But you do it like the Ravens did when they already committed to guys like Suggs, Kelly Gregg, Adalius Thomas to their DL and added a vet like Pryce and then again Ngata to the equation. And now their defense is once again one of the best in the league.

Steve Prefontaine

01-10-2007, 11:16 AM

Good luck Coyer but...

I'm glad he is done as the DC. I think the defense underachieved this year becuase of Coyer's schemes and adjustments.

He is much better suited as a position coach.

Mediator12

01-10-2007, 11:25 AM

I think that speaks volumes about Larry Coyer as a person. It wouldn't surprise me if the person he was referencing was a handicapped person who was hired by the organization in a custodial capacity. The custodian in my office building is such an individual. Most people walk past him like he's a potted plant.

I feel bad for Larry. Robinson had run his course and the Rhodes/Shanahan partnership seemed doomed from the start, but Larry Coyer was a Bronco through and through.

I might have had some philosophical differences, but I think Larry's hands were tied in a lot of ways, too. Nobody constructs a bend-but-don't-break defense voluntarily. You have to have the horses to attack and when you play that style without them, you get absolutely destroyed.

Once Shanahan decided to slow down the offense two years ago, it only made sense to install a safety first defense. If you know your offense has almost no ability for quick strikes, its stupid to put your defense in a position where they can give up a lot of big plays.

The performance of the defense in the first six weeks of this season is one of the few things, besides the rookie class, that I'll remember with pride about this season. Those guys had their backs against the wall every week, with practically no margin for error, and they stood tall.

Good luck to Larry and his family. He's a class man and its been our great fortune to have him in Denver.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/5511/coyerlarry041104nx0.jpg

This is what no one here has ever understood from a strategic point of view Slap. No one has a clue what happened in off season discussions about scheme changes that were forced, personnel decisions, and gameplanning/ adjustments. No one here has the slightest clue of why this scheme was run this year and who made that decision. You alone have had the insight to come as close as you have in that one bolded statement.

The field position issue stems from our DL personnel pure and simple. In 2003 and 2004, the Defense in a similar scheme as 2006 finished top 4 in yards surrendered and third down conversion percentage. Those DL's were not great by any means, but they performed at an average to above average level. What happened in 2005? DL firesale from CLE.

In 2005 and 2006, the Defense finished 15th and 16th in yards allowed. They started having trouble with third down conversions, especially in third and short for the first time. In 2005, they switched scheme's midseason to reflect the inability of the DL to get pressure on the QB and execute the scheme. Then, they became much more efficient on defense in order to get to 13-3. In 2006, they were were pretty much ordered to go back to a variation of the original scheme as the offense adjusted to the new offensive changes.

So, knowing that this team has no ability to play from behind, gameplanning became the utmost priority. And no DC has done it better than Coyer over the last four years. This defense has been #1 in first drive, 1st quarter, and 1st half points allowed over the four years he was here. The second half troubles stem from one thing alone defensively. No consistent pass rush versus decent offensive teams. In 2003 and 2004, this was not a problem until facing Peyton mannin in the dome. The amount of second half defensive collapses was minimal compared to the last two years.

Despite two scheme shifts during the season and numerous adjustments, people ONLY saw the results and not the changes. There are people still saying they did the same things all year and that is simply not true. No one does the exact same thing game to game, let alone every game all year. DEN did not play the same way versus any of the AFC west Opponents twice. They played a whole new scheme against SEA and were totally successful until Warren KO'd Wilson late in the fourth. There is no reason they should not have won that game going away.

DEN lost three of those five games down the stretch from offensive ineptitude and not defense, but do you see anyone on offense or ST's being held accountable? No. Those are Shanahan's friends.

One last thing and I have to go for awhile, people who are calling Coyer a yes man could not be further from the Truth. He was fired because he demanded that Shanahan upgrade the DL and Coaches the last two years after the CLE guys came to DEN. He knew there is not enough talent along the DL to scheme a good Defense. Shanahan does not want to admit the CLE moves have been failures and still believes there is talent there despite the lack of obvious results and poor grades for two years running. That is where the difference of opinon is.

bendog

01-10-2007, 11:52 AM

Drafting DJ instead of Will Smith.

Putting the cap into linebackers instead of dline.

If you want to go cheap on dline, you run a 3-4

Who's misjudgments?

But, you look at the talent from 97-98 compared to now, and it isn't pretty.

If it's slowak, we'll know for sure, cause Jim Moraloser Jr will blow up if he's not given attacking tools.

baja

01-10-2007, 12:07 PM

This is what no one here has ever understood from a strategic point of view Slap. No one has a clue what happened in off season discussions about scheme changes that were forced, personnel decisions, and gameplanning/ adjustments. No one here has the slightest clue of why this scheme was run this year and who made that decision. You alone have had the insight to come as close as you have in that one bolded statement.

The field position issue stems from our DL personnel pure and simple. In 2003 and 2004, the Defense in a similar scheme as 2006 finished top 4 in yards surrendered and third down conversion percentage. Those DL's were not great by any means, but they performed at an average to above average level. What happened in 2005? DL firesale from CLE.

In 2005 and 2006, the Defense finished 15th and 16th in yards allowed. They started having trouble with third down conversions, especially in third and short for the first time. In 2005, they switched scheme's midseason to reflect the inability of the DL to get pressure on the QB and execute the scheme. Then, they became much more efficient on defense in order to get to 13-3. In 2006, they were were pretty much ordered to go back to a variation of the original scheme as the offense adjusted to the new offensive changes.

So, knowing that this team has no ability to play from behind, gameplanning became the utmost priority. And no DC has done it better than Coyer over the last four years. This defense has been #1 in first drive, 1st quarter, and 1st half points allowed over the four years he was here. The second half troubles stem from one thing alone defensively. No consistent pass rush versus decent offensive teams. In 2003 and 2004, this was not a problem until facing Peyton mannin in the dome. The amount of second half defensive collapses was minimal compared to the last two years.

Despite two scheme shifts during the season and numerous adjustments, people ONLY saw the results and not the changes. There are people still saying they did the same things all year and that is simply not true. No one does the exact same thing game to game, let alone every game all year. DEN did not play the same way versus any of the AFC west Opponents twice. They played a whole new scheme against SEA and were totally successful until Warren KO'd Wilson late in the fourth. There is no reason they should not have won that game going away.

DEN lost three of those five games down the stretch from offensive ineptitude and not defense, but do you see anyone on offense or ST's being held accountable? No. Those are Shanahan's friends.

One last thing and I have to go for awhile, people who are calling Coyer a yes man could not be further from the Truth. <b> He was fired because he demanded that Shanahan upgrade the DL and Coaches the last two years after the CLE guys came to DEN. He knew there is not enough talent along the DL to scheme a good Defense. Shanahan does not want to admit the CLE moves have been failures and still believes there is talent there despite the lack of obvious results and poor grades for two years running. That is where the difference of opinon is.</b>

Wow I love your posts Med, always very informative but wouldn't that be a very basic oversight by Shanahan who is considered a top coach league wide?

smalltowngrll

01-10-2007, 01:36 PM

Thanks for all you've done here, Coach! I'm sad to see you go! :(

bendog

01-10-2007, 01:52 PM

Just a thought, passing thought, but this guy would be tailor made for some college like the Univ of Wyo's football team. I know Joe Glenn's in in Laramie, and no dissing him, but some program like UWyo where recruiting is less of the job than teaching/coaching, and where a team has no illusions of winning a championship, but rather the issue is overachieving to get a bowl invitation.

Here's the guy who pulled the pokes out after the Erickson et al departures, when it was like we were the launching pad for big jobs.

Roach was a hoot. He'd be bumming smokes from reporters, just a no **** down to earth guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Roach_(coach)

Mediator12

01-10-2007, 02:23 PM

Wow I love your posts Med, always very informative but wouldn't that be a very basic oversight by Shanahan who is considered a top coach league wide?

Everyone has weaknesses baja. Shanahan has consistently underrated the Line play in the NFL. He gets undersized guys to play well in the Zone blocking OL scheme and thinks the DL can get by with just average joes manning the Trenches there too. Two first day DL draft picks since Trevor Pryce and when Heyward was developed he let him go. No real acquisition's worth noting on the DL since Gardener took him to school in FA.

The Philosophy as a whole has not produced one great defense in Shanahan's tenure, only good to moderately good one's. In fact, Shanahan would rather die than have the defense be better than HIS offense consistently. The Mastermind has a pretty good ego and the fact the defense was garnering a lot of media attention early while the Offense was being laughed at by the media on a daily basis really pissed him off. Notice how all the media gave credit to Shanahan for the defenses surprise dominance and not Coyer? It's his team and he runs it HOW HE WANTS.

Popps

01-10-2007, 02:26 PM

Coyer will land somewhere. Seems like a guy maybe more suited for position coaching, but who knows. I absolutely agree that he never had the horses up front, but that's another story for another thread.

Very likable guy, and I think this will ultimately be best for both parties.

SoCalBronco

01-10-2007, 02:28 PM

I wish all the best to Coach Coyer. He worked very hard here for us and did his best with the players he was given. He did a damn good job. I don't agree with Shanny's decision, but unfortunately whats done is done. I hope he catches on as a DC with another club (preferably Washington, who pay their coordinators and asst. head coaches very well) very soon.

Thanks for all of your work, Coach. It is much appreciated.

Jetmeck

01-10-2007, 02:33 PM

Classy. Coyer is a really great guy. Sorry it didn't work out. He's a good man.

Very true. But I'd take a guy who is an ass if he gets the job done. Gibbs was a dick per the players but he got results. Sometimes that is the type of guy needed.

I am not saying Coyer had a great D-line but they showed they could get it done, just not consistently. Besides a lack of talent what I am saying is there was also a lack of motivation.

Billy Clyde Puckett

01-10-2007, 02:35 PM

Florida_Bronco

01-10-2007, 02:36 PM

This is what no one here has ever understood from a strategic point of view Slap. No one has a clue what happened in off season discussions about scheme changes that were forced, personnel decisions, and gameplanning/ adjustments. No one here has the slightest clue of why this scheme was run this year and who made that decision. You alone have had the insight to come as close as you have in that one bolded statement.

The field position issue stems from our DL personnel pure and simple. In 2003 and 2004, the Defense in a similar scheme as 2006 finished top 4 in yards surrendered and third down conversion percentage. Those DL's were not great by any means, but they performed at an average to above average level. What happened in 2005? DL firesale from CLE.

In 2005 and 2006, the Defense finished 15th and 16th in yards allowed. They started having trouble with third down conversions, especially in third and short for the first time. In 2005, they switched scheme's midseason to reflect the inability of the DL to get pressure on the QB and execute the scheme. Then, they became much more efficient on defense in order to get to 13-3. In 2006, they were were pretty much ordered to go back to a variation of the original scheme as the offense adjusted to the new offensive changes.

So, knowing that this team has no ability to play from behind, gameplanning became the utmost priority. And no DC has done it better than Coyer over the last four years. This defense has been #1 in first drive, 1st quarter, and 1st half points allowed over the four years he was here. The second half troubles stem from one thing alone defensively. No consistent pass rush versus decent offensive teams. In 2003 and 2004, this was not a problem until facing Peyton mannin in the dome. The amount of second half defensive collapses was minimal compared to the last two years.

Despite two scheme shifts during the season and numerous adjustments, people ONLY saw the results and not the changes. There are people still saying they did the same things all year and that is simply not true. No one does the exact same thing game to game, let alone every game all year. DEN did not play the same way versus any of the AFC west Opponents twice. They played a whole new scheme against SEA and were totally successful until Warren KO'd Wilson late in the fourth. There is no reason they should not have won that game going away.

DEN lost three of those five games down the stretch from offensive ineptitude and not defense, but do you see anyone on offense or ST's being held accountable? No. Those are Shanahan's friends.

One last thing and I have to go for awhile, people who are calling Coyer a yes man could not be further from the Truth. He was fired because he demanded that Shanahan upgrade the DL and Coaches the last two years after the CLE guys came to DEN. He knew there is not enough talent along the DL to scheme a good Defense. Shanahan does not want to admit the CLE moves have been failures and still believes there is talent there despite the lack of obvious results and poor grades for two years running. That is where the difference of opinon is.

So basically what I'm getting from this post is that Coyer was let go due to the fact that he demanded that the one weakness on the defense be upgraded? That means we're losing the man responsible for making the defense as good as it was and we're still probably not gonna get a better D-line?

Great. Just f'in great.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 02:39 PM

Everyone has weaknesses baja. Shanahan has consistently underrated the Line play in the NFL. He gets undersized guys to play well in the Zone blocking OL scheme and thinks the DL can get by with just average joes manning the Trenches there too. Two first day DL draft picks since Trevor Pryce and when Heyward was developed he let him go. No real acquisition's worth noting on the DL since Gardener took him to school in FA.

The Philosophy as a whole has not produced one great defense in Shanahan's tenure, only good to moderately good one's. In fact, Shanahan would rather die than have the defense be better than HIS offense consistently. The Mastermind has a pretty good ego and the fact the defense was garnering a lot of media attention early while the Offense was being laughed at by the media on a daily basis really pissed him off. Notice how all the media gave credit to Shanahan for the defenses surprise dominance and not Coyer? It's his team and he runs it HOW HE WANTS.

You are going to get some argument on that point, though I agree 100%. Our Superbowl defense benefitted greatly by an offense that could take the other team out of their game plan, and make them a one dimensional passing team... That's not to say our defenses then didn't deliver key wins in the playoffs, because they surely did. But going into the Revenge Tour, Broncos fans were skittish on how our defense would do thanks to the earlier Jacksonville playoff loss, but also the late season stumble that cost us the Division, and a critical game against the Steelers.

I don't think we're going to see the huge push to get the kind of players up front that people here are hoping for. First, there aren't a whole lot of those types available out there. Second, the firing of Coyer tells us that Shanahan saw the coaching to be the problem more than the personnell... Which I strongly disagree with.

I guess we'll see. If Shanahan thinks that the DLINE is as big a problem as we think it is on the forums, you'd think he'd make every effort to target the number one FA on the market, Freeney, while using the first round pick on a Dlineman.

Jetmeck

01-10-2007, 02:40 PM

Thus, my opinion that Broncos will give Cutler more weapons (RB and WR) in the draft as opposed to concentrating on the DL where all of us amatures feel he should concentrate.

If he drafts offense first unless there is some once in a lifetime deal on the board at our spot he has seriously lost that MASTERMIND title to me.

bendog

01-10-2007, 02:49 PM

You are going to get some argument on that point, though I agree 100%. Our Superbowl defense benefitted greatly by an offense that could take the other team out of their game plan, and make them a one dimensional passing team... That's not to say our defenses then didn't deliver key wins in the playoffs, because they surely did. But going into the Revenge Tour, Broncos fans were skittish on how our defense would do thanks to the earlier Jacksonville playoff loss, but also the late season stumble that cost us the Division, and a critical game against the Steelers.

I don't think we're going to see the huge push to get the kind of players up front that people here are hoping for. First, there aren't a whole lot of those types available out there. Second, the firing of Coyer tells us that Shanahan saw the coaching to be the problem more than the personnell... Which I strongly disagree with.

I guess we'll see. If Shanahan thinks that the DLINE is as big a problem as we think it is on the forums, you'd think he'd make every effort to target the number one FA on the market, Freeney, while using the first round pick on a Dlineman.

The 97 defense was largely inherited, though they fired MD Perry after Jax and brought in N. Smith after the chorfs cast him aside. Plus, there were no no 1 picks by Den on that line, though A. Williams had been a first rounder by Cinny, as I recall.

Also, I thought the story was that GRobinson had a big role in personnel. I don't know about Coyers input, but ending up with Ian and DJ isn't good, ubt not all something anyone had control over, as Gold signed the bogus contract with TB coming off the knee. It was a one year deal, in reality, though Gold's idiot agent didn't tell him that, apparantly. So with no speed at OLB, they take DJ. And then have the opportunity to take Ian back at a reduced price the nest year ....

But, Med is totally on target with the notion that Shanny undervalues dline. He's said so himself in letting guys go and passing on less than top tier FAs.

BroncoInferno

01-10-2007, 02:51 PM

I don't think we're going to see the huge push to get the kind of players up front that people here are hoping for. First, there aren't a whole lot of those types available out there. Second, the firing of Coyer tells us that Shanahan saw the coaching to be the problem more than the personnell... Which I strongly disagree with.

I guess we'll see. If Shanahan thinks that the DLINE is as big a problem as we think it is on the forums, you'd think he'd make every effort to target the number one FA on the market, Freeney, while using the first round pick on a Dlineman.

I think it depends on who he brings in, Taco. If he gets Bates, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't take his input to heart and try to get him what he wants if feasible. Furthermore, I doubt a coveted guy like Bates would even accept the position without assurances that Shanny would take his advice on personnel seriously. Now, if it's an in-house promotion like Slowik, then you may well be right.

eddie mac

01-10-2007, 03:07 PM

[QUOTE=-Slap-;1437688]

I know that Larry really wanted Takeo Spikes when he was available. Can you imagine this defense with DJ, Al, and Spikes?

My point exactly in that was Larry allowed to pursue the players he wanted and not take the cast-offs Shanahan chose i.e Ian Gold.

Mediator12

01-10-2007, 03:07 PM

This cracks me up on the conventional wisdom of this board:

"Coach Coyer believed in blitzing a lot," Broncos defensive tackle Michael Myers said. "There were some games where I thought we got away from our base defense in the second half, and started blitzing more. And I think we had key injuries, especially at safety, where it took a lot away with what we liked to do as a whole."

Yeah, they were definitely running the same stuff in those second halves ;D

Popps

01-10-2007, 03:12 PM

One last thing and I have to go for awhile, people who are calling Coyer a yes man could not be further from the Truth. He was fired because he demanded that Shanahan upgrade the DL and Coaches the last two years after the CLE guys came to DEN. He knew there is not enough talent along the DL to scheme a good Defense. Shanahan does not want to admit the CLE moves have been failures and still believes there is talent there despite the lack of obvious results and poor grades for two years running. That is where the difference of opinon is.

Didn't he just fire Patterson, the guy who brought in all of his Browns buddies? Seems to me like he's perfectly willing to admit the Browncos experiment was a mistake.

Popps

01-10-2007, 03:16 PM

As for Larry not being allowed to get the guys he wanted, there's been a lot of conflicting info on that front.

But, let's put it like this... you can't have it both ways. You can't say he wasn't a yes man, but he also couldn't get any players he wanted. He either had clout or he didn't.

Beyond that, after four years of dismal big-game failures, you need to make changes. We've made changes almost everywhere else over that period. Particularly when you're talking about coaching, because I truly believe after a number of years failing... guys top buying into what you're doing to an extent.

A guy like Bates at least brings in a fresh approach and perhaps renewed respect.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 03:23 PM

As for Larry not being allowed to get the guys he wanted, there's been a lot of conflicting info on that front.

But, let's put it like this... you can't have it both ways. You can't say he wasn't a yes man, but he also couldn't get any players he wanted. He either had clout or he didn't.

Personally, I think that you think that you understand more than you actually do. This whole construct you've invented of "clout" doesn't really jive with reality. It doesn't matter how much clout you have when the bottom line is the salary cap. In the end, the person making the decisions is Shanahan and Sundquist, and they're not making their decisions with a clout chart. They're looking at dollars and sense.

Kaylore

01-10-2007, 03:26 PM

As for Larry not being allowed to get the guys he wanted, there's been a lot of conflicting info on that front.

But, let's put it like this... you can't have it both ways. You can't say he wasn't a yes man, but he also couldn't get any players he wanted. He either had clout or he didn't.

Why does it have to be those two things? Either a yes man or he couldn't get the players he wanted? Those aren't even two sides to the same coin.

Coordinators have to play cards with the hand they're dealt. They can ask the dealer for new ones, but ultimately you play with what you have. I have talked to more than a few people to know for a fact that the D-line was a regular gripe of Coyer's. If a bunch of people here can see it, why wouldn't he be able to?

Would you just let this go? At least don't beat that drum on this thread. The guy is gone and it is time to say goodbye and move on.

Mediator12

01-10-2007, 03:27 PM

Didn't he just fire Patterson, the guy who brought in all of his Browns buddies? Seems to me like he's perfectly willing to admit the Browncos experiment was a mistake.

That would be Scapegoat number two for the CLE DL. Coyer and Patterson could not put them in position to make plays, but they are good enough if given the right coaching.

Patterson did not bring in the CLE guys, Sundquist and Shanahan did. And I will Confirm that Coyer had minimal input into Specific personnel. He recommended that they upgrade positions, but did not get to decide who those players should be or where they would come. The CLE upgrades were a joke and they were even worse without a healthy Brown and Trevor Pryce in BAL.

Stop the wishful thinking, Coyer is gone for calling their performance out.

BroncoInferno

01-10-2007, 03:27 PM

Personally, I think that you think that you understand more than you actually do. This whole construct you've invented of "clout" doesn't really jive with reality. It doesn't matter how much clout you have when the bottom line is the salary cap. In the end, the person making the decisions is Shanahan and Sundquist, and they're not making their decisions with a clout chart. They're looking at dollars and sense.

I have to agree here. If you make your wants known you aren't a yes-man just because you don't get what you asked for. A yes-man just keeps his mouth shut if he knows whats good for him and is just happy to have a job. It's easy for Coyer to say, 'Go get me Takeo Spikes' or whoever, and Shanny may be willing to oblige, but if the cap gets in the way you have to try something else. I don't think Coyer was a yes-man at all.

listopencil

01-10-2007, 03:32 PM

Too bad, Coyer was an upgrade in a recent history of flops at DC. If the FO doesn't have someone in mind right now to replace him then this move was incredibly stupid. This reminds me of a 2 year old sitting in a high chair throwing food at the wall because none of it tastes quite good enough. I just don't want to hear the temper tantrum when nothing is left on the plate but brussel sprouts.

bendog

01-10-2007, 03:33 PM

I think G.Robinson and Rhodes got to call some shots. And, I dont' think DJ is drafted or Ian comes back w/o Coyers ok. But, like I said, those moves are understandable.

But if shanny doesn't address the dline it's gonna be a lot of the same.

The more I think of it, the less concerned about TB I get.

MBell is pretty slow, but he can get a little bigger,and he did break some 20-30 yd runs. Tater's a good change of pace guy. The whole "running back by committee" thing is sort of a joke, because if a guy AVERAGES 20 totes for 16 games, that's 320 carries, which is plenty. A team really needs 3 competent TB's to institute Shanny's offense ... unless one of them's TD. But bottom line the TB's were actually more explosive with the loss of MA and addition of MB. and Nash just looks right for the scheme, assuming his attitude's ok. I think cobbs is a misery magnet though.

Anyway, the oline was a lot of the running game's problems. It'd be nice to get a fullback line Neal though.

Dline and working the oline. ... and finding a corner )-:

shakenbake

01-10-2007, 03:36 PM

let me be the first to say, I don't understand the complexity of NFL defenses. The only thing I have to go on is what I percive on the field. I don't have the camera angles to determine what coverage is being run ect. My biggest beef with Coyer is the seemingly same game plan against the Colts in consecutive years. Sure it had its moments when it worked (first half this season) but over all the game plan sucked. We had a simular result against the Chargers in the second half of a game this year. He may be a decent game planner and a great guy, but it seemed like when things started to go bad, he wasn't able to make the call to stop the bleeding. It was like once the other team figured it out, there was no way to stop them. How many times did Champ Baily save our ass this year by just making a play. It could have been much worse. How many times did D-will (god bless his soul) have to be beat on a simple out pattern? It was the same thing over and over and over and Coyer didn't make an ajustment to help him out.

Rock Chalk

01-10-2007, 03:43 PM

Hey, this just in, Coyer and Patterson were canned. our defense has ALREADY been upgraded.

As for Shanny and Sundquist bringin in the browncos. You think they bring those guys in without Patterson telling them how good they could be in teh right system?

So, it wasnt the right system in Denver, it wasnt in Cleveland. Brown cant stay healthy, Warren cant stay motivated from play to play. Those guys were busts and it doesnt matter the system. Patterson and Coyer had two full years to put them in a system that would work for their so-called talents. They failed or Patterson was wrong and they really do suck. Either way, Patterson absolutely deserved to be fired.

Since neiter Shanny nor Sundquist know everything about every player, and Patterson had worked with those guys in the past, it makes sense that they would take into account what Patterson said about them. If Patterson said they were good, Shanny and Sundquist believed him. Afterall, you gotta trust your staff right to help make you look good right? Or does the boss man have to do everything? Thats not how it works in any job Ive ever been in.

Im so ecstatic about those two being gone you have no idea. What it means is that what me and a handful of other intelligent posters have been screaming about for 2 years is FINALLY being addressed.

bendog

01-10-2007, 03:50 PM

I have to agree here. If you make your wants known you aren't a yes-man just because you don't get what you asked for. A yes-man just keeps his mouth shut if he knows whats good for him and is just happy to have a job. It's easy for Coyer to say, 'Go get me Takeo Spikes' or whoever, and Shanny may be willing to oblige, but if the cap gets in the way you have to try something else. I don't think Coyer was a yes-man at all.

I don't think popps called coyer a 'yes man.' Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the firing. There have been some personnel mistakes - drafting DJ and signing IHOP to name two - but while coyer may have had impact on at least the former, the call was not his ultimately. I think that was popps pt. The imput may be shared, but shanny makes the call.

I don't know so much about shanny's "ego." OF course he's got one, all nfl coaches do. But, he's managed to get along with some high profile DC's before; guys who are a lot more ego driven than Coyer seems to be.

I don't think it has to do with the quality of coaching. I'll buy Med's thinking that coyer came out week in week out with a scheme to shut it down in the first quarter. But in the Pitts game last year, Foxworth played soft all game long. Champ and wilson came close to blowing it open early on, but the plays were just not there. But we never found an answer for the extra blocker. Of course, the entire offense didn't show up to play ... which is why shanny got a new QB. Blaming the defense for that game is lame. As for Payaton, shanny cannot be the only person watching football to NOT know pass rush beats payaton.

I'll offer a guess that, imo, shows everyone is right. I think everyone. Coyers a good coach. Shanny does undervalue dline, in that he doesn't pay market price for decentbutnotprobowl DEs, but he'll bring in head cases with lots of talent. For two, three years, it's been grating at Coyer. But, from shanny's pov, he's gotten an old linebacker coach linebackers to coach, and but for a weird deal with Ian going to TB, we'd have another good dlineman. And he traded the best offensive talent we had for Champ.

Natedogg

01-10-2007, 04:00 PM

I think Shanahan just made a big mistake. That is the first time I have ever posted something like that. I think that Coyer was a better DC than post-Elway Robinson, and Ray Rhodes (although RR is very well loved in Seattle these days).

I agree with Snakebitten, I cannot diagnose an NFL defense's ailments. But I do think that keeping Coyer in the driver's seat with upgrades, and some halftime tweaks by Shannahan (as the papers reported he did with Robinson and Rhoes) is a better option that cleaning house and starting over or hiring Slowick.

I would love to hear what Al Wilson has to say about this move as I consider him the true heart of the D. I bet he doesn't like it. My two cents is that Denver's D is bound to get worse before it gets better. That's a pitty, becuase if we would have kept the status quo we would have had some draft picks and FA money to use as "bandaids" for an already top tier D. Couple that with an offence which could score 30 points sometimes.

Finally can TJ, Alec, Kaylore or any other of the "lsacred 6" explain why the FACK Bradford was not canned? His ST production seemed to me to be eons below Coyer's D.

Cito Pelon

01-10-2007, 04:34 PM

Barry Ramey

01-10-2007, 05:15 PM

I still don't understand how people can think Coyer was going a good job and at the same time, say the DL was bad. If the DL was bad, then why didn't we see more blitzing this year? I don't mean like in years past where it was done so often teams knew when it was coming and could prepare for it. I mean, if nothing else, as a changeup at least.

But it seems like people saying Coyer just needed a DL to work his schemes, which was I guess get great pressure with the front four and play soft zones. Well, are there that many teams out there that really get good pressure with just their front four? But IMO, if you're a good coach, you scheme with the players you have. They weren't strong on the DL, then makes no sense to me thinking you just rush your front four 80% of the time and give QB's all day to throw to wide open receivers in soft zones. Sure, can work with the offenses that struggle at QB or in their passing game in general, but good passing teams just ate that right up.

DomCasual

01-10-2007, 05:31 PM

The "I know you are but what am I" retort? Nice.

What's your point? Are you saying that you agree with my original statement?

No offense or anything - really! - but you are such a weasly little prick. Seriously, your whole purpose is to irritate people. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a weasly little prick?

24champ

01-10-2007, 06:05 PM

Coyer is a nice guy and the players like him. However this isn't a popularity contest and I won't miss him and hope he catches on with another team as a position coach which he is good at.

I still don't understand how people can think Coyer was going a good job and at the same time, say the DL was bad. If the DL was bad, then why didn't we see more blitzing this year? I don't mean like in years past where it was done so often teams knew when it was coming and could prepare for it. I mean, if nothing else, as a changeup at least.

What I don't understand is some people making a bunch excuses for the guy as if he did nothing wrong and is not held responsible for the defense lapses this year? Glad he is gone, time to up the ante on the defense and get some real players.

Bronx33

01-10-2007, 06:16 PM

Special teams didn't do Coyer any favors.

Left him in the hole/bad field position more times than bob whacks the weasel.

crazyhorse

01-10-2007, 06:22 PM

No offense or anything - really! - but you are such a weasly little prick. Seriously, your whole purpose is to irritate people. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a weasly little prick?

Would you feel better if I told you I have been working to fix that?

DomCasual

01-10-2007, 07:44 PM

Would you feel better if I told you I have been working to fix that?

Maybe a little, I guess. It would give me hope for your future, and the future of the children.

watermock

01-10-2007, 07:50 PM

It's really hard for me to believe that Coyer was here 7 years.

Coyer was an honorable man handcuffed with injuries and marginal talent on the DL. HOWEVER, as was mentioned, we couldn't hold a lead in many of our losses. IMO, when it was time to send the house late in games, Coyer would go into a soft zone like he had a 10 point lead instead of just 7 or even 3.

The answer is pretty obvious...FEAR...but sometimes you have to play riverboat gambler than just roll over like a puppy. It's hard to know how Coyer would of played his cards with a better DL and someone other than Lynch that knows how to blitz.

It's been a pretty shiatty start to the new year.

Popps

01-10-2007, 07:51 PM

Personally, I think that you think that you understand more than you actually do.

Well, coming from one of the least accurate posters on the board, I won't sweat that much. Oh, wait... someone told you Coyer was getting released, never mind. You must have a good grip on football.

Ha!

It doesn't matter how much clout you have when the bottom line is the salary cap. In the end, the person making the decisions is Shanahan and Sundquist

Only further proving how little you must have paid attention to this team during his tenure. Robinson ran this defense when he got to town. It was well documented that Shanahan WANTED a hands-off approach so he could concentrate on the defense. Why? Robinson came in with clout. (Or whatever word doesn't confuse you.) Even Elway was credited with convincing Shanahan to bring one of our most important defensive players to town.

So, you worry less about the rest of us and more about improving your comprehension of the game.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 08:11 PM

Robinson came in with clout?

I stand by my earlier statement.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 08:12 PM

I think it does say something that it took Elway lobbying for Neil Smith.

epicSocialism4tw

01-10-2007, 08:22 PM

I'm not trying to get into a debate about it in this thread. I'm just trying to show my support for a coach that I'm a fan of.

Thank goodness you were that classy about Jake Plummer.

-Slap-

01-10-2007, 08:34 PM

I don't know so much about shanny's "ego." OF course he's got one, all nfl coaches do. But, he's managed to get along with some high profile DC's before; guys who are a lot more ego driven than Coyer seems to be.

That's not necessarily true. Shanahan and Rhodes butted heads. I know the group think on this board believes Ray is a drooling moron (much like the way Kubiak was portrayed), but he's had a very long and successful NFL career.

Greg Robinson had limited autonomy, but he basically did whatever he was told. Proof of that was the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XXXII. Everybody has seen the footage of him asking Shanahan how he wants to finish the game out and Shanny tells him to stick with the gameplan.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 09:01 PM

Thank goodness you were that classy about Jake Plummer.

You won't see me bashing him during his farewell thread.

Popps

01-10-2007, 09:14 PM

Robinson came in with clout?

I stand by my earlier statement.

Just do a little homework. Shanahan CHOSE to take a hands-off approach, as he wanted to focus on re-vamping the offense. He trusted Robinson in that capacity. Either he's changed as a human being (which is entirely possible) or he didn't have full confidence in Coyer.

He did things one way with Robinson and it was widely reported to be that way. He's done things ANOTHER way (according to you and others) with Coyer.

So, no matter how you want to confuse yourself on this issue, the facts are what they are. Most of us tried to explain this to you a long time ago when you were busy twisting Coyer having a 5 rating (out of 10) as "average."

Hopefully the last poll and his firing cleared it up for you... but that's no sure thing.

wesbecca

01-10-2007, 10:40 PM

Patterson? Dumb. How could Shanny allow himself to be misled so badly? Larry Coyer? Peter Principle.

Mediator12

01-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Just do a little homework. Shanahan CHOSE to take a hands-off approach, as he wanted to focus on re-vamping the offense. He trusted Robinson in that capacity. Either he's changed as a human being (which is entirely possible) or he didn't have full confidence in Coyer.

He did things one way with Robinson and it was widely reported to be that way. He's done things ANOTHER way (according to you and others) with Coyer.

So, no matter how you want to confuse yourself on this issue, the facts are what they are. Most of us tried to explain this to you a long time ago when you were busy twisting Coyer having a 5 rating (out of 10) as "average."

Hopefully the last poll and his firing cleared it up for you... but that's no sure thing.

You actually have it very backward.

Shanahan was very involved in the Robinson and Rhodes gameplanning and was hands off in the Coyer gameplanning. Ray Rhodes and Shanahan were like oil and vinegar and he had Head coaching "clout". Personalities and trust have more to do with the approach than anything else. Mike was very hands on early in DEN with Greg and he did not trust Rhodes gameplanning very much. Once Coyer took over he stopped even being concerned with the gameplanning aspects of the defense. He spent most of his time trying to work with Plummer and the detiorating offense.

As for the personnel issues, Mike has never trusted anyone but himself to select the players. It is written in his contract. Unfortunately, he does not have the Belicheck backround to help him on defense and has made more than his share of defensive blunders in FA and the Draft. He considers opinions, but in the end he makes all final decisions. Greg never had direct selection of his staff or personnel responsibilities. He just had a good relationship with Mike. He used that to leverage what he wanted most of the time, but he never had the authority to make it happen himself.

Taco John

01-10-2007, 10:46 PM

Popps

01-10-2007, 11:54 PM

Like I said, I think that you think that you understand more than you actually do. .

Right, and I've explained it an simple English backed with a factual account of both coaches.

But, feel free to keep repeating the same thing. Maybe it will become truth?

But if you're here to tell us that Shanahan took a hands off approach to defensive personnell during the Robinson era.

I'm telling you that besides the MDP signing, he did and the facts are out there. Not that we should expect you to be troubled with those pesky facts.

but you're missing very fundamental things here that anyone who has been following the guy for any amount of time should have complete command of.
.

No, I absolutely understand his coaching history with us, and followed him closely when I lived in SF before he coached with us. I've watched him closely for over 15 years. I absolutely understand him. Apparently someone told you someone was going to be fired, and you assume that gives you some kind of insight.

I have no idea what you're talking about and don't think you do either.

That's because I'm dealing in facts, and you're talking about "psychology," among other things.

Tredici

01-11-2007, 01:00 AM

In fact, Shanahan would rather die than have the defense be better than HIS offense consistently. The Mastermind has a pretty good ego and the fact the defense was garnering a lot of media attention early while the Offense was being laughed at by the media on a daily basis really pissed him off.

You are one of my favorite posters on the board Mediator. But I have a hard time with your first opinion. I haven't seen anyone let go in the organization who consistently excelled in any capacity. Not including Kubiak who had earned his shot to take the lead elsewhere. Had the defense dominated throughout the entire season and Coyer was dismissed this thought would have merit.

The reality is the defense has broken down in every big game the last three seasons. And it's hard to accept the loss of Nick Ferguson alone caused such a huge downward spiral this season.

I suspect, as with all things human, there are dozens of reasons as to why any changes are made. Shanahan probably was pissed the offense was under performing. But I just can't accept he would fire someone for being overly successful. Sorry, no matter how big the ego I believe both Shanahan and Bowlen are driven by the will to win and would not intentionally exclude someone bringing that opportunity whether it was offensive, defense, special teams or the cheerleaders.

Taco John

01-11-2007, 03:21 AM

Right, and I've explained it an simple English backed with a factual account of both coaches.

But, feel free to keep repeating the same thing. Maybe it will become truth?

I'm telling you that besides the MDP signing, he did and the facts are out there. Not that we should expect you to be troubled with those pesky facts.

No, I absolutely understand his coaching history with us, and followed him closely when I lived in SF before he coached with us. I've watched him closely for over 15 years. I absolutely understand him. Apparently someone told you someone was going to be fired, and you assume that gives you some kind of insight.

That's because I'm dealing in facts, and you're talking about "psychology," among other things.

Hardly anything that you've said in this thread is remotely true. For being such a defensive honk, it's actually suprising to watch you do this and learn how little you actually know about the scene.

Greg Robinson has never had autonomy, or as you put it "clout" to get whatever players he wanted. It has never worked like that under Shanahan, and it never will. Shanahan makes the final call in every instance. Coaches give him their shopping lists and are allowed to make their cases. But Mike Shanahan is buying the groceries on this team on both sides of the ball in the end (and Sundquist under Shanahan's direction).

I get that you don't like the fact that I was right about Plummer, and are going to pick at me regardless of the topic. But you should really swallow your pride here and just let it go. You couldn't be more wrong.

Popps

01-11-2007, 03:46 AM

how little you actually know about the scene.
.

LOL

Someone gave Taco a scoop 2 hours early and now he's part of a "scene."

Greg Robinson has never had autonomy, or as you put it "clout" to get whatever players he wanted.

It's not that Shanahan was totally "hands off"... he's not that kind of guy. But, it was widely reported that he chose Robinson because he trusted him as a guy who could build the defense while he focused on the offense.

If you've got some kind of proof that what was reported at that time isn't true, feel free to share it with the group.

I get that you don't like the fact that I was right about Plummer, and are going to pick at me regardless of the topic. .

Wow, only you could get Jake Plummer out of a thread like this. Amazing. Do you see him in your dreams? It's almost disturbing. No one else here even talks about him these days. Seriously, man... you need to see someone about that.

You're just continuing a streak of horribly off-base predictions and statements, but that's not a real surprise at this point. I do think it's amusing how you've put your spin machine in overdrive for this situation, though.

You were the guy who told us the defense was fine and that Coyer was fine, and here we are... Coyer gone, and you wrong again.... yet, begging the forum to praise you for being right.

Just another day at the office.

Blueflame

01-11-2007, 03:53 AM

Care to address Post #100, Popps?

Taco John

01-11-2007, 03:58 AM

LOL

Someone gave Taco a scoop 2 hours early and now he's part of a "scene."

Hardly. But I apparently know a lot more about it than you by the sounds of things. I'm not saying that I'm part of the scene. I'm just aware of it, and who the players are, and to a degree how they function.

It's not that Shanahan was totally "hands off"... he's not that kind of guy. But, it was widely reported that he chose Robinson because he trusted him as a guy who could build the defense while he focused on the offense.

That's just flat our wrong. Shanahan didn't hire Robinson to "build a defense." He hired him to coach the defense. Shanahan was very much in control of the personnel at that time.

If you've got some kind of proof that what was reported at that time isn't true, feel free to share it with the group.

Personally, I'd love for you to produce some kind of proof that what you are saying is even in the ball park. I mean, Robinson had so much "clout" that Shanahan fired him two seasons removed from a back-to-back Superbowl run. The burden of proof is on you to produce this "widely reported" imagination of yours.

You were the guy who told us the defense was fine and that Coyer was fine, and here we are... Coyer gone, and you wrong again.... yet, begging the forum to praise you for being right.

I'm still of the opinion that Coyer was a good coach who needed better personnel up front. I don't agree with the assessment that it's wrong to hold that opinion.

I'm just laughing here because in your daily effort to fixate on me and "how wrong I am," you're spouting stuff that is so off base that it's comical.

Taco John

01-11-2007, 03:58 AM

Post #100:

You actually have it very backward.

Shanahan was very involved in the Robinson and Rhodes gameplanning and was hands off in the Coyer gameplanning. Ray Rhodes and Shanahan were like oil and vinegar and he had Head coaching "clout". Personalities and trust have more to do with the approach than anything else. Mike was very hands on early in DEN with Greg and he did not trust Rhodes gameplanning very much. Once Coyer took over he stopped even being concerned with the gameplanning aspects of the defense. He spent most of his time trying to work with Plummer and the detiorating offense.

As for the personnel issues, Mike has never trusted anyone but himself to select the players. It is written in his contract. Unfortunately, he does not have the Belicheck backround to help him on defense and has made more than his share of defensive blunders in FA and the Draft. He considers opinions, but in the end he makes all final decisions. Greg never had direct selection of his staff or personnel responsibilities. He just had a good relationship with Mike. He used that to leverage what he wanted most of the time, but he never had the authority to make it happen himself.

Popps

01-11-2007, 04:04 AM

I'm still of the opinion that Coyer was a good coach who needed better personnel up front. I don't agree with the assessment that it's wrong to hold that opinion. .

Potentially the funniest thing posted here all season.

This from the guy who poo-poo'd all defensive concerns for the past couple of years, focusing on one position while people attempted to educate you.

Now you're telling people like ME we need a defensive line? NO ****?!??!?

Even with the archives that you've deleted, you can still probably find 1000 posts of me trying to convince you of that while you rambled about your Plummer fetish.

Yet, now... you're purporting to be part of some persecuted minority who believes in D-line improvement?

You really do continue to push the envelope. There's no one on this forum who can come close to the bull**** you concoct.

Taco John

01-11-2007, 04:25 AM

This from the guy who poo-poo'd all defensive concerns for the past couple of years, focusing on one position while people attempted to educate you.

I would love to see you come up with this mythical "poo-poo'ing" of "all defensive concerns" for the past couple of years. You're just making it up like you're making up the whole "Greg Robinson was hired to build the defense" thing.

Now you're telling people like ME we need a defensive line? NO ****?!??!?

What do you mean "now?" Who in their right mind is not in favor of improving the defensive line ANY year? Another invention of yours: if you thought Jake Plummer was a road to nowhere, then you had no other concerns on the team.

I'm not afraid to admit that I thought Jake Plummer was our biggest concern. And I surely spent a lot of time arguing against the majority here who didn't feel that way. But that doesn't mean that I didn't think we had any defensive concerns, and I've said as much all along.

Even with the archives that you've deleted, you can still probably find 1000 posts of me trying to convince you of that while you rambled about your Plummer fetish.

The archives go back two years. I'm aware that you placed all of the blame for our shortcomings on the defensive line. I've never disagreed that we needed to find more help up front. You couldn't go through the archives and find a single post where I said we should stand pat with the guys we have there, nor poo-poohed the idea that we needed help up front. I've been outspoken on the DJ/Gold debate in favor of keeping DJ at WLB. Every offseason I'm in the draft forum with the fellas trying to dig up a safety that I hope the team will draft.

I realize that you're a very polarized guy who sees things in only black or white, but the proposition for me has never been either/or. I've been in favor of replacing Plummer, and I've been in favor of improving our defensive line. The positions are not mutually exclusive.

Yet, now... you're purporting to be part of some persecuted minority who believes in D-line improvement?

Minority? There has never been a minority of people who think we need D-line improvement. Yet another invention.

My number one concern was addressed this past season when Mike Shanahan made it his number one concern and plotted his way up the draft board for a quarterback. It's ok for me to promote my other concerns now, including defensive line. It's not solely your turf. It never was.

You really do continue to push the envelope. There's no one on this forum who can come close to the bull**** you concoct.

I think you continue to reveal yourself as what it is you accuse me of being. I do everything I can to back what I say with stats and facts, and from the feedback I get, people appreciate this. I don't honestly think all of your angry arm flapping and name calling is fooling anyone.

epicSocialism4tw

01-11-2007, 05:05 AM

You won't see me bashing him during his farewell thread.

I guess that you got enough of that in over the course of his Bronco career to feel satiated.

fontaine

01-11-2007, 05:23 AM

That would be Scapegoat number two for the CLE DL. Coyer and Patterson could not put them in position to make plays, but they are good enough if given the right coaching.

Patterson did not bring in the CLE guys, Sundquist and Shanahan did. And I will Confirm that Coyer had minimal input into Specific personnel. He recommended that they upgrade positions, but did not get to decide who those players should be or where they would come. The CLE upgrades were a joke and they were even worse without a healthy Brown and Trevor Pryce in BAL.

Stop the wishful thinking, Coyer is gone for calling their performance out.

It's not just the Browncos, although I do think the FO got good value for what they gave up for them. It's also the draft. How many DL has this FO produced through the draft? Since Pryce I can hardly name any. Heywerd was a promising player but let go in FA along with Berry. It seems even when the FO stumble upon a decent player they'll find ways to let him leave.

Given the enormous increase in the salary cap since Berry/Heywerd departing, giving those guys market values deal to keep even one of them here would have been wise. Look at Andre Carter. He got nearly $14 million in guaranteed money last year and he's not even a good run defender. Heywerd is the better player IMO and he was got for $8million in guarantees three years ago. So ok, the FO doesn't want to invest in FA DL, fine.

Then why the hell pass up on guys like Mark Anderson? Was Hixon's broken foot that attractive that they couldn't pass up a hobbled WR instead of a promising stud like Anderson?

Taco John

01-11-2007, 05:24 AM

I guess that you got enough of that in over the course of his Bronco career to feel satiated.

Absolutely. I have no reason to fear Plummer anymore. I hope the guy finds a starting job somewhere. Preferably with the Chargers, Raiders or Chiefs... :P

epicSocialism4tw

01-11-2007, 05:25 AM

Absolutely. I have no reason to fear Plummer anymore. I hope the guy finds a starting job somewhere. Preferably with the Chargers, Raiders or Chiefs... :P

Just remember to post in existing "I Hate Jake Plummer" threads.

Atlas

01-11-2007, 05:33 AM

I'm kind of upset that Coyer got fired and Ronnie Bradford is still collecting his paycheck. That's pretty wretched if you ask me. Our D at least played lights out half the season. Our special teams have been terrible ALL YEAR!

Special team coaches have the least amount of impact compared to all the other coaches. They don't do sh!t. You probably have 5 REALLY good special team coaches in the league and you probably have 5 REALLY bad ST coaches all the rest are pretty much all the same. Kind of reminds me all the stupid fire Dennison threads that used to be around.

The trick to having good special teams is having great ST players and a great punter. A coach isn't going to make or break them. Obviously Enster needs to punt better and Denver is going to have to find Better ST players.

The STs looked much better late in the year when Quincy Morgan was returning punts. That had nothing to do with Bradford that was all Shanny, Shanny is the one that put Clark back there and Shanny was the one that finally yanked him and put in Morgan.

I didn't see Bradford Punting the ball in the Endzone and I didn't see him out their Returning kicks. He isn't responsibale for choosing the players he has. He doesn't call plays or make up gameplans. HE just puts the best ones he has on the field.

fontaine

01-11-2007, 05:35 AM

Care to address Post #100, Popps?

Would it make a difference really? Greg Robinson clearly came in with clout.

Just look at how much clout he had with Vermeil!

:rofl:

fontaine

01-11-2007, 05:36 AM

Special team coaches have the least amount of impact compared to all the other coaches. They don't do sh!t. You probably have 5 REALLY good special team coaches in the league and you probably have 5 REALLY bad ST coaches all the rest are pretty much all the same. Kind of reminds me all the stupid fire Dennison threads that used to be around.

The trick to having good special teams is having great ST players and a great punter. A coach isn't going to make or break them. Obviously Enster needs to punt better and Denver is going to have to find Better ST players.

The STs looked much better late in the year when Quincy Morgan was returning punts. That had nothing to do with Bradford that was all Shanny, Shanny is the one that put Clark back there and Shanny was the one that finally yanked him and put in Morgan.

I didn't see Bradford Punting the ball in the Endzone and I didn't see him out their Returning kicks. He isn't responsibale for choosing the players he has. He doesn't call plays or make up gameplans. HE just puts the best ones he has on the field.

I agree. I hope they keep Morgan who looked like he was finally settling in and had some very good returns late in the season.

Atlas

01-11-2007, 05:40 AM

I agree. I hope they keep Morgan who looked like he was finally settling in and had some very good returns late in the season.

I promise you Bradford didn't do anything different when Morgon was in there as opposed to Clark. Morgan just made him look better.

epa86b@netzero

01-11-2007, 07:39 AM

It's not just the Browncos, although I do think the FO got good value for what they gave up for them. It's also the draft. How many DL has this FO produced through the draft? Since Pryce I can hardly name any. Heywerd was a promising player but let go in FA along with Berry. It seems even when the FO stumble upon a decent player they'll find ways to let him leave.

Given the enormous increase in the salary cap since Berry/Heywerd departing, giving those guys market values deal to keep even one of them here would have been wise. Look at Andre Carter. He got nearly $14 million in guaranteed money last year and he's not even a good run defender. Heywerd is the better player IMO and he was got for $8million in guarantees three years ago. So ok, the FO doesn't want to invest in FA DL, fine.

Then why the hell pass up on guys like Mark Anderson? Was Hixon's broken foot that attractive that they couldn't pass up a hobbled WR instead of a promising stud like Anderson?

I am 100% behind the Defensive Coordinator change because although we may have lacked talent up front, you have to succeed at all costs especially against the really good teams and we struggled against most good passing teams.

I do think the Bronocs got value with the Browncos for what they gave up.

However, it is clear the FO has done a bad job of building a defense from a personnel standpoint because it seemed acquired players were not slotted for a certain need. THis fact is obvious because how players have attempted to change positions.

Although, Heyward and Berry were not resigned; it was about value because neither player was dominate alone but wanted to receive a salary close to a dominate player.

The FO has picked a few too many injuried player for me in the draft and most have cost us dearly because a team needs draft picks to make a contribution even if is only on the ST. Instead, we medically redshirt pro players like we have that luxury for a year.

I think it boils down to this -- over the last couple of years, the FO believed we were closer to a Super bowl team personnel wise than we truly were.

After last year's draft and the potential coaching changes, I think we are closer to a Super Bowl win than we have been the last 2-3 years. THat was easy conclusion since we did not make to the Super Bowl the last 2-3 years.

fontaine

01-11-2007, 07:52 AM

I am 100% behind the Defensive Coordinator change because although we may have lacked talent up front, you have to succeed at all costs especially against the really good teams and we struggled against most good passing teams.

I do think the Bronocs got value with the Browncos for what they gave up.

However, it is clear the FO has done a bad job of building a defense from a personnel standpoint because it seemed acquired players were not slotted for a certain need. THis fact is obvious because how players have attempted to change positions.

Although, Heyward and Berry were not resigned; it was about value because neither player was dominate alone but wanted to receive a salary close to a dominate player.

The FO has picked a few too many injuried player for me in the draft and most have cost us dearly because a team needs draft picks to make a contribution even if is only on the ST. Instead, we medically redshirt pro players like we have that luxury for a year.

I think it boils down to this -- over the last couple of years, the FO believed we were closer to a Super bowl team personnel wise than we truly were.

After last year's draft and the potential coaching changes, I think we are closer to a Super Bowl win than we have been the last 2-3 years. THat was easy conclusion since we did not make to the Super Bowl the last 2-3 years.

Good points. I'm ok with the coaching change as long as the FO improves in trying to draft and bring in DL talent. Coaching changes won't amount to anything until we have talented players. Coaching can only enhance and bring out talent, not create ability when none or very little is there to begin with.

I hope you're right but I think we're still two/three years away from a championship. We're playing catchup to teams like the Chargers/Pats/Colts/Steelers because of the young talent they have and I don't see that changing in just one offseason unless they have an offseason for the ages now.

epa86b@netzero

01-11-2007, 08:14 AM

Good points. I'm ok with the coaching change as long as the FO improves in trying to draft and bring in DL talent. Coaching changes won't amount to anything until we have talented players. Coaching can only enhance and bring out talent, not create ability when none or very little is there to begin with.

I hope you're right but I think we're still two/three years away from a championship. We're playing catchup to teams like the Chargers/Pats/Colts/Steelers because of the young talent they have and I don't see that changing in just one offseason unless they have an offseason for the ages now.

I see it like this. Yes players and talent win and lose games but a coach typically has about 4-6 playcalls per games that can change the course of a game. This is where Coyer, I feel, did not succeed. Coyer would get the other team into a 3rd and 6 or more and not make the successful playcall.

It would be lovely to have 4 beasts in the front four for any team but it is not realistic, typically. There will be many games in the future that we will not get pressure with just the front 4 and that is when/where the defensive coordinator must make the difference.

fontaine

01-11-2007, 08:50 AM

I see it like this. Yes players and talent win and lose games but a coach typically has about 4-6 playcalls per games that can change the course of a game. This is where Coyer, I feel, did not succeed. Coyer would get the other team into a 3rd and 6 or more and not make the successful playcall.

It would be lovely to have 4 beasts in the front four for any team but it is not realistic, typically. There will be many games in the future that we will not get pressure with just the front 4 and that is when/where the defensive coordinator must make the difference.

Then why is it that teams that usually make it deep into the playoffs are almost always the ones with solid DL talent? I'm not discounting the affects of good coaches making the right calls but unless you have actual inside info on what calls Coyer did/did not make, you're just speculating on whether Coyer did not make those calls. I will agree that the defense played horribly in big games against top offenses.

Recent NFL history is littered with good coaches looking ordinary when the move teams to a different talent base. I don't think we need 4 beasts along the front four and like you said that is the exception rather than norm in the NFL. Two very good DL would do, surrounded by the right utility/role players. We don't have a single DL that is a beast. ALL of our DL were deemed expendable at one point or another be it Engleberger, or Warren.

epa86b@netzero

01-11-2007, 09:07 AM

Then why is it that teams that usually make it deep into the playoffs are almost always the ones with solid DL talent? I'm not discounting the affects of good coaches making the right calls but unless you have actual inside info on what calls Coyer did/did not make, you're just speculating on whether Coyer did not make those calls. I will agree that the defense played horribly in big games against top offenses.

Granted, I am only looking at the results since the playcalls proved to be ineffective not matter if it was due to player mixup, injury, or better performance by the other team. At the end of the day, results trump everything else. Sometimes, good/qualified people get fired.

Last year, Pittsburg blitzed their way to the Super Bowl and Seattle line is solid wiht high effort guys but they bring extra guys and are successful. I am not total sure about Seattle because I never watch them.

Blueflame

01-11-2007, 03:11 PM

Would it make a difference really? Greg Robinson clearly came in with clout.

Just look at how much clout he had with Vermeil!

:rofl:

Yeah, I was just interested in Popps' response to his "factual account of both coaches" being totally contradicted and rebutted. But it looks like he may have just opted to ignore the post rather than address it. Too bad 'cause it might have been pretty interesting.

Rascal

01-11-2007, 07:24 PM

Rascal

01-11-2007, 07:29 PM

You are one of my favorite posters on the board Mediator. But I have a hard time with your first opinion. I haven't seen anyone let go in the organization who consistently excelled in any capacity. Not including Kubiak who had earned his shot to take the lead elsewhere. Had the defense dominated throughout the entire season and Coyer was dismissed this thought would have merit.

The reality is the defense has broken down in every big game the last three seasons. And it's hard to accept the loss of Nick Ferguson alone caused such a huge downward spiral this season.

I suspect, as with all things human, there are dozens of reasons as to why any changes are made. Shanahan probably was pissed the offense was under performing. But I just can't accept he would fire someone for being overly successful. Sorry, no matter how big the ego I believe both Shanahan and Bowlen are driven by the will to win and would not intentionally exclude someone bringing that opportunity whether it was offensive, defense, special teams or the cheerleaders.

Word.